Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Scarborough, Bramley

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Scarborough, Bramley[edit]

New Scarborough, Bramley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a location, not on Ordnance Survey Eastleigh 9 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is, in fact, just on the largest-scale OS maps - click here and then click on the "Ordnance Survey map" option, and you can see the name to the right of centre. But I think it is too small and obscure to be notable enough for an article - see "Populated places without legal recognition" under Wikipedia:Notability (geography) - and I haven't found any "substantial independent comment" about it. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What matters is if the Ordnance Survey marks it as a location or not, eg Old Lindley is marked as a location, so would warrant an article, while New Scarborough, Bramley may be shown on the map, but not as a location, so therefore would not warrant an article, unlike Old Lindley. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless I'm confused by nomenclature here, New Scarborough is indeed marked as a location on OS maps, both in the Landranger and Explorer series. That's sufficient to suggest it has legal recognition. With regards to Old Lindley, yes... I would agree that it too should have its own article. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Type New Scarborough into Ordnance Survey, no results, when you type Chickney or Round Maple in it takes you onto the location, which is why those places are notable, but none of the New Scarboroughs are. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about the size of the article or the place, it's about if it is registered as a place on OS or not. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that farms are sometimes shown on the more detailed OS maps, but they are not locations as OS does not find them if you type them into the search box. Eastleigh 9 (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If all that appears is a name on a map, with no other information available or likely to be available then the article is unlikely to be expanded. In accordance with WP:UKCITIES:
"Within built-up areas, suburbs and inner-city areas are often difficult to define, lack statutory boundaries, have limited published material about them or little to elaborate on with which to create a comprehensive article. If there is little encyclopaedic material about such places, it may be best to merge these articles into those about the wider area or settlement."
This seems like very good advice to me. In a case such as this there isn't even anything to merge. If there is decent verifiable information beyond being a name on a map then it could be added to Bramley, West Yorkshire.
I am against a redirect for this situation because whilst "Redirects are cheap" they do clutter up the autofill function in the search box so making other, notable articles harder to find. Quantpole (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The page was created by indef. blocked sockmaster User:Crouch, Swale. Kudpung (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have blocked User:Eastleigh 9 as a sock of User:Crouch, Swale. User:Crouch, Swale created the article. I guess that technically we could delete this AFD as CSD G5 and the article as G7 but perhaps that would not be the best approach :) nancy 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to fail notability: not every name or dot on a map requires an encyclopedia article. Also speedyable as noted above, since created by blocked or banned user, as well as because the author requests deletion. Edison (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one of numerous place articles started by this user because it is marked on a map, not because it is notable.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Scarborough,_Bramley&oldid=1138127307"