Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brackenbury Village


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Brackenbury Village

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

POV article created about a neighbourhood with no assertion of notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A search for sources turned up this quote that seems to be an AFD argument in itself:
 * "[&hellip;] although people who live there often don't know their names. Most people refer instead to districts which in some cases don't even appear on the map (eg 'Blythe Village' and 'Brackenbury Village' in the borough of Hammersmith & Fulham), but which are either named after places long since swallowed by the outward sprawl of the capital or derive from contemporary "estate agent speak"."

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  01:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, Merge or Redirect. It's clear from Ghits that this is a term for the area in common use. If it's simply an alias for an area better known by another name, it would make sense to redirect this to the other article and add an explanatory note. If it covers two or more areas of London, it might be necessary to keep the article if there's no obvious redirect target. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not listed by the Ordnance Survey, London A-Z, and not in Mills (2001) Dictionary of London Place Names, which lists even the most minor or erstwhile locality. You can't write an article about something that does not have wide coverage in published sources. MRSC (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not being listed by two sources doesn't take anything away from the fact that Brackenbury Village is covered by many others. I happen to know, having lived on Hammersmith Grove nearly thirty years ago, that two of those sources (and our article) are innacurate, as Brackenbury village is in West Hammersmith rather than North Hammersmith (or to be pedantic something like West-North-West) and its eastern boundary is actually a couple of hundred hundred metres west of Hammersmith Grove (I'd put it at Iffley Road), but those are matters for editing and sourcing rather than for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think the title of the third article cited by Phil Bridger above, "Estate Agents Gentrify the Market with Fancy Names", is most revealing. I am far from having a detailed knowledge of London geography, but the same thing goes on in the city where I live—a plethora of often contradictory or overlapping names devised within the real-estate world to give some sort of cachet to particular small areas that they're trying sell buyers or renters on. These basically have no relationship to the official or historical designations of the city's neighborhoods and little usage by people not concerned with property values (a concern that seems to inform every source cited by Phil Bridger save for the last). The lack of a label for this "place" on OS maps, which label most every individual farmstead in the United Kingdom, is also a persuasive argument that this is not notable. Deor (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Having had a better look at this, it appears that Brackenbury Village is primarily an alias popular with estate agents. However, the bottom line is that this alias is well-known enough to be written about in numerous reliable sources. Therefore, it seems reasonable to mention this alias in the article about Hammersmith (which the area known as Brackenbury seems to be exclusively covered by) with the name explained in context. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep If the term is in use (even if only by estate agents), we ought to have an entry on it. The problem with the present article is that it is a very poor stub.  That is a reason to improve it, not one to delete it.  I would like to see an explanation of the name, a map, and all those things that one expects in an article on a locality.  Some urban neighbourhoods cannot really get an article because it is not clear where their limits are.  This is precisely defined.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable district of London. Just needs work in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It has a residents' association which suggests it is a reasonably distinct and well defined area.Cavrdg (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have expanded the article a bit, there does seem to be enough coverage of the area to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:08, 1 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.