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 primary, NC on the others. Several people objected to the bundling, saying the others were probably notable. However, there seems to be consensus that the primary listing should be deleted. If anybody wants to take another look at the others, please nominate them individually, and I'd suggest that
WP:RENOM shouldn't be a bar to immediate renomination in this case. --
RoySmith(talk)18:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete My gosh that photo...
here it is in Street View. This is not what was ever intended to have presumed notability, with subdivisions explicitly in Geoland#2...no sigcov found of course.
Procedural keep unless the "related articles" are removed from this nomination. While Savannah Overlook doesn't seem notable, some of those other places do, and at the very least aren't modern subdivisions. Several of them appear on official Maryland highway maps (
Anthony and Calvert Acres on this one,
Asbury on this one,
Bureau on this one). Some of them have existed since at least the 19th century, and the only rationale for why they should be deleted is that they're named after a building that wouldn't be notable on its own.
TheCatalyst31Reaction•
Creation12:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:GEOLAND specifically excludes maps from establishing notability. Where is the evidence that Anthony and Bureau were ever anything more than buildings that appeared as landmarks on maps? How do they meet our notability requirements for "populated places"? Bear in mind that these places are mislabeled as "unincorporated communities" (check the source) and the GNIS database that they were mass-created from has been down to contain many incorrect designations and should be backed up by other sources. –
dlthewave☎13:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Yeah, these maps have lots of subdivisions on them, Country Club Estates, Hopeland Acres, a Riverview Gardens – doesn't represent notability! Where's the rationale that these are actual notable towns rather than names on a map? One that was likely made with the help of GNIS data? I don't really care how long something has existed – more time for something to have been written about it then! This is the United States, not some place without accessible English sources so yes we can demand better. Not to mention that not everything must go the same way so enough of this procedural nonsense.
Reywas92Talk18:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep - These nominations should not be bundled, as several of these places appear notable. For example,
Pealiquor Landing, Denton, Maryland is described
here as "the small town of Pealiquor Landing." Two other sources,
[3] and
[4] describe a farm at Pealiquor Landing called "Winddrift". This is clearly a populated place. Bundling all these dissimilar places into one AfD undermines the integrity of the deletion process, and violates
WP:BUNDLE. There is a striking similarity to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chair Crossing, Arizona in which
User:SportingFlyer,
User:MB and another editor who has already commented here spoke about how unacceptable it is to bundle so many dissimilar articles.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
21:53, 14 March 2020 (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.
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 primary, NC on the others. Several people objected to the bundling, saying the others were probably notable. However, there seems to be consensus that the primary listing should be deleted. If anybody wants to take another look at the others, please nominate them individually, and I'd suggest that
WP:RENOM shouldn't be a bar to immediate renomination in this case. --
RoySmith(talk)18:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete My gosh that photo...
here it is in Street View. This is not what was ever intended to have presumed notability, with subdivisions explicitly in Geoland#2...no sigcov found of course.
Procedural keep unless the "related articles" are removed from this nomination. While Savannah Overlook doesn't seem notable, some of those other places do, and at the very least aren't modern subdivisions. Several of them appear on official Maryland highway maps (
Anthony and Calvert Acres on this one,
Asbury on this one,
Bureau on this one). Some of them have existed since at least the 19th century, and the only rationale for why they should be deleted is that they're named after a building that wouldn't be notable on its own.
TheCatalyst31Reaction•
Creation12:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:GEOLAND specifically excludes maps from establishing notability. Where is the evidence that Anthony and Bureau were ever anything more than buildings that appeared as landmarks on maps? How do they meet our notability requirements for "populated places"? Bear in mind that these places are mislabeled as "unincorporated communities" (check the source) and the GNIS database that they were mass-created from has been down to contain many incorrect designations and should be backed up by other sources. –
dlthewave☎13:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Yeah, these maps have lots of subdivisions on them, Country Club Estates, Hopeland Acres, a Riverview Gardens – doesn't represent notability! Where's the rationale that these are actual notable towns rather than names on a map? One that was likely made with the help of GNIS data? I don't really care how long something has existed – more time for something to have been written about it then! This is the United States, not some place without accessible English sources so yes we can demand better. Not to mention that not everything must go the same way so enough of this procedural nonsense.
Reywas92Talk18:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep - These nominations should not be bundled, as several of these places appear notable. For example,
Pealiquor Landing, Denton, Maryland is described
here as "the small town of Pealiquor Landing." Two other sources,
[3] and
[4] describe a farm at Pealiquor Landing called "Winddrift". This is clearly a populated place. Bundling all these dissimilar places into one AfD undermines the integrity of the deletion process, and violates
WP:BUNDLE. There is a striking similarity to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chair Crossing, Arizona in which
User:SportingFlyer,
User:MB and another editor who has already commented here spoke about how unacceptable it is to bundle so many dissimilar articles.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
21:53, 14 March 2020 (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.