Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hudson Valley


 * 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hudson Valley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack of sources cited. Content within is not cited in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Far too many statements, figures and paragraphs are uncited and, thus, completely unverifiable. Refimprove tag has been in place since 2008 with no visible improvement in the amount of sources and citations added since then. Consider merging this article or deleting. Other NY state related articles are in much better shape than this one. Usnetizen (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Usnetizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Whilst some parts of the article are still unsourced, the sources that are present serve to affirm notability. Deleting the entire article would be overkill. I'll have a rummage around tomorrow and see if I can dig up some citations for the rest of it. Yunshui (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Consider merging with another NY related article with properly cited information. A lot of the information in this article is highly speculative without sources cited.  There are far too many areas that require citation to just add "some" more to it.  It needs to be revamped or merged.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usnetizen (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)  — Usnetizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you want to merge the article, please unlist it from Articles for deletion and start a discussion at Proposed mergers instead. This is the wrong forum to discuss a merge. Yunshui (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. (Checks calendar.  No, it isn't April yet.  Damn.  Going to have to endure Exmas again this year.  Was hoping I had slept through it.)  At any rate, the Hudson Valley is a well known geographic feature and informally defined region in New York State.  Remove unsourced statements, but here are some sources to get started.  May try to improve it myself after I do some reading, but this is a clear case not of lack of sources, but of mere lack of interest. And that does not justify deletion.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Be bold, remove each and every uncited statement if you like, but the subject will still be notable.--~TPW 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Will gladly remove all uncited items in the article, but what would be left would barely be a stub, not suitable for a full article regardless of notability. If the Hudson Valley is really such a notable place in NY worthy of standalone, unverifiable article content, why the lack of attention and interest in updating it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usnetizen (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)  — Usnetizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This is the first nomination. The previous "Hudson Valley" nom was for Hudson Valley English. - The Bushranger One ping only


 * Keep with a side of . Will Grand Canyon be next? Seriously, though: a lack of sources in an article, and even the lack of people not adding them after long-term tagging, does not indicate a lack of notability. It can (and often does) simply mean that a well-established, historically relevant, and well-known geographical feature is, unfortunately, less popular than (for instance) the latest version of Pokémon. If the article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, fix it, instead of potentially having it deleted and giving the nattering nabobs of negativism yet another reason to laugh at Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The request to update and "fix" the article has been in place since 2008, with no updates made to the sources. There are numerous other articles on NY state with far better and more verifiable content this could be folded into.  The information in here would barely be a stub if the uncited material was removed Usnetizen (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And...so? The fact that an article is a stub is no reason to delete or merge. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. AfD is not cleanup. Powers T 18:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bushranger, LtPowers, and True Pagan Warrior. Called in WP:RESCUE. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow keep per the above. De728631 (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted all uncited material and thus will remove from list of recommended deletions for the article in current form.Usnetizen (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're withdrawing the AfD, then? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment, this is the article's first AfD, not the second. It should be moved and renamed. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to rename the article. Hudson Valley is the proper and very notable term that is found throughtout all kinds of literature. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about this AfD page, both its name and any mention to it in whatever maintenance logs exist. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is generally unacceptable to go simply through an article and simply remove all uncited material, especially when it is not controversial and not an attack. The Hudson Valley has been  written about since the early days of European exploration of North America, and there is clearly sufficient reliably sourced material for a high quality article. (Roar, Lion, Roar, and wake the echoes of the Hudson Valley!) [[User:Edison|Edison (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep. Sometimes a new editor takes WP:BOLD to a new level. Clearly meets GNG, even without half of its text. BusterD (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've restored most of the history section with reliable references and it's really easy to find sources. Apart from that many facts may also be cited on another level when there's a wikilink to a related topic. We don't need inline citations for each and every sentence. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2011 (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.