Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braniel


 * 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   no consensus. A few good arguments on both sides. In general, I think the delete side may be a touch stronger, but I can't find any consensus here. Courcelles 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Braniel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't believe the article is notable. There are a number of sources, a few of which are reliable; however, I don't believe they establish notability. The reliable sources are about some arson attacks - these don't make the estate in itself notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep All the other housing estates have these, and I am currently working on progressing this. What about changing it to a userpage until it is notable enough?Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think all housing estates do have articles. In any case, this article would still have to meet the general notability guidelines, which requires significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I do not believe that the sources in the article provide this. I appreciate it is a work in progress; however, I do not think it is notable enough for an article, regardless of how much work you put into it. You could userfy it; however, that would only really be appropriate if we can establish notability for it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could it be userfied now, and when it become notable enough, I can release it. I'm sure it is notable, and is going to be more in the future. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's nothing stopping you from userfying it now, I just do not recommend it. Unless Braniel is subject to widespread national/international attention, it is unlikely to become notable. Notability tends to be assessed by something's coverage in reliable, third-party sources. This means that Braniel, would need to have widespread coverage in national news/media which is not associated to the estate itself. That is not something which comes with time. Basically, that's a long-winded way of saying if it's not notable now, it probably won't suddenly become notable. Also, even if you userfy the page, it might still be deleted under MfD and will be no more likely in becoming a full article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also Michael Stone, who was notable for several attacks during The Troubles and the Milltown Cemetery attack. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true, but that doesn't make Braniel notable. Michael Stone certainly is notable; however, just because he has an association with a place, there is no reason that the place suddenly becomes notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per notice Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what do you mean by "per notice"? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * per above on the top Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Housing estates are not generally considered to be notable and their articles are invariably deleted. I can see no reason why this one is special. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that Michael Stone, lived here and this is where he planned his attacks is notable surely. Other minor things here only notable to people that live in the area/surrounding area as well. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the fact that someone famous lived there doesn't really make it notable. If we have an article on every housing estate in which a famous person has lived/worked, then we'd have articles on almost every housing estate in the world. As I said before, Michael Stone might be notable; that does not make where he lived notable. A place/object/organisation/whatever does not inherit notability from things they are associated with. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's like saying a street's notable because somebody notable once lived there. That would result on us having articles on half the streets in the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But that isn't what I am saying. There is a lot more stuff to write about this place, but wiki rules say you have to have evidence via internet. Also, locally, this would be a very notable place compared to random users from throughout the world if you know what I mean.Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP guidelines say evidence of notability in any form, not just online. But the fact remains that this is just a housing estate in common with thousands of others throughout the world. And almost every article created about a housing estate has been deleted at AfD, which does create something of a precedent. If you can find something that makes this estate especially notable (and no, the fact that someone notable lived there doesn't count - it has to be something notable about the architecture, something notable that actually happened there etc) then feel free and that will be taken into consideration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also added info about stabbing incident in 2008. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand, but (and don't take this the wrong way) there has been a stabbing incident in a large number of housing estates in the world. Crime is not really notable - it happens everywhere - and therefore, it can't really be used to demonstrate notability of a place. Even if it was the location of a high-profile murder, it would not be notable, as it is the event that is notable, not the place. In none of the sources you provided are any of the articles/news reports about Braniel itself. Instead, they are about events that happened in Braniel. There is a subtle difference, and notable events do not make the place in which they occurred notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It appears salvagable due to the amound of references and citations included, the artical is being continuously expanded and improved by User:Dontforgetthisone, as for its notablity, we have many other articals on communities around the world, yes this is currently list class, but could easily be improved by an expert on the subject. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree. The number of references do not necessarily mean that the subject is notable. Not only do the references need to be reliable, they also need to attribute notability to the subject in question. The references provided attribute notability to events which happened in Braniel; this does not make Braniel inherently notable. Also, we may have articles about other communities around the world; that has no bearing on the notability of this subject. