Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boulder Run (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 delete. Sandstein 08:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Run (Delaware)[edit]

[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)

This article was previously purposed for deletion, but it now has sources. Nevertheless, all of those only treat the subject trivially, with the second and third sources barely mentioning it. In my opinion, it certainly does not meet "significant coverage" and should be deleted. Thank you for your time and help. VickKiang (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Delaware. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Bellevue State Park (Delaware)) I was not able to find coverage to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is duplicated at Boulder Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Uncle G (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10, then delete the other article; it is already PRODded. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies, should a speedy deletion tag be added instead? Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The article creator created the same article with two titles on the same day. The fair way to deal with this is not to try to argue technicalities but to bring both articles under the umbrella of this AFD discussion, and discuss sources as BeanieFan11 has. I've done the {{subst:afd1}} for you. Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses and the addition of the tag! Both seem to encompass original research, with the Boulder Run article devoid of sources. The article in discussion trivially mention the stream and is likely not an RS, even if so, it would be merely one source. The language ("It Fills the pond in Bellevue State Park and flows through the park. It is named Boulder Run for all the mossy stones around it.") is unencyclopedic and could possibly be original research, but I am not entirely certain. Still, IMO it would be congruous for both to be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that if it were verifiable, that could be rewritten, and sometimes such seemingly banal names are verifiable. The question is the depth of sourcing. You've addressed the sources in the article, but deletion policy is that attempts to find sources must have failed. Sometimes terrible articles hide notable subjects. The thing to be looking for now is whether there's in-depth documentation of this as part of some watershed; whether it is documented in the context of the state park in some source somewhere. Is it listed in Heck, Wraight, Orth, et al.'s 1966 book on Delaware Place Names verifying that content? It's not about what's in the article now; it's about whether there even can be sourcing in the article — whether there's sourcing available for an article to be written. Uncle G (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again for your insightful comments. You stated that it verified the content, but the notability guidelines require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. From my perspective, a mere mention of the location's name does not seem to be in-depth, therefore, could you please explain to me how it is in-depth? Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:05, 28 March 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.