Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foxdown

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 redirect to Overton, Hampshire. J04n(talk page) 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foxdown[edit]

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

No significant claim of notability made. A quick trip around the street on Google StreetView shows no solar panels or cedar cladding. Bazonka (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - looks like the article coords are wrong. I found the cedar panels visible at [1]. It seems moderately notable as sustainable building is big news at the moment, although I agree it needs to be better sourced. Could be merged into Overton, Hampshire.Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 13:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the location. I think I was looking at the older part of the estate. However, whilst the development may be sustainable, it's still not necessarily notable. There are lots of sustainable developments, and I don't see what makes this one special. Bazonka (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. Also looks like it's technically in Quidhampton, Hampshire rather than Overton so I think a merge with that stub would be helpful, and give that article some useful content, and reflect that it's locally notable rather than globally. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 13:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It reads like an ADVERT by the developer. A street with 75 houses can hardly be notable, unless they have a very innovative design. I doubt that applies here. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Overton, Hampshire as there aren't sufficient sources to support the notability of the street. Note the 75-house development is named "Greenfields" (source)--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a plain redirect (if anything), not a merge: a development of 75 houses is too NN even to mention in the village article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overton, Hampshire. Clearly not notable in itself. FurrySings (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable cul-de-sac. Or is the Overton article going to turn into a street directory? Sionk (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an advert. Simply not notable. A merge may also be sensible. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:09, 15 March 2013 (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.