Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarawood


 * 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 00:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarawood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable housing estate, Most sources don't even mention Clarawood and most are completely unrelated anyway, The creator has also admitted they're a resident of the estate which explains why most of the article is written as someones opinion, All in all IMHO the article should be blown up and started from scratch. (An an aside I was asked by an editor on what I thought of the article and to be nice I originally suggested AFC but we both agree AFD is the better option, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 17:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarawood123 also has alot of WP:OWNership issues with the article, As I said above IMHO the entire article should be deleted and rewritten by a neutral editor regardless of the sources (and perhaps notability). – Davey 2010 Talk 22:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I would say Keep, however User:Clarawood123 reverts everyone elses edits when they try to improve the article. There may also be a notability issue. I will still try to improve the article over this AfD period. CDRL102 (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Ah I assumed you wanted it deleted, In that case would you prefer If I instead moved it your sandbox or whatever? – Davey 2010 Talk 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For now we can do that then, if I can't improve it we can re-open AfD/request deletion? CDRL102 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie I'll move it over, Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 18:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Discussion reopened and relisted per Deletion review/Log/2016 March 30.  Sandstein  07:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The article Clarawood was created and written by me in February and had been active with some minor edits etc for some weeks. User:CDRL102, who as mentioned in other comments has a history of unwelcome and unnecessary edits to various pages, then made a huge sweeping cut in the article adding tags for referencing and notability etc. User:Davey2010 then, in direct response to an ask br CDRL, listed it for deletion. This was already after some discussion by myself on talk pages and after I added info to the page making them also aware that further info could be added. The AfD was closed after an hour with contributions from only these 2 and before I even knew it was listed or had an opportunity to participate, nevermind the fact it is supposed to sit open for a week anyway. It was userfied and the article was moved to CDRL's sandbox and the page Clarawood was then speedy deleted by another admin User:Malcolmxl5. I asked them to reinstate it and there was some discussion. I then listed a deletion review and as a result an admin has reinstated a Clarawood page and listed it again AfD. It should be noted by anyone paticipating in this that the AfD as listed here is simply the identical one from before with which I had major problems and have already had substantial discussions on with everyone involved. Anyone participating in this AfD, in my view, would be well served by ensuring they read the full breadth of those discussions on the Clarawood talk page, the original AfD and the deletion review, Davey2010's talk, CDRL102's talk and Malcolmxl5's page. Articles are open for editing whilst AfD. Now Clarawood is back as a page - whether temporarily or not - I am editing it back to the form it was in at 21.21 on 22nd March 2016. The article as it now stands, which was in the form edited by CDRL102, is factually incorrect which demonstrates their lack of knowledge and expertise in dealing with the subject. I will also add a note to the Clarawood talk page and I will be expanding the General Reference section over the next day or two which should satisfy any detractors that the article is not referenced or the subject non-notable. In short the article as I will amend and edit it now should be a Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarawood123 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign Clarawood123 (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and allow development, and revisit in a year. Factors are:
 * The article is the main work in Wikipedia so far by a new contributor, and deleting it outright is unnecessary and offensive
 * There's no emergency: there are no wp:BLP issues and the article is factual and harming no one
 * A neighborhood or housing development or planned commmunity of 600 homes is often/usually valid as a topic in Wikipedia.
 * That said, the current version is not written in encyclopedic style. It already has too many unimportant details, perhaps added to make it seem like a valid article, in the eyes of newer editors.  (This is natural, many/most new editors' first contributions are this way, c.f. hundreds of too-detailed articles about college dormitories such as Towers Hall, another article at AFD.)
 * It's not worth turning this contributor away; it's not worth pages and pages of arguments either way
 * To the new contributor: go ahead and develop it, but please try not to use so much detail.  Different issues of the same annual publication are not really very independent sources.  Sourcing is good to have, but detailed sourcing is not needed for factual matters unless they are contested, and no one is saying the development doesn't have the number of whatevers that the article says it has.  Please ask other editors to review it and make suggestions.  If you haven't already please go to your public library and get help with sources about the area.  Many libraries keep clippings files.  I encourage the new contributor to please take a look at other articles in Category:Neighborhoods, Category:Planned communities, Category:Housing developments and the like, find some that are good and emulate them (does anyone have specific good examples?)
 * I encourage the new contributor to edit in other articles and participate in Wikipedia processes like wp:AFD about other articles for a while. It's easier to learn by working in areas that are not important to you.
