Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clogau Quarry

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 respective SSSI lists for each English county.. (non-admin closure) Kori (@) 23:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clogau Quarry[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)

Articles are a bunch of mass produced stub SSSI articles with no notability at all. I am nominating these articles. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 16:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - all can easily be redirected to the already existing Lists of SSSIs in the appropriate counties: Clogau Quarry, Cefn Rofft and Llandegla Moor to List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Denbighshire and the rest to List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Flintshire - unless the nom is about to suggest that these lists of SSSIs are without encyclopaedic value. Also, please look around a bit more for other solutions before rushing to AfD - WP:BEFORE. Ingratis (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, nomination is flawed, rather than "articles with no notability at all" (remembering that "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."), being a Site of Special Scientific Interest (a "protected area") does convey a degree of wikinotabiliy. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Agreed that SSSIs are highly likely to be notable, although many would struggle to be more than stubs - so redirecting to the lists pending further content seems a good solution for now. Ingratis (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to appropriate lists instead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the best solution now would be to turn the pages into redirects; leaving them as stubs doesn't do anything useful when there's a list page we could have the stub information on. If and when they become more notable, then a fuller page can be created. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2020 (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.