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely Murders, Fires, Stabbings and already mentioned Michael Stone must make the Braniel notable somehow. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Most housing estates in most cities across the world have been the locations of murders, fires and stabbings - that does not mean we need an article on each one. As I have said before, notability is established if Braniel itself is the subject of the sources you have provided. So far, each source is about an event. None of the sources are about Braniel itself. Therefore, it fails the WP:GNG, as notability is not inherited. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We have articles on communities, that is census-designated places. We do not have articles on housing estates, which are just...housing estates. They're not even accepted areas of towns (and we usually don't even have articles on wards and other neighbourhoods of towns unless they're especially well-known). They're just housing estates. Nothing significant has happened here. Some crime has occurred, which happens everywhere. Some notable individual lived here, which could be said of most places. There's just nothing which makes this place notable in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I can certainly sympathise with the article's creator: 48 hours after creation, during which time s/he had continually edited the article, it was put up for AFD. Considering Wikipedia is full of location articles which are no more than unsourced stubs (and appear to have been started for no other reason than to give individuals something to claim credit for on their userpages), it seems like there are more important things we could be doing than debating a fairly new article which the creator is trying to expand and source in good faith. Contrary to the statement directly above, we do have articles on housing estates (see [Category:Housing estates]) ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 00:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for seeing my view. So would you be more for keep so I can make further edits to this. Thanks for getting that page of housing estates, would never have thought of looking for it. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that this was done in good faith and I am impressed by what has been done to the article. However, I am still not convinced that the article is notable. Yes, other articles about housing estates exist, but they do not make this one notable (in fact, a number of them could be deleted). I don't have an issue with the quality of the article or the major author; I simply do not believe it to be notable, and have seen no sources to suggest that it is. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I do say there has been a lot of steady progression to this article. I think there could have more expansion to the Roddens and Glenview places mentioned and a bit more info on the parks. The article seems to be getting better and better per edit so I think it will turn out well if the creator/editors keep updating. Chatterbox2000 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the quality of the article is not an issue here. My problem is that I do not feel the article is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, and no sources have been provided which support the contrary. We've had sources which show events which occurred in Braniel to be notable, but none to suggest that Braniel itself is notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. "I feel sorry for the article's creator" is not a very convincing reason to keep an article. The vast swath of references don't establish notability, only that this place does exist - mere existence alone is not sufficient reason to keep an article. The article can be reduced to "Braniel is a place. It has a school (source), shop (source), another shop (source), and in 2008 somebody was arrested in the area (source source source source)". I would not be against moving it to userspace while the creator works on it, but in its current state this article does not merit inclusion. Badger Drink (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At what part did a user say "Keep as "I feel sorry for the article's creator"" A user commented but did not opt to keep. Pay more attention to the comments before commenting yourself. Chatterbox2000 (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you punctuate that with a silent "so there" as you clicked "save page"? Just wondering. Badger Drink (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Normally we delete housing estates, and normally I !vote delete at those discussions, but there can be an exception for large ones which are in essence communities, and widely referred to as such in reliable sources, as seems the case here.  DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this is widely referred to, though. Sure, it has new stories about it because things have happened there; there are news stories about most housing estates because things happen. As I've said before, none of these sources are about Braniel; rather, they are about events in Braniel. This does not make Braniel notable, but the events. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's like saying The twin towers are not relevant because 9/11 (the event) happened in/to them. Chatterbox2000 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. The Twin Towers (note capitalization) garnered notability independently of the events of 9/11. This is more like saying "Joe Smith's 1984 Nissan Pulsar is not notable, despite news reports of a small subcompact car being destroyed by falling debris in the 9/11 attacks". Badger Drink (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Badger Drink. The Twin Towers were notable in their own right as the World Trade Centre before 9/11. Braniel, on the other hand, is not notable in its own right. Whereas the Twin Towers do not rely on the 9/11 attacks for their notability, Braniel seems to be relying on events for its claims of notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Bearian/Standards. I would like to have more recent information on population, but 10 years ago it had 5,000 residents.  It has its own primary school with 400 children, a shopping centre, etc. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a shopping centre, but a small shopping complex would sound more appropriate . I do believe the population has only slightly risen as several new houses have been built etc, probably hitting between 5,500 and 6,500 hopefully however I'm sure the population will be updated when statistics are released. Chatterbox2000 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2011 (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.