Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashbank


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ashbank

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Location is really part of Leeds, Kent, no notability. Dondegroovily (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep--- In September 2010, four months short of the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia's founding in January 2001, we have arrived at a point which should allow/enable every place/location/settlement/suburb/section/borough/neighborhood, etc in the world to have its own stub and, when a qualified editor is willing to expand it, an article. As opposed to a theoretical reductio ad absurdum suggestion of an entry for every person, building or street in the world, habitations can make a stronger argument for highlighting, having continued through generations and through millenia, thus carrying, along the way, histories of innumerable lives.  Whether the place is at the highest level (London) or lowest (Ashbank), it should have its own entry, however brief (for Ashbank, as of this writing).  The alternative method, that of redirect to Leeds, causes unnecessary confusion by intimating that "Ashbank" is/was an alternative name for "Leeds" or, if the redirect lacks an immediate explanation of what "Ashbank" means, then the very purpose of the redirect's existence is put into doubt.  Finally, specific to this title, compared to the thousands of same-named places and surnames found within disambiguation pages, Ashbank is comparatively unique in that during the three years and one month of this stub's existence (created on August 14, 2007), no other place with that appellation has had a Wikipedia entry (one "Ashbank" is red-linked within List of places in Alabama: A–C).&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then, the stub needs to mention that it is a suburb. Someone on the talk page thought that it is actually within Leeds (a mere neighborhood, which usually isn't notable). Dondegroovily (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Ashbank is a separate settlement to Leeds and therefore entitled to an article of its own, or at least a valid redirect. When someone eventually works on the Leeds civil parish article, they may decide to either expand the Ashbank article independently, or merge it into Leeds, Kent. Until then, although it is just a single line, the article is valid as an independent settlement and should not be deleted. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.