Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilesgate Moor

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilesgate Moor[edit]

This is a part of the village of Gilesgate and is a very small, irrelevant place to have an article for since Sherburn Road doesn't have an article which is much bigger than Gilesgtae Moor. Fouldsythekingisbackagain (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from what I have read, places inhabited by people are inherently notable. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Merge to Belmont (parish) per RHaworth below. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 14:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gilesgate and Gilesgate Moor were distinct villages in the past, each with history as far as I can make out, though they are now virtually part of the suburbs of Durham. Sherburn Road is a road so that part of the nomination seems to be nonsense. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination by the sockpuppet of a user who apparently first vandalized the article and then went on to harass and threaten various users. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of the faith of the nominator, as per Jeff G, places where are inherently notable. --Ged UK (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If someone can provide reliable evidence this place is part of the village, then it can be merged. The lack of article for another subject is not a valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not yet complete, so there are invariably articles that have not yet been created. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Belmont (parish). One article is sufficient for an area with just 9000 inhabitants. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Distinct villages, even former distinct villages, are notable, even if they are part of the town today. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gilesgate is less a village than a community of the traditional Durham City. Gilesgate Moor grew up outside the traditional city, with a defined historic boundary, lacking connection to St Giles or its manorial court, and growing up around different industries. Paulleake (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. "Sherburn Road is a road so that part of the nomination seems to be nonsense." It is a village I should know since I live in the area, also Gilesgate Moor is apart of Gilesgate, and it always has been, it's just one part of the village. High Grange Estate is also a part of Gilesgate and has had some history, but that doesn't have a page so therefore they should be merged.Gilagod101 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Comment I suspect Gilagod101 is yet another sockpuppet (see sockpuppet investigation) of blocked user, Fouldsythekingisbackagain. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)~~ Striking this out as Gilagod101 tells me he is not Fouldsythekingisbackagain. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some one has purported to close this AFD, substituting a merge tag. If so, the correct procedure seems not to have been followed, since this page appears to remain open. I have no view on whether the page for this should survive. However the worst that should happen is that the page is merged and thus becomes a redirect. The correct target needs to be determined by those who know the area. The article currently has no AFD tag. Accordingly technical keep, due to breach of procedure. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have put the AfD tag back on the article. That should remain until the discussion is closed when the closing admin will remove it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2009 (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.