From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 00:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Gwinhurst, Delaware (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was prodded, redirected, restored immediately after, and put through two more AfDs after that, all within a few weeks in May 2009. That was well before people took a good look at GNIS's reliability issues, but at any rate the notion that GNIS constituted official recognition was always inconsistent with the authority GNIS actually claimed (which was over names, not place classification). In the end this is well-documented to be just another of the many subdivisions entered willy-nilly, and the coverage cited in the article is routine stuff. This shouldn't have been created, it shouldn't have been redirected, it shouldn't have been recreated, and it should never have been kept when considered for deletion twelve years ago. Mangoe ( talk) 18:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 18:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 18:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The articles on the Delaware hundreds are not appropriate merger targets for anything; if anything, the individual articles probably ought to go away. They are obsolete subdivisions which only continue to appear on deeds and titles because it would take work to get rid of recording them. Mangoe ( talk) 00:18, 19 September 2021 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 00:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Gwinhurst, Delaware (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was prodded, redirected, restored immediately after, and put through two more AfDs after that, all within a few weeks in May 2009. That was well before people took a good look at GNIS's reliability issues, but at any rate the notion that GNIS constituted official recognition was always inconsistent with the authority GNIS actually claimed (which was over names, not place classification). In the end this is well-documented to be just another of the many subdivisions entered willy-nilly, and the coverage cited in the article is routine stuff. This shouldn't have been created, it shouldn't have been redirected, it shouldn't have been recreated, and it should never have been kept when considered for deletion twelve years ago. Mangoe ( talk) 18:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 18:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 Talk 18:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The articles on the Delaware hundreds are not appropriate merger targets for anything; if anything, the individual articles probably ought to go away. They are obsolete subdivisions which only continue to appear on deeds and titles because it would take work to get rid of recording them. Mangoe ( talk) 00:18, 19 September 2021 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook