Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsh Lane (Longton)


 * 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. This is a straightforward application of WP:V: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The article is still entirely unsourced and nobody on the "keep" side has cited any sources, except Colonel Warden, who however only supplies the name of two sources, without citations or any information about the nature of the sources or the level of coverage.  Sandstein  06:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Marsh Lane (Longton)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not appear to be a particularly notable road. The "attractions" listed are fairly mundane, and the article has no sources cited. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * &hellip; and the actual encyclopaedic subject, documented in sources with these pubs and marshes beside it, that I found with about five minutes' reading, is the Ribble Way. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:MILL. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an essay. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's a good principle for sorting the substantial coverage from the trivial coverage that I agree with. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Condemning topics as trivial is an expression of opinion which is contrary to core policy. The relevant guideline is that of notability which tells us that we should instead see whether third-party authors have noticed the topic.  And they have. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, more accurately, the general notability guideline requires signficant coverage. Footnote 1 refer to, namely, "The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice". That is an example of third-party author noting the topic without qualifying for notability. I'm happy to discuss how much coverage is needed to qualify as significant, but it's more than a third-party author merely "noticing" it. And I fail to see which bit of WP:NPOV forbids people from expressing opinions about notability of wikipedia articles on project pages, but that's another matter. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In light of Uncle G's findings I suppose we could just redirect it to Ribble Way as it is apparently part of that route. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable at all.  Dough 48  72  03:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncle G has refuted this above. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it has. All I found in the Ribble Way article was a mention of Longton as the start of the path. (Okay, Wiki article don't count towards notability themselves but they can give clues to where the coverage is.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The did exactly that.  It has a further reading section, and two of the potential sources listed there mention the Dolphin Inn and Longton Marsh (and indeed several things that this article does not) in relation to the Ribble Way. On that note, notice that this article has erroneous content.  The Ribble Way is not 20 miles long, as this article claims.  Sources disagree as to the exact length, possibly because the route has been altered, but they all put it at over 110km. I encourage U.K. editors with access to these books to help Senra with the improvements to the Ribble Way article. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to expect posters to deletion discussion to do quick search for sources, but I cannot be reasonably expected to check every book in a further reading list in a different article that might mention the subject. Anyway, I found a mention on the second book on Google Books, but the only coverage I found was an instruction to walk along this road as part of the directions for walking along the Ribble Way. I don't think it's workable to have a wiki article for every road a long-distance happens to follow. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can, however, be expected to find "clues to where the coverage is" in the references and further reading sections of an article pointed to as "the actual encyclopaedic subject, documented in sources with these pubs and marshes beside it". Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Longton, Lancashire. It will be better that the content be used to enhance another article, rather than being deleted out of hand.  Merely redirecting was lose WP some useful (if mundane) information.  Ribble Way is not structured such that the information can be added.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is documented in sources such as The story of proud Preston and A History of Preston in Amounderness.  Just another article in need of improvement per out editing policy.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How much coverage is there of this specific road in these sources? There might be a case for historical notability if the coverage is substantial, but I'd want something more specific than "documented". Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough coverage that deletion is not a sensible option. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tried finding the relevant text in Google Books, doesn't seem to be available. By all means say what the coverage is, but I want to see it for myself and make up my own mind, rather than take instruction on whether coverage I haven't seen is enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per colonel and Uncle G, sourcing it is easy, almost as easy as putting it up for deletion. Okip  00:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it peculiar that my initial statement is being used as a basis for argument about this subject. Whilst this discussion has been proceeding, I've been working on Ribble Way, the subject that I found the sources talking about.  I haven't read either of the books cited by Colonel Warden, above. Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I found that odd too, but when the radical inclusionist mob has their eye on an article or has decided that a particular user is their enemy logic and reason take a back seat, all that matters is completing the "rescue." Claiming things and not backing them up, attacking the nominator, using policies as weapons to try and stifle debate, making vague allusions to sources without being clear about where they are or what they actually say, canvassing their allies to jump on board and join a discussion on their side, all in a days work. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Is a short, run-of-the-mill road with mostly residential houses. The landmarks this article lists here are also run-of-the-mill and not notable, making this article more like a directory. Sebwite (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2010 (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.