Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edenridge, 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. The article has been sourced, providing evidence of notability. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edenridge, Delaware

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subdivision fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG due to lack of significant independent coverage; there's little potential for expansion beyond the current paragraph. Most sources are either self-sourced to the developer or just passing mentions, routine coverage etc. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill subdivision does not stand out for notability. Reywas92^Talk 13:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG and GEOLAQND. The article is pretty well sourced, and I was also able to find [1] [2] [3] [4]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily satisfies GNG (and thus, GEOLAND).(Version 09/04<>09/16 show expansion w/ additional explanation and references, which provide even more material than currently included in article.) Djflem (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the initial two-sentence stub which was PRODded is quite different from the current article. There are fourteen references, which seem to put this smartly past GNG (and then some). jp×g 22:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Yet another unremarkable development: what little claim to notability there is in the article is for the foundation/developer, not the neighborhood. The rest is routine local coverage found about every suburban neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EDDY.4meter4 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eddy. Passes WP:NGEO. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Eddy. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:56, 22 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.