Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanley Grange

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. Some of the arguments advanced during the discussion are a bit on the weak side, but consenses is nonetheless in favor of retaining the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hanley Grange

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

Article for a planned town where the plans were shelved. The place is not, never was, and will not be. While there is press coverage, a cancelled planned development has no enduring historical notability. Ray^Talk 16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't know about "will not be" (the outlook doesn't look though). Although articles about cancelled ideas do exist (Russia Tower, for example), I couldn't find enough reliable coverage here to avoid crystal ballery. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs more sources, but the size of the development and the conflict around it seem to support notability. It was also shortlisted (among 15) to compete for government eco-town (UK) grants. Compare to Atlantic Yards, another (much larger) project that has been started and stalled because of development concerns. Cmprince (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs addition of sources (here are a few for ease of access: [1], [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], ) but the fact that something was planned and a source of controversy or debate can definitely be notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. For example, the Strait of Gibraltar crossing and Orkney Tunnel among planned tunnels; theme parks/entertainment venues which never were built, e.g., Disney's America, SugarHouse Casino; and residential developments, e.g., Omni Development, Criterion Place, and Central Village, Liverpool. --Milowent (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The idea of eco-towns is a significantly notable ongoing concept, and even if none of them ever get the the go-ahead, it's attracted by far enough attention to qualify here. I'm not sure whether enough can be written about individual proposals to warrant one article per proposed eco-town, but most or all of this information is notable enough to go somewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am far from sure that many of the present government's eco-towns will ever be built, but if they are they will certainly be notable settlements, though whehter they will really be "eco-" seems doubtful to me. They are real government proposals, not a pipedream from an architect's office, so that the article should exist. If it does get built, the presetn content will no doubt be relegated to a section on opposition to its creation, but that remains to be seen. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is of long term interest. Rosser Gruffydd 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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.