Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnsbury Estate


 * 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   merge to Woking. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnsbury Estate

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Small, non-notable housing estate on the edge of a regional town. Nothing of note listed in the article nor any likelyhood of such appearing (as it happens I live near the estate and my kids used to go to school there, so I'm familiar with the area). Initialy PRODed, but another editor reversed on the basis that a cite was added for a proposal to demolish part of the estate. I don't think that establishes notabillity for this over any other random housing estate. ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The controversy over the proposed development of the neighborhood and the cancellation of those plans received significant coverage. See, e.g. . Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A minor story in a local newspaper is not 'significant coverage', local newspapers report on all sorts of non-notable stuff. On that basis Wikipedia would have articles on every bring and buy sale run at the local church hall--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely worth debating but "£90,000 on a consultation" seems to put this a bit beyond the bring and buy sale level, in my opinion. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My point (admitedly made rather facetiously) was that local papers have an extremely low bar of notabillity for publication. All sorts of trivial stuff gets in there, so I don't think purely being reported on in a local paper proves notabillity. With regards the proposal itself, that sort of things happens all the time in many places. I live about a mile away from Barnsbury and we recently had a developer trying to buy up all our gardens in order to build another small estate, that doesn't make my street individually notable as it's not really of any relevence to people who don't live there. I don't want to knock the estate, but I really struggle to see how it would have an article without every other small housing estate or road in the country getting one as well. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, having taken another look at the Notabillity guidelines, I think the relevent one for this is WP:NTEMP. Specificlaly, "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.". I think the provided reference about the proposed development falls squarely into this category, as it is routine news coverage of an event with no analysis at all. It's a reasonable ref for that fact, but by itself does not establish notabillity for the article as a whole. The only other ref on the article is from the YMCA website talking about a YMCA facility, so it falls at the WP:GNG "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc". I don't think either of the refs provided are sufficient to prove notabillity and doing a google search just brings up those same refs, bus timetables, the local school and properties for sale. I can't see any hint of wider notabillity.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your points are well-made but I disagree that the story on the development scheme linked above is routine coverage akin to a press release or public announcement. It is a 4259 character story specifically reporting on and analyzing a many month process involving significant time and expense to the government and residents. I have added a couple background government references to provide for more context. On the YMCA point, the YMCA is not the subject of the article and, in any event, I have added a secondary source local news reference discussing the recent expansion of the successful Barnsbury Estate pilot project. as well as a police newsletter regarding initiatives taken to combat off-road vehicle incidents in Barnsbury. I believe that this addresses the issue regarding a "single event". I agree that local papers cover local news and think it would be unreasonable to include articles only if national press have taken note of the neighborhood. As long as the local press is WP:RS and has given significant coverage to a neighborhood, as I believe they have here, I see no reason why this does not meet WP:GNG. On a policy level, neighborhood articles do not raise the WP:BLP concerns regarding liability, so I see no purpose served in overly restricting them, though I will say that I fully understand tagging the originally almost wholly unsourced article. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For ease of evaluating them, here are some additional refs added:    . Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree. The point of the NTEMP notabillity rule is that papers (of any size) meerly reporting the facts about an event (and the proposal and consultation is an event, not an ongoing fact) does not qualify as significant coverage by itself. The same issue arises with the policing story about off road bikes (which I don't think is worthy of inclusion in the article anyway as it's a news story not encyclopedic information). The YMCA stuff might establish notabillity of the YMCA center, but the fact that it is in Barnsbury Estate is pretty much incidental to those cites. We aren't going to agree here though, so probably best just wait and see what the outcome is. Incidentaly, regardless of the outcome, well done on working so hard to improve and keep an article. I may not agree with the notabillity of the article but I appreciate anyone making an effort to improve wikipedia.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Unfortunately the article is now even shorter and less referenced than it was. It contained entirely spurious information based on a reference to the wrong Barnsbury Estate. On the deletion of this article, I don't really have a view, but the fact that such misinformation had survived in the article from 28/12/2009 till now hardly gives me confidence that it's receiving careful attention from editors dedicated to the subject. Does this make it more of a candidate for deletion? I'm honestly not sure. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge encyclopaedic information to Woking. There is some information worth preserving in this article, but blow-by-blow accounts of highly local stories isn't the place for Wikipedia, neither are detailed descriptions of local facilities. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge encyclopaedic information to Woking as CN-S. £90k is a trivial sum by council standards, and less than the turnover of a local pizza joint, which is the usual example of something that gets attention from local WP:RS but has no national significance. There's not a housing equivalent of WP:CORP, but that's the sort of think I'm thinking of. If information about Barnsbury starts to overwhelm the main Woking article, then it could be forked down the line, but probably in the direction of Urban planning of Woking or some such. Le Deluge (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge: 400 houses is not large, but neither is it insignifciant. It should certainly not be deleted out of hand.  The problem may be that there is rather too much content to merge easily, but the amount on the youth club is certainly excessive.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge per Chris Neville-Smith. A small, non-notable development of no historic significance, which has received no news coverage outside of the immediate town. Not even regional coverage found, much less national. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a more substantial place than many non-incorporated communities. It is certainly big enough to be significant. --doncram (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was a separate or self-governing place it would certainly qualify for inclusion here despite its small size. But it appears to be merely a neighborhood of Woking. Many neighborhoods of larger cities do have their own articles on Wikipedia, but they have to meet notability/significance guidelines, and this place does not. It doesn't even rate its own separate planning area within the city of Woking. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 30 August 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.