Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linden Acres, New York


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  22:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Linden Acres, New York

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Delete An extremely small neighborhood, barely a hamlet, that blatantly fails WP:NGEO. Also, if you look at when the page was first created, it seems obvious that the article was created initially as a joke. Tooncool64 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New York.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  22:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking at the history: Easy to see it's a joke page, the pranksters just overun it's first speedy delete, it's prod and it's first AFD Articles for deletion/Linden Acres. It should have been deleted three times over now, so Delete it with malice.James.folsom (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, none of Grutness, East718, nor the participants in the previous AFD discussion are pranksters. The editorship really didn't know about the GNIS back then.  Our article on it had nothing about how the sausage was made, even though the problems with the GNIS were in fact already well documented before Wikipedia was invented, and Project:Reliability of GNIS data had yet to be written. Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * delete By the "we didn't have a clue about GNIS or place notability back then" standards of 2007, it's not surprising the article survived AfD, but we have a better idea of how to evaluate these things now. It does show up on topos and the aerials do verify that it is a standard ca. 1960 suburban development. Probably the diligent newspaper searcher can find some real estate advertising/coverage from back then but there's no sign of any real notability. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Mangoe, previous AFD discussion arguments were highly flawed, being based on the false ideas that the GNIS is reliable and that an automated GNIS regurgitator (mapquest) was a source. The article currently solely points to (as an external link and not as a source) a different GNIS regurgitator. A search for proper sources turns up nothing.  There's no source to support the 2nd paragraph of the article, looking specifically for information on that, and of course the editor who wrote it did not supply a source.  Unsurprisingly, there's nothing in the old history books for what is on its face a mid-20th-century housing development.  Records of testimony in some court case have someone claiming that xe once owned a list of mid-20th-century housing developments, the county paid the electricity bills for street lights, and someone guessed the population for water supply purposes, and that's all that appears.  Two out of those three are not even reliable. Uncle G (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Subdivision/housing fails GEOLAND without significant sources. Reywas92Talk 15:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC). Reywas92Talk 16:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NGEO --Artene50 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete no coverage in reliable sources and not enough mentions that I could find to justify a redirect for this non-notable subdivision. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per above discussion. It does exist - it's a small subdivision between Bard College and the incorporated village of Red Hook. However, not every single geographical location is automatically notable. Even a hamlet needs at least two in-depth reliable sources. It's also not notable from my own point of view. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2024 (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.