Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherfield


 * 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The result was Speedy keep its been withdrawn anyway and clear consensus to keep (non-admin closure).  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Netherfield

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

Unsourced and could not find anything of use online. Page is also declared as a disambiguation page, not sure why. TheManInTheBlackHat  (Talk)  16:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Man am I stupid, I could have swore I looked back at the page history. I'd like to withdraw this. TheManInTheBlackHat  (Talk)  21:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It is a dab page between different places called Netherfield? Red Jay (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Some weird stuff has been going on in the edit history today. It looks like an attempt was made to change this legitimate disambiguation page into an article relating to the East Sussex village called Netherfield, which is currently covered only in the Battle, East Sussex article, although the text in the article appeared to be garbled.  "Netherfield, East Sussex" is a legitimate potential article: I can put my hand on several sources which cover it, and it arguably "should" exist; but it needs to be at Netherfield, East Sussex and "Netherfield" needs to remain a disambiguation page.  Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!)  23:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment the dab page has already been restored, and I've also taken pity on the place and created a sourced stub for Netherfield, East Sussex instead of the unsourced content with which someone tried to hijack the dab page. Surprising to find that a village with a grade II* listed 1860 church, a school and two pubs hasn't had an article before - there may be a history of deletion somewhere but I couldn't find it. Pam  D  08:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: there is now no problem. The apparent problem was because a dab page had been hijacked: it's always worth having a quick look at the page history. Pam  D  09:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Always a good idea to read the edit history before nominating for deletion. This was a perfectly good disambiguation page before some IP started messing around with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2023 (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.