Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gipsy Row

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 Wenham Magna. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gipsy Row[edit]

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

Non notable subject. Gipsey Row is a tiny hamlet within Wenham Magna Parish. It has no real notability, there is not a lot that could be written about it anyway. I have searched and searched for information and history to add to the article, but I can't find anything. The only reference the article has is an atlas, just the prove the place even exists. The sensible option would be to delete the page and include Gipsy Row as a section within it's parish's page (Wenham Magna). This is in-keeping with the majority of other small hamlets who have no notability and about which not a lot can be said Rushton2010 (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an inhabited place, a village without a church. Wikipedia includes features of a gazetteer, according to our core policies WP:5P. We should not be deleting articles on any inhabited or formerly inhabited hamlets or villages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wenham Magna, the parish in which it is, which itself has a population of only 150. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 17 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:00, 22 August 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, czar · · 03:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Support the redirect proposed above. Way to small for an article, but since it is an actual place just deleting it seems incorrect per our policies. Caffeyw (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect- Agree - noteworthy as distinct community, unjustified as separate article Tammytoons (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[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.