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. Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winterbury, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subdivision fails GNG and NGEO due to lack of independent significant coverage. Article was successfully prodded for this reason and later undeleted after sources were presented at RfU. However, the sources [1][2][3][4] consist of a routine neighborhood profile and several thinly-disguised advertisements. –dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Delaware. –dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, appears to pass the general notability guideline, with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see the following: IN FULL BLOOM from The News Journal; Winterbury stars from The Morning News; Winterbury Homes Open from the Journal-Every Evening; New Sample Home Opens from The Morning News; and Winterbury Hills home to be shown from The Morning News. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator's rationale. Note that the "sources" cited in the preceding !vote are mostly identical to the ones rightly rejected in the nomination. Notices in local newspapers that houses in a subdivision can be viewed or purchased do not make for notability. This is WP:MILL material. Deor (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MILL is an essay and has no power here. ROUTINE (cited by the nom as a reason for discounting the sources) only applies to events and not communities. And articles about communities in local newspapers can make the community notable (can you show me a policy saying it does not?), as long as they "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content," which is clearly the case here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "WP:MILL is an essay and has no power here"; I was mentioning it for its relevance, not its "power". You have quoted part of SIGCOV, but you seem to have missed the part that says, "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases ...". Notices placed in the local press by real-estate developers are not independent with regard to the real estate being developed and do not contribute to its notability. Deor (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I cited are not "advertising" or "press releases" but rather, articles by staff journalists about this community in the state's top newspapers (how is that not independent?). What policy says that articles like this cannot contribute to notability? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think those aren't press releases, you must be more credulous than most folk. Deor (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The sources cited above appear to be only local in nature and thus do not meet WP:AUD. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locality of coverage is completely irrelevant, with the exception of companies and organizations (WP:AUD). The thing is, a populated place like Winterbury is not an organization / company. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AUD might not explicitly apply to places, but it is still useful guidance. What makes this subdivision more notable than any others in the Wilmington area? As both the nominator and Deor mentioned, the cited sources appear largely promotional in nature and nothing out of the ordinary for a subdivision. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No WP policy says an article must be "out of the ordinary" to exist. And it does not need to be "more notable" than other neighborhoods in the area, that is just an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which is specifically named as an argument to avoid. Additionally, the articles are not promotional, but as I said prior, they are written by the staff journalists in the state's top newspaper (which actually would meet WP:AUD with "at least one ... statewide ... source"!) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the sources establish notability, you are welcome to improve the article. Otherwise, I'm not seeing enough significant coverage here. Winterbury is in the Wilmington area, so I would expect run-of-the-mill stuff in the newspapers you cite. Looking specifically at the sources, I'll concede that the first article may meet SIGCOV, but the others are promotional material and shouldn't be considered independent of the subject (see WP:SPIP). Remember, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as a subdivision with no claim to notability. The cited stories are routine local coverage of the sort reported for every new development back in the day. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BeanieFan11, whose anaylsis is based in policy. Djflem (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• comment It is unfortunately common in these discussions to argue as though the reasoning presented in essays, by dint of being such, is wrong. As far as WP:MILL is concerned, I seriously doubt that there's anyone who rejects every argument advanced in it, and those who frequent AfD know that most of its conclusions have been ratified by consensus. In the case of subdivisions, there has been a consistent consensus that as a rule they aren't notable. Yes, it's easy to find real estate coverage of developments, but the real notability is coming from GNIS, because there are plenty of places it doesn't name which also have routine real estate coverage. And yes, there's longstanding consensus that GNIS doesn't confer notability. Saying "it's just an essay" doesn't undo the fact that many people in the discussion don't think such coverage confers notability. If you want policy, argue positively how such coverage is sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Generic housing development without evidence of notability, a subdivision of lots lacking significant coverage to pass Geoland2. Reywas92^Talk 17:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To reply to each of your points: Generic housing development: Completely irrelevant. Without evidence of notability: Wrong, clearly meets GNG per sources provided above. a subdivision of lots: Irrelevant. lacking significant coverage to pass Geoland2: Wrong, the articles I provided clearly discuss the topic "directly and in detail" (the definition of SIGCOV). And actually, Winterbury does pass Geo2, which states Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions ... which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources, as it has "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" (SIGCOV from The News Journal, The Morning News, and the Journal-Every Evening as shown above). So, your argument is invalid. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to hold that routine local real estate coverage of the construction and subsequent sale of the properties in a subdivision is not significant, and the Morning News and Evening Journal are not independent: they were simply the morning and evening editions of the same paper. Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

