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 merge‎ to Pantigo Windmill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquebogue Windmill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable replica structure written in non-encyclopedic promotional tone. Fails the test of multiple secondary, independent, reliable sources. (The Bob Liepa article is the same article published in three different places, the Dempsey article does not mention this windmill at all, and the KDHamptons article is ineligible as tabloid coverage.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Coverage I find is strictly local, from the Suffolk Times about damage to the windmill. There seems to be no coverage outside of hyperlocal items, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selective) with Pantigo Windmill, of which this is a replica. Djflem (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As nominator I would accept a selective merge as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I removed the non-encyclopedic promotional tone. However, there is currently only one reliable source; plus the KDHamptons article. The latter is shurely tabloid, but here it's only used to proof that the mill can be rented, so tabloid coverage is sufficient. --Cyfal (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:SBST: "tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." That means there is insufficient evidence that this windmill passes the WP:GNG. No one's doubting the mill can be rented; we're doubting whether it meets the notability standards of this encyclopedia. I think the "merge" proposal is a good one, finding a home for the encyclopedic content in this article since it doesn't otherwise have standalone notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Aquebogue Windmill is historically important and its meeting Wikipedia's rules for notability, so i guess keep will be the correct approach to this article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a small amount of content to Pantigo Windmill as per Djflem, and lose the rest. Not notable in its own right - purely local interest. Ingratis (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 24 July 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.