 * Don't anyone have a cow and let's just put this on the back burner to return to a year from now, when the article will be better and when small things won't matter as much. I am willing to put it into my calendar to return to this 365 days after this is closed, and others can calendarize it too.
 * -- do ncr  am  18:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I tried to edit a bit back in March, in order to make the article more Manual of Style-compliant, but got reverted. Looking at the page history, others seem to have experienced similar situations. While there is not much wrong with an article about a neighbourhood like Clarawood as a WP:GEOFEAT, I do advise the page creator to act less as if one WP:OWNs the article. Some have more knowledge about Clarawood, others are more experienced in creating the Wikipedia looks; working together is what results in good encyclopedic articles. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: As I have also said above, I would like to Keep this article too and make it more Wikipedia acceptable, however User:Clarawood123 has taken a WP:OWNs feeling to the page meaning when I and other editors do change it, it gets reverted back. CDRL102 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking here,, we can see the article has been restored to the way User:Clarawood123 had it, without essentially any other input. CDRL102 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment As previously discussed in other places the suggestion that I have simply reverted every edit made to the Clarawood page by other editors is frankly untrue. I learnt from Hypergaruda and others about fair use photo protocols on Wikipedia and there were a number of other edits. I did revert a number of edits however and I gave my reasons for doing so using Wikipedia Guidelines as my reference - I did not just reject what people did or try to keep things "my way". One of the main reasons for reverting some things was that these edits, especially that done by User:CDRL102, were more about a matter of the editor's personal preference on how a page should look or sound rather than any actual benefit. Indeed CDRL102's edit removed very substantial portions of information and facts. The article had also been tagged as non-notable and unreferenced. Both these assertions were untrue as I have previously argued and demonstrated using Wiki Guidelines. However I have now expanded the General Reference section substantially to satisfy any concerns in this area. Regarding the so-called encyclopaedic style - various Wiki Guidelines are very clear that articles ought to be written in a style accessible to any reader and find a balance between info for the expert or for the casual peruser. They should also be written in plain neutral language and this is what I did on Clarawood. The United Nations, the European Union and many other groups view human settlements and habitations, including the local neighbourhood, through a filter of Sustainable Development typified by the three strands of environment, society and economy. Therefore I sought to write the article with this in mind. An encyclopaedia is defined as a collection of knowledge and generally they try to be comprehensive. Usually an article will be written by an expert on the particular subject and if it is a subject where there are likely to be updates then that person is expected to do this in a timely manner ie regularly. Articles are not usually changed or edited significantly without the orginal writer's participation or an open discussion first. In the case of Wikipedia it is a free online version and the community editing allows anyone to edit. However it is clear from various Wiki Guidelines and policies again that edits should be constructive. Simply because everyone is able to edit does not mean that everyone should be editing or that all edits are constructive, Assume Good Faith notwithstanding. It would be normal according to Guidelines for major stakeholders in an article eg the original writer to keep an eye on their creation. That is not ownership or acting like an owner however it is good stewardship and responsible editing. In cases where there is a difference of opinion on style or whatever it is also in the Guidelines that the style chosen by the original writer or editor should be adopted. I wrote the article to be a balanced summary of the breadth of information about Clarawood delivered in a concise but comprehensive way and understandable to anyone. Numerous things have been omitted but those included are all included for a reason. Many editors seem to think that Wikipedia articles must be written simply as an abolutely cut back version of whatever information they can find online about the subject. This is not correct according to the Guidelines and I think the Clarawood article, unlike CDRL102's opinion, is more than "Wikipedia acceptable". I thank the editor above for their comments but I must also observe that their advice to visit a library and look for info seems to be a mistake. The publications listed as references on the Clarawood page are held in one of the biggest libraries in the country, the Public Records Office of Northern Ireland which is part of the UK National Archives, and they are the detailed original source for many of the encyclopaedic facts on the page and the particular citations were added due to people saying the General Reference wasn't enough. Clarawood123 (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I have just looked through the revision history and you have clearly undone a lot of decent edit without giving a proper reason. Also you new comment certainly seem to show that you are very possessive over this work, which honestly I don't believe is very wikipedia appropriate. I don't understand what you mean when you talk about being a "stakeholder".&#42;Treker (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And they've literally just done it again. - unbelievable. CDRL102 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - I've reverted back to where Sandstein had moved it, If she keeps it up she's gonna end up blocked ... which would be a lovely thing actually... – Davey 2010 Talk 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC) (Self reverted. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC))
