Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAMBO, Brooklyn

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. Real place, sources prove it, merger is not suitable. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAMBO, Brooklyn[edit]

Proposed for deletion, deleted by me. Author contacted me to ask to restore it, so I did, and automatically placed it on AfD. No vote from me, this is a routine nomination. JIP | Talk 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge in a suitable target. The article is verifiable by multiple independent references. It might be too short for its own entry, but that's really a good reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. It's a criterion for expansion. Wily D 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the article should be expanded or possibly merged, though there is no obvious other place to merge it. I believe notability is established via the references as well as growing use in real estate (try a Google search of "rambo brooklyn"). Compare with BoCoCa, another stub article about a fairly silly-named (but legitimate) geographical area in Brooklyn. N.b., I live in the area in question (as will thousands more once the bubble-era towers here and nearby are occupied). Martensitic (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in a suitable target.A naming contest on a blog is not exactly an overwhelming source. A small feature quoting a single random person in a weekly lifestyle magazine is not convincing corroboration. Other articles quoting realtors as sources should consider such people potentially have a strong incentive to parcel out increasingly smaller names for sections of existing neighborhoods. There is a case to be made for inclusion within the Vinegar Hill article as Bridge Plaza, and perhaps mentioning 'RAMBO' as an informal name. The existence of other realtor-sponsored neighborhood names (e.g., BoCoCa) are not by themselves valid reasons to perpetuate what may be construed to be a dubious practice. N.b., I live in the surrounding area.. Dream-king (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the article needs work but it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.251.61 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2009 (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.