Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Teds Nursery


 * 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. A bit of IAR here. I note a consensus to merge, however the material already exists at the merge target, and I am highly reluctant to leave a redirect from a business name that was really another victim Kevin (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Little Teds Nursery

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Contested PROD. Original rationale was, "Little Teds Nursery is not notable in itself. This article is just a WP:Coatrack for a child abuse case, that also does not seem to have wikipedia notability." SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per original PROD, (as original PRODer). This article is not about the nursery, but about the crimes that took place there, and is thus a WP:COATRACK. Little teds nursery is not notable in itself. If the original author wishes to create an article about the crimes, then it should stand on its own merits. Note also Articles for deletion/Vanessa George, an article about one of the people involved has also been deleted. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, total coatrack article. The nursery isn't notable; the crimes probably are. One of these days I'll get around to writing an article about them. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I feel we should have an article on the crimes themselves, even if we don't have one about Little Teds Nursery, as the case has been very notable. Rapido (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - if someone were to start an article on the crimes, we could merge and redirect this one to it; else, delete. Lady  of  Shalott  21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very much a stub at the moment. 2009 Plymouth child abuse case. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - by all means, merge and redirect to that article. Lady  of  Shalott  03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Lady  of  Shalott  21:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 2009 Plymouth child abuse case. Rapido (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a winner to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as previous contributors. The nursery is only notable for that event.  Otherwise (one hopes) it is as NN as 1000s of others.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked and could find no mention of it in reliable sources outside this case. The only other mentions on the web are in web directories or council websites. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge If there's anything in the article not already in the Plymouth article, though it loooks like there's not much to merge. Nice catch Rapido.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * MergeSeems a bit sickening to have such an innocent name as a redirect to a child abuse case but it is all over the web so it is the correct thing to do. Polargeo (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2009 (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.