 * That link shows nothing of value to me. The article isn't the issue, your attitude towards it is. It shouldn't be deleted but something should be done about your behaviour. You keep claiming that you're not doing what you're doing but it is clearly disprovable. The article is not suited for wikipedia in this condition and I believe the other editor are trying to fix that.&#42;Treker (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My behaviour? What have I done? CDRL102 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Acting very possessive and behaving as if you own the article. You think you know better than everyone else. Other people are trying to improve the article and instead of letting them you want to have it your way, which in turn has made the piece less than what it should be. This is clearly a pet project of yours and no one is enjoying your attitude about it. I completely believe if you let others cooperate more with you on this the article would become much better instead of what it is now. I also doubt you are capable of looking at this completely objectively since you are so over-invested in it so I wouldn't trust your judgment about what should be included in the article and what not. Right now it's also pretty lacking in sources for its length, some of it should probably be cut.&#42;Treker (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you've confused me with User:Clarawood123. I'm the one who tried to cut the stuff but was reverted. CDRL102 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry. I was trying to respond to her before but you must have commented before me and I didn't keep track. I take to long writing my comments sometimes. Sorry.&#42;Treker (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment For the information of any participants in this AfD User:Davey2010 has deleted comments off the Clarawood talk page in which I explained why I reverted the latest edit by User:CDRL102. I have, in fact, explained and discussed anything I have done either on the talk pages or in the AfD or in the Deletion Review and have provided examples of relevant Guidelines etc. I have now been accused of disruptive editing by Davey2010 (along with his deletion of Talk page items). This is quite simply not true and I will be reporting my concerns over this to ANI. It should be noted that Davey2010 has already been demonstrated to have closed an AfD for the Clarawood page out of process which is why it was restored and that the consensus so far seems very clearly to be a keep. This latest so called "problem" with my editing behaviour results from CDRL102 removing the majority of the opening statement on the page asserting that it was simply an opinion. As I commented very clearly on the talk page - but it has been deleted by Davey2010 - that is absolutely untrue it is a matter of published fact and was referenced. I am being accused of being a disruptive editor and failing to understand that CDRL102 is trying to make the page better. The reality is that CDRL102 removed a referenced fact without justification - or discussion - and in doing so demonstrated that their own actions were exactly what they were accusing me of - opinion not fact. I am not bothering to revert Davey2010's edit to the Talk page, I will let the ANI process run first. I am also not bothering to discuss it with Davey2010 on his page as he does not seem open to rational discussion on anything but instead seems to act as he pleases - including the deletion of talk comments in order to cover up the fact that what I did was more than justified but that he and CDRL102 have a joint mission to make me out to be a fool. By the way I am not female and I would appreciate not being referred to as "she". Clarawood123 (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep, but only if User:Clarawood123 agrees not to revert other users in the future. Otherwise, delete as being waste of time for the people involved. LK (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I would like to thank the various participants for their advice and guidance. It seems that I am being portrayed as someone who simply just reverts everything for the sake of it because I am new and unwilling to learn. This is not the truth. It also seems that those who have supported this position have taken others' comments at face value and have not checked into the history of any edits or reversions I have done or the comments I made to support those. At present following the latest edits to the Clarawood page by various editors over the last day or so it is in a state where it is factually innaccurate from the very first line of the infobox, is misreferenced throughout and is in breach of copyright as legally required statements for the attribution of multiple references have been deleted. I am not going to edit it or revert it as I will only be accused - as I have been already - of ownership etc...all I can say is that if correcting mistakes, ensuring information is factual and ensuring that material is referenced is wrong then I am happy to be wrong. Hopefully someone with a bit of sense and gravitas will look into this Clarawood123 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then update the population if you think it's wrong. 86.130.124.145 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agreed with LK, keep and develop as long as Clarawood123 doesn't take a WP:OWN approach. 86.130.124.145 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't see anything particularly problematic here, and certainly not something that warrants deletion. In general, the "Non notable housing estate" is a contradiction in terms when it comes to UK articles, since even a small council estate will generally be a major population centre in its own right, and the existence of reliable sources can be presumed for any estate even if nothing shows up online since estates by their nature generate regular press coverage (especially in NI, where the Assembly sends out a breathless press release every time the public sector does absolutely anything). I don't see how Clarawood is inherently any more problematic than Noel Park, a council estate which went all the way to FA. &#8209; Iridescent 21:17, 14 April 2016 (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.