Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodbrook, Delaware


 * 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 keep. Consensus is that when accounting for WP:AUD, the sources in the article are significant enough to meet GNG. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Woodbrook, Delaware

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although this article is more than just a stub, most of the content is either unsourced or cites the neighborhood Civic Association handbook. Newspaper results make it clear that this is a subdivision with insufficient independent coverage to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to New Castle County, Delaware. BD2412  T 21:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep insufficient BEFORE. Development and the reasons for it (including early open space preservation efforts), are well documented and notable. Djflem (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * delete Delaware Place Names describes it as a suburban development, which is obvious anyway. The accessibility of non-trivial local content is not enough, and while this may be a relatively early case of a certain type of development, we need a source of national scope, such as a research paper on the subject, which establishes it as a notable example of same. Mangoe (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense: Notability (local interests) is failed proposal. AUD is the guideline. Museum archives are not trivial. And Delaware Place Names is correct in this case, and as such, is another good reference. Djflem (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Djflem and AUD. Museum archives are significant coverage, and ultimately this in conjunction with the other sources notability is established.4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. There are significant sources to meet GNG as well as GEOLAND. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 00:25, 13 September 2021 (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.