Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clayton Wood


 * 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 delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Clayton Wood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be something personal from 2008 with no significant changes since then. There are no references and no reason for its notability. The two images are of extremely low quality and provide neither identification nor any reason for notability. It seems to me that it might merit a section and better image on Ireland Wood. I cannot see that it merits its own page. Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   00:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not seem to be a recognized place, therefore fails WP:GEOLAND. Searching does not turn up anything else, so also fails GNG. Satellite imagery shows the old quarry and no development - so it appears no housing development has occurred. I don't think it belongs in Ireland Wood since there are no sources and it is not clear if this area is within Ireland Wood. MB 04:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Named location which is covered in numerous geological journals. Andrew D. (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to establish notability by editing the article. I do not know that simply being a named place makes it notable.Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:5, Wikipedia's function includes that of a gazetteer. For this reason, all valid placenames should be blue links.  If the details are meagre, there will always be a higher-level geographical area to merge into and so, per our editing policy, we should always prefer this alternative to deletion.  In this case, there seems to be plenty to say about the topic.  I could expand the page but AFD is not cleanup and we must first dismiss this question of deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:5 does not say it is a gazetteer, it says it combines features of encylopedias, almanacs and gazetteers. There are many woods in Leeds: I do not believe that all the woods in the world each deserve a page.  According to WP:GEOLAND "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename to Clayton Wood (Yorkshire) (or a similarly specific term that meets the style guidelines), else delete. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The University of Leeds has a geology department, and thus journals in the library. I have searched the library (online) and other university libraries plus Google Scholar without finding anything other than a single mention of mushroom sample being taken there (British Mycological Society 1955) amongst other places. Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I have just browsed online from home and have done much better than that. My position remains that this place is quite notable and the page should be improved rather than deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you give just one citation to support your position? Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No claim made for notability. Fails WP:NGEO LK (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a location with no claim to notability. While AfD isn't cleanup, there's nothing at all precluding anyone who's found sources and claims to notability from adding these during the discussion, and I for one would happily revisit my opinion at such a time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:33, 19 May 2017 (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.