Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwinhurst, Delaware (2nd nomination)


 * 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 there is no community consensus to delete unincorporated US places identified as official with the GNIS, further discussion seems less aimed toward this article in particular than some overhaul of that consensus and needs a wider audience. So to prevent further drama, this is being closed early as keep - don't like that, WP:DRV is thataway, where this probaby should have been brought in the first place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwinhurst, Delaware
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This neighborhood has not established notability, as nothing substantial has been published about it in any reliable third party sources. Being mentioned in an atlas or by the U.S. Geological Society in a database of place names hardly counts as "notability". Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Brandywine Hundred per last afd which closed only two days ago. Also, protect the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the same rationale used to close the last debate. This neighborhood is verifiable but not notable. HokieRNB 11:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, as it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Elpiseos (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep How is this different from any other community? Longstanding consensus has held that communities are notable, other than neighborhoods of municipalities.  This isn't a neighborhood; it's an unincorporated community like any other.  Please observe, moreover, that the rationale used for the last nomination was faulty, citing this proposed guideline as an actual policy page, despite the fact that it goes against massive consensus at AFD.  Nyttend (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Brandywine Hundred, as was the result of the AFD 2 days ago. This is not the proper place to appeal an AFD closure. WP:DRV is thataway. Fails WP:N and the proposed WP:NBHD. Unofficial subdivisions are better covered in articles about their cities, unless there are multiple reliable and independent sources about the neighborhood.  Edison (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a part of a city. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is part of the unincorporated subdivision "Brandywine Hundred" and should be covered in that article. Edison (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unincorporated communities are not treated in the same fashion as municipal neighborhoods. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, or, if we are to insist on following process, take the last discussion to deletion review. A Google Books search shows that this is a well-established name for this community in use for at least 70 years. Both the original discussion and a previous editor's comment point to WP:NBHD, which is a proposed guideline that has attracted no support whatsoever. Our practice has always been to include articles on populated communities with well-established distinct names. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the Google Book search results is more than a passing reference or a directory listing, so it still fails notability and not a directory.I disagree with your claim that we always keep articles on named portions of unincorporated subdivision. They often get merged into larger administrative divisions.  Edison (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you find me a good set of examples of individual articles that receive wide consensus to be merged as you describe? I don't know of any binding examples (whether at AFD or a similarly-binding setting) that have so resulted, but if you desire I can provide many examples of where community articles were kept simply because it was verifiable that they were communities.  The Google Books listing establishes that it's not just some new subdivision, and anyone who does not go against overwhelming consensus in practice need not rely on that to establish notability.  Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the reason I recreated was that the previous nomination had claimed a lack of reliable sources, so I added a highly reliable and useful source, the GNIS reference that is currently being used to establish location and altitude. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Counterpoint: The previous nomination mentioned nothing about reliable sources.  It asserted that the "neighborhood does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards".  While its existence is verifiable through the GNIS reference, it remains non-notable. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to the containing subdivision. There is so little content that one can simply add a list of "populated places" to the Brandywine Hundred article and copy/paste the content there. Why do we need stand-alone articles with no hope of expansion for these minor localities when they can be better organized as a group in list form? --Polaron | Talk 03:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an unincorporated community, not a neighborhood. To quote its census definition (ref 3 in the article) "Class: Populated Place - Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village)." That qualifies.  We have consistently included all such. We have never merged them. If  Brandywine Hundred were an incorporated area, this could be a neighborhood of it, but it is not. DGG (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What's with the artificial designation of whether it is within an incorporated or unincorporated area? Does that mean that now it's notable but if the surrounding area incorporates it suddenly becomes non-notable? --Polaron | Talk 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. If it is notable enough for GNIS then it is notable. This seems to be an deletionism vs. inclusionism debate and therefore a waste of time. -- droll  &#91;chat&#93;  05:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If it appears in the GNIS database it should have an article unless it is a synonym. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Brandywine Hundred per last AFD. Dough4872 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2009 (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.