Talk:Mitcham Common

Importance criteria
Does this article lack information on the importance of the subject matter? An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

- There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community). - It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject. - Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.
 * Most people in the London Borough of Merton, and to a lesser extent Greater London are intrested in Mitcham Common. It also recives 340,000 hits on google. Laurenceandrews 08:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Mitcham Common is an expansion of the article Mitcham, which is an established subject. It is not very detailed at present, but is is longer than a stub and more content can easily be added. Laurenceandrews 08:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being: of insufficient importance, fame or relevance, or currently small or a stub, or obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.) Note that notwithstanding these criteria, other Wikipedia deletion policy may still apply to an article.


 * For what it's worth Laurence, I heartily agree with you. Mucky Duck 08:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Gigl as a source
User:Dudley Miles has replaced material that had been removed using the justification that "This is cited to GIGL, London's official environmental record centre" I can find no evidence that there is anything official about gigl. I have found no Government involvement. To the contrary this reference http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/47-per-cent-of-london-is-green-space-is-it-time-for-our-capital-to-become-a-national-park-9756470.html says it is " Greenspace Information for Greater London, a group that keeps environmental records" ie an independent group. Gigl's own site says it has commercial operations. http://www.gigl.org.uk/about-gigl/working-with-us/customers/. IMHO the greatest care should be exercised in using gigl as a source, if it used at allSovalValtos (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Gigl is clearly a Community Interest Company, and only a self named "official environmental record centre" 12:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * See the article on Greenspace Information for Greater London. Details of London Sites of Nature Conservation Interest were available on the Mayor of London's Wildweb web site until it was taken down in December 2010. No details were available for over a year and I kept chasing the Mayor's office. In mid-2012 I was told that the information had been transferred to GIGL, which is an NGO which is now the online source. See on its connection with the National Biodiversity Network and funding by DEFRA. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mitcham Common. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213161209/http://www.mitchamcommon.org/index.php to http://www.mitchamcommon.org/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310151819/http://www.mitchamcommon.org/about.php to http://www.mitchamcommon.org/about.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228141823/http://mitchamcommon.org/conservators/conservators.php to http://www.mitchamcommon.org/conservators/conservators.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)