Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxshott Woods


 * 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   merge to Oxshott Heath. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oxshott Woods

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * no references plus we don't need a page on every wood or forest in the world Warrior4321talkContribs 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * plenty of google results. if you add sources, keep, otherwise, delete. Peter Robinson Scott (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added two refs and associated information. I am sure there is more that others could find. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Oxshott Heath until it has reliable sources and grows to big for that article. Although the Heath article says the wood is in the Heath and the Woods article says the Woods are in the Heath!. If it is one article it can be sorted in time. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Oxshott Heath. The article has been improved, but it doesn't seem to have enough coverage in reliable sources to justify the existence of a separate article.  Oxshott Heath appears to be more notable, although the article is currently an unreferenced stub. — Snigbrook  14:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as above - a combined article would be better and just as easily found. Which one should be merged, or if a combined name used is up to the merger.Yobmod (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as above - I do not think we need a separate articel on every aspect of every piece of recreational countryside. I wonder whether both should not be merged to Esher Commons, but do not know the area enough to be qualified to comment.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 22 January 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.