- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 03:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Vista Grove, Georgia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This place does not truly exist, and the article does not include any verifiable references. Several name changes throughout the page history and several vaguely defined AKAs in the lede demonstrate the lack of a commonly recognized entity. The only thing known by that name is a shopping center near the supposed geographic center of the community. Google searches mostly return recent efforts to create a city with that name, but until that city is created this article gives the false impression that locals would recognize a preexisting community with the Vista Grove name. RDavi404 ( talk) 20:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. The USGS says that Oak Grove (one of the aliases named in the article) is a U6 unincorporated community located approximately where the Vista Grove Plaza is.( 1805272) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I usually don't vote to delete settlements, but while Oak Grove may be a real place, none of the other assertions in this article appear to hold up. The references in the article not only are self-published, but also appear to be crowd-sourced neighborhood histories. According to local media, "Vista Grove" is one of several proposals to incorporate the area. Reliable sources don't support Vista Grove as a real community. A search for sources didn't yield anything beyond the GNIS database entry. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. There is a lack of reliable sources. The article literally has zero references. The article does have two dead links though as far as citations. Surely if there was a place called Vista Grove, Georgia one could find at least one reliable source about the place. But instead we just have two dead links. This is unacceptable. The burden of the proof is upon the claimant. Knox490 ( talk) 07:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Knox490's input. WP:GNG, WP:OR, WP:SECONDARY are all lacking. Perhaps a Merge or Redevelop are in order. Ventric ( talk) 00:27, 30 December 2017 (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.
- 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. Killiondude ( talk) 03:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Vista Grove, Georgia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This place does not truly exist, and the article does not include any verifiable references. Several name changes throughout the page history and several vaguely defined AKAs in the lede demonstrate the lack of a commonly recognized entity. The only thing known by that name is a shopping center near the supposed geographic center of the community. Google searches mostly return recent efforts to create a city with that name, but until that city is created this article gives the false impression that locals would recognize a preexisting community with the Vista Grove name. RDavi404 ( talk) 20:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. The USGS says that Oak Grove (one of the aliases named in the article) is a U6 unincorporated community located approximately where the Vista Grove Plaza is.( 1805272) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I usually don't vote to delete settlements, but while Oak Grove may be a real place, none of the other assertions in this article appear to hold up. The references in the article not only are self-published, but also appear to be crowd-sourced neighborhood histories. According to local media, "Vista Grove" is one of several proposals to incorporate the area. Reliable sources don't support Vista Grove as a real community. A search for sources didn't yield anything beyond the GNIS database entry. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. There is a lack of reliable sources. The article literally has zero references. The article does have two dead links though as far as citations. Surely if there was a place called Vista Grove, Georgia one could find at least one reliable source about the place. But instead we just have two dead links. This is unacceptable. The burden of the proof is upon the claimant. Knox490 ( talk) 07:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Knox490's input. WP:GNG, WP:OR, WP:SECONDARY are all lacking. Perhaps a Merge or Redevelop are in order. Ventric ( talk) 00:27, 30 December 2017 (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.