Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euclid St. Paul's Neighborhood


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep, disagreement over whether meets notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Euclid St. Paul's Neighborhood
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable neighborhood in St. Petersburg, Florida. No assertion of notability. Back in 1917, (a year before the St. Petersburg cattle stampede) a lot of Pinellas County was orange grove or out in the country. And the entire county has endured phenomenal growth. Google news hits for the St. Petersburg Times do not assert notability. Google web hits do not assert notability. Dloh cierekim  02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)   Dloh  cierekim  02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One of 30 or so St. Pete neighborhoods. Local notability only-- the SPTimes articles cited are the ones listed above. This is not sufficient/significant media coverage or independent sourcing for notability. Clearwater's North Greenwood neighborhood-- which is also not notable-- gets many more St.Pete Times hits. (Greater significan tmedia coverage,) Ybor City, by comparison, has still more media coverage locally and NYTimes and Wadshington Post coverage. Still not notable depsite adding a lot of lovely information. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  04:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not distinguish notability on the basis of "local", "national" or "international", nor does it matter how many other neighborhoods there are. Ghits are meaningless in terms of WP:Notability as WP:GOOGLEHITS points out. The significant standard is defined byWP:N as sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. What isn't "trivial" by this standard is a judgment call in each case, since WP:N is vague, but the amount of information in the article from one or more St. Pete Times sources should, I think, be seen as more than trivial. It can't be disputed that all sources here are "independent". Thanks for calling it "lovely". Noroton (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not talking about "number of ghits." Talking about not having significant media coverage. A few mentions in the SPTimes and some realty ads do not make notable. A lot of the added stuff is not about the neighborhood per se. And yes, there is a distinction between something that gets a few local newspaper articles and something that gets coverage in papers all over the country-- like the NY Times and the Washington Post. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No clear assertion of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources independent of the subject. WP:RELY and WP:N. Estemi (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  11:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete...per the directly above...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Just now I've made quite a few edits to the article, adding information from the online "Neighborhood Report" of the neighborhood association, which appears to be active and works with the local government. Per the WP:GEOG section of Wikipedia:Outcomes, ("Places" subsection): Larger neighborhoods are acceptable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage. Recognized geographic areas don't have to prove notability. That widespread usage is confirmed by Google, and this is definitely a large neighborhood. So far we have one independent source (since it's a geographic area, there can be no non-independent source) that provides substantial coverage, we have enough sourcing for a geographic entity. It could be argued either way, but I think we can call this a "reliable" source, given that the report has plenty of authors, was created for the larger association and likely had the eyes of the neighborhood and some city officials on it. Personally, I think it's very, very unlikely to be inaccurate. I've removed the boosterish language from the article, wikified it and reorganized it. I'm going to do a bit more work on the article. Noroton (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (fix typo Noroton (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I've added a bit more, including that long-ago Major League baseball player Bill Freehan went to school there. The edits to the article have doubled its size since the last "delete" vote. Noroton (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per arguments and improvements made by Noroton that establishes notability. --Oakshade (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as revised. I can't imagine what kind of neighborhood would not be considered notable in the context of Wikipedia.  (jarbarf) (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.