routine local real estate coverage ... is not significant ROUTINE does not apply to communities and I'll say it again, locality of coverage is irrelevant. So, all that matters is if the coverage covers the topic "directly and in detail" (SIGCOV), which it clearly does in this case, meaning that it is a GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Wilmington, Delaware#Neighborhoods.(see below) It's basically just one street, but The News Journal indicates that it is considered a neighborhood. WP:GEOLAND "Populated places without legal recognition" supports a merge unless there are sufficient sources for a standalone article, which there aren't unless we're going to write about the residents' need for leaf-clearing machine.----Pontificalibus 07:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While GEOLAND does say that (If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it), we clearly have enough coverage to "develop the article using known sources" (and we can write much more than the residents' need for leaf-clearing machines, for example: when it was founded, where exactly is it located, who constructed the houses, how many people live there, any notable residents, how the houses look, how large are the houses/how much land for each house, what kind of terrain is the community in, etc. etc.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have WP:SIGCOV to provide more than a brief description of the neighbourhood. WP:WHYN states "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." I think a merge is therefore the best option.----Pontificalibus 14:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try expanding the article today or tomorrow to show you that we have enough information to write more than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article a bit. It is now 17 sentences, which I would say is more than "half a paragraph." BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete changing from merge - the details added are trivial padding, there's isn't the kind of detail that would be expected of a standalone settlement article. It seems my merge target was not appropriate as this lies outside the relevant area, and it seems WP:UNDUE to shoehorn this into the county article.----Pontificalibus 06:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last round - would like to see more consensus around the merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Show home announcements are not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. GoldenRing (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When a reliable newspaper (in this case, DE's top newspaper) independently covers a topic "directly and in detail," such articles are SIGCOV, meaning this clearly passes GNG, which requires Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What we have is just that. Also, this is not a show home announcement. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all sources are necessarily used for notability; there are others that satisfy that. Those mentioned above, can be, and are used, for verifiablility of facts stated in the article. Djflem (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the delete votes I am seeing are actually valid arguments. The nom cited ROUTINE as a reason to discount the sources, which does not apply; Deor references the nom and cites WP:MILL, which has no effect here; Presidentman cites yet another policy which does not apply here (AUD, which is for companies...); Mangoe says that the sources should be discounted because they are routine local coverage: Well, ROUTINE does not apply to communities (only to events) and locality of coverage is, for the third time, irrelevant; Reywas92 says Generic housing development without evidence of notability, a subdivision of lots lacking significant coverage to pass Geoland2 which I have shown above is a completely invalid argument; and GoldenRing says that Show home announcements are not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources... show me that policy please (if the news articles cover the topic "directly and in detail," which they clearly do here, they are said to pass SIGCOV, per WP:SIGCOV itself!). Also, not all sources are show home announcements. So there's a rebuttal for every delete !vote in this discussion (for a more detailed rebuttal see my replies). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a great deal of lawyering to try to overcome what every delete response is saying: all this "news" coverage is promotional material of the sort that was and still is standard, routine advertising in the real estate sections of newspapers great and small— and really, the Morning News and Evening Journal were and are hardly as exalted as you are trying to make out. The only reason why we are having this argument in the first place is that, for whatever reason, the people doing the topo maps around Wilmington recorded every subdivision around, while (for example) those in central Maryland did not. The one I grew up in is much larger than Winterbury, big enough to have its own elementary and middle schools, and I suspect that if I fished in the right places I could find similar real estate coverage. But it's not named on the topos, and therefore isn't recorded in GNIS, and that as we all know is the real reason why Winterbury has an article. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- There are multiple independent sources that state Winterbury is a distinct area within the Wilmington metro area. It merits a standalone article. - David Stargell (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Utterly ridiculous. It's a tiny subdivision on one circular street, not a "distinct area". This is not what should have an encyclopedia article. Reywas92^Talk 18:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not what should have an encyclopedia article - Actually, you're wrong. When a topic has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as is the case here, it should have a wikipedia article. Saying that a notable place should not have an article because of its size is... utterly ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong. Nothing says that minor local promotional coverage means there "should" be an article, just that notability may be presumed. WP:NOPAGE and other guidelines allow for exlusion of inappropriate topics for stand-alone articles, and I stand by that mere housing developments, such as the over 370,000 subdivisions with homeowner associations in the US, should not have their own articles. A selective merge of many of these articles to a Subdivisions of New Castle County, Delaware could be appropriate, but it's not at all ridiculous to see articles for single short streets as undue and this coverage as insignificant. Reywas92^Talk 19:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We'll just have to disagree on that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't "multiple independent sources that state Winterbury is a distinct area", there's only one, the others are regurgitated press releases and real estate sales features.----Pontificalibus 06:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In response to the last relisting comment, I'll add that I don't think a merge to Wilmington, Delaware#Neighborhoods would be appropriate; this subdivision is not in Wilmington itself, and it's a "neighborhood" only in the loosest sense—a place where people refer to one another as neighbors—not in the sense that, for example, Chelsea or Greenwich Village is recognized as a neighborhood in Manhattan. I'm sticking with my delete opinion. Deor (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Neighbourhood is a very fluid term. Djflem (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.