Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Hill, Suffolk


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 00:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Castle Hill, Suffolk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sourced content about the place, no indication of independent notability (its got a post office? and?). Should be redirected to Ipswich. Nilfanion (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep its a ward and thus has census data.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually add something about it then. Demonstrate how we need this article to talk about Castle Hill. As it stands, we can say everything we need to by having a line in Ipswich saying "one of the suburbs/wards is Castle Hill".--Nilfanion (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In this case like Lower Allithwaite it gives some info. It is both a ward and settlement on the OS, see WP:GEOLAND, which makes it a legally recognized place (unlike White City). Unless it is similar to a census tract, which it might be as wards change a lot.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A ward isn't a place, and while a ward may be notable, this article is about the place. The area is a "populated place without legal recognition" as a housing estate, and a deletion candidate per GEOLAND. The fact OS records it does not mean it qualifies, they record all sorts of places which aren't notable.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A ward has official boundaries (see the source) just like a state or country has. And if the settlement isn't notable in its own right then the ward doesn't require a separate article.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is about the place. Not the ward. One thing that is clear is that the ward is a completely different area to the place, so should not be handled in the same article.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article can still have facts about the ward, even if it excludes some of the settlement and thus is about both.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wards are not the same as census tracts (which are equivalent to the UK's output areas). Peter James (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment After some searching, I'm confident Castle Hill is a 1950s-era housing estate built as part of the post-war expansion of Ipswich. My understanding is those are rarely notable.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's what Suffolk Churches seems to imply, there is also this, the same appears to be the case for Chantry but that one appears to have more coverage.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  18:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk )  20:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Fails WP:GEO, the article is about the housing estate not the ward, so needs to pass gng and it doesn't. Szzuk (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I misread, the ward is legally recognised and it is populated, doesn't matter what is in the article really. I misunderstood because I assumed the ward would be called castle hill and dales or something similar because there is a nearby housing estate called the dales that is included in the ward - so we'd fall foul of naming conventions. But the ward is called just 'castle hill' - so no problem. Szzuk (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It can be an article about both - boundaries may be different, but these are not usually split into two articles, unless they are large enough places with significant differences in boundaries (cities with boundaries including other towns and rural areas) or are entirely different areas. Peter James (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like many basic articles, this is a valid topic; it could be expanded, e.g. referencing the castle (even though the article says there never was one, but see GENUKI Ipswich), or merging with the castle article.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  14:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NGEO as a populated, legally recognized place. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2018 (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.