Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baker's Cross


 * 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   speedy keep. Consensus is unified and even the nominator has changed to keep. On a case by case basis and based upon the unanimity expressed here I am going to seedy the keep. JodyBtalk 11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Baker's Cross

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not a settlement in its own right, but more like a neighborhood of Cranbrook, Kent. And, no, settled placed are not inherently notable, as notability is not inherited D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  04:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep IMO, every single settlement should have its own article in Wikipedia, with no exception. Diego Grez (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the issue is the vague word settlement. The article states that it's part of another town (see above). I'm pretty sure that if I created an article call Roosevelt Neighborhood (Bellingham, WA) that it would be deleted. It's not its own town, it's a neighborhood of another. Baker's Cross sounds more like a neighborhood of Cranbrook. Harlem is notable, but NYC has 8 million people. Cranbrook has only 7000, so I would say none of its neighborhoods are notable. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  08:56, 16 October 2010
 * Keep. No-brainer keep; Wikipedia policy has always been that named settlements are always notable. I don't know where this idea that we don't have neighbourhood articles has come from; we have plenty. If the sources exist to say something about a place, the place should have an article. – iridescent  22:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, where is that policy? The bad arguments in deletion discussion explicitly lists "All examples of foo are inherently notable". Point to that policy so that I know it's real. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  22:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, I am really struggling to AGF here. The reality, my friend, is ... by a very large concensus ... --Senra (Talk) 00:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me quote the page you just linked to: "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis. This includes unofficial neighborhoods..." - I see no evidence that this place is legally recognized, thus case-by-base, thus you don't understand the policy properly. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like someone added a whole lot of content to this after my nomination. At the time I nominated, there were no sources. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  22:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At the time that you nominated, at least one of the sources had been in existence for 150 years. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't on Wikipedia :) D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  00:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion policy does not require it to be. Deletion policy also requires you to have made thorough attempts to find such sources, as do Guide to deletion, AFD, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep due listed buildings such as, ,   and  --Senra (Talk) 00:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability (geography) states that places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis. So "keep" is not automatic in this case unless someone can show it is legally recognized. The geography notability policy should not be abused to protect every place that ever existed. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Does being marked on a map constitute legal recognition? Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are enough good sources to write an article. Nobody is abusing policy. Policy exists to help us write good articles. This could become one. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, Baker's Cross is a hamlet. As well as the four Grade II listed buildings, there was at least one watermill at Baker's Cross, and possibly as many as five. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, not Nomination withdrawn . People here have made a good case, and Uncle G deserves credit for the save. Note to administrator, do not list this as nomination withdrawn, the keep is pretty blatant, and means a lot more to this subject's merit than nomination withdrawn. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  16:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 17 October 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.