Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havannah, Cheshire




 * 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. As noted, there is no criteria for deletion of a verifiably existing populated place based on it being of little note. BD2412 T 22:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Havannah, Cheshire

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject does not need a Wikipedia article due to the village being of very little note. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's actually a couple of paragraphs of additional content that could be taken from the source alone, and it's not just the one source that this is in.  The entirety of the "Eaton" entry in  is in fact about Havannah.   is about Havannah and cites its archive sources.  This place is in the history books.  The whole "deserted village" thing is misleading and an appellation from the turn of the 20th century such as by  and the photograph caption mentioned in the article.  For much of its life, per the histories, it evidently was not. Uncle G (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Has clearly been a populated place, see eg https://www.congletonhydro.co.uk/the-project/site-history/ Pam  D  06:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep it has some sources though may not have been legally recognized and isn't in the Domesday Book.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. "the village being of very little note" is not a criterion for deletion, as it is entirely subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep it has some sources though may not have been legally recognized and isn't in the Domesday Book.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. "the village being of very little note" is not a criterion for deletion, as it is entirely subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2022 (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.