Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rutherford, Virginia

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. ✗plicit 23:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherford, Virginia[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)

Not an unincorporated community but rather a seemingly unnotable neighborhood within Long Branch, Virginia. WP:BEFORE pulls up nothing useful. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Virginia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parks mentioned, including Rutherford Park and Long Branch Stream Valley Park, are all run by the county, specifically by the Fairfax County Parks Authority. They are not part of a community of "Rutherford". c.f. Fairfax County Park Authority and Fairfax County, Virginia#Parks and recreation. The name Rutherford does not exist on maps prior to the mid-20th-century housing development. The CDP is Long Branch. The subdivision of Fairfax County is Braddock District and per Braddock District's map the subdivision of that, in turn, is Little Run (because there's a fork of Long Branch creek here, compare Olde Creek further upstream). I have found no evidence of a "Rutherford". Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had to flex a little on this one. It's HOA community built in the 60's, their website is broken and unavailable and the Facebook group is private. Very little information to be gleaned online. It's not notable.James.folsom (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Subdivisions need more coverage than mere existence: they need to satisfy GNG, and this one doesn't. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2024 (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.