Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rectory Square


 * 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. Whether to redirect, and where to, is a separate matter and up to editors.  Sandstein  20:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Rectory Square

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as it is about a residential street in London with no notable buildings, events or residents. No google hits other than property for sale etc. Baldy Bill  ( sharpen the razor &#124; see my reflection ) 00:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - yeah, it's basically a small residential community centred around a "loop" (the street of the same name) and a side-street that doesn't seem to have a name. I'm not sure that it rises to the level of a populated settlement (the likes of which are generally considered notable). It might be considered a sub-suburb (of sorts) by local real estate agents but that's probably not enough, unless someone can substantiate that anyone official considers it a separate suburb. Stalwart 111  05:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no evidence that it's a neighbourhood, only a street and a square. One of the buildings there is notable (the former East London Synagogue) but the street doesn't appear to be, unless additional coverage can be found in sources not available online, and the only verifiable information in the article is its location. Peter&#160;James (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Stepney Green. It's a street, not a place so it can't be given a free pass at notability per WP:NPLACE. Nevertheless, a google search for "Rectory Square" brings up primarily sources for this street (mostly property related), so it's a valid search term. AFAIK every hit in the first four pages was to do with this. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Validity of a search term on a property site is no indication that it's suitable for an encyclopedia. If it was, it would be reasonable to have disambiguation links to other streets with the name, as although not primary topics they would be equally valid due to mentions on the same or similar sites. There is also no mention of the street in the Stepney Green article. It's possible that it could be, but Rectory Square is as likely to be mentioned in the New Quay article - it's where the church pictured in that article (but not mentioned in the text) is located. Peter&#160;James (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean it's a valid search term on Wikipedia. You don't need to get to the same level of notability for a redirect, you just need the term covered somewhere such that it is correctly sourced to belong in some article. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   12:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Search results can be explained by the number of properties for sale or rent advertised on property sites. What makes this Rectory Square a valid search term? Are the others? Peter&#160;James (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has redirects all over the place. Have a look for them. And property sites are reliable sources, just that they show a property exists, rather than is notable, so we don't use them for articles, but can validate the existence of something in another. But the basic litmus test is, "would you expect someone to type 'Rectory Square' into Wikipedia". I think you would. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "would you expect someone to type 'Rectory Square' into Wikipedia" - the existence of Rectory Square in London doesn't make the others less valid search terms, and if all that's required is evidence of existence should there be a disambiguation page for this (and for any other ambiguous street name)? Peter&#160;James (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2013 (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.