Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silverknowes

 ''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 of the debate was Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator and nobody has advocated deletion. kingboyk 23:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Silverknowes and many others that are Edinburgh related
Delete Non-notable. Really, why must there be individual articles for these? Ned Scott 07:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above: Jock's Lodge, Gogarloch, South Gyle railway station, Bonaly, Burdiehouse, Wester Broom, Pilton, Edinburgh, Powderhall, Drumbrae, Piershill, Fernieside, Craigcrook, Blackhall, Edinburgh, Trinity, Edinburgh, Mortonhall, Murrayfield, Longstone.
 * I'd be willing to support a merge if someone can make a reasonable argument for it. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all in principle. Place and railway station articles are automatically acceptable. Though in this case some merging may be advisable. I would suggest a criterion of one article for each postal district (but not, please not with a title of EHx!). For example we already have Meadowbank, Edinburgh which is EH8 so Jock's Lodge should be merged with that. -- RHaworth 08:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all. These are inherantly notable and verifiable, though as above, some should be merged &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  09:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all, parts of towns and cities are often far better populated and far more notable than many small villages, but for some reason villages don't seem to get AFD'd. I too have misgivings about a lot of geographical place articles, but it does seem rather unfair to single out Edinburgh. Given time and research, all of these topics have the potential to be good additions to the encyclopaedia. I for one would be very interested to know about the history, topography and demographics of each of these places. (Declaration of interest: I am from Edinburgh; but then so are nearly half a million other people, so there is a potential readership out there.) --Mais oui! 09:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all, places such as these are beyond the usual subjective nominations and debates appropriate for AfD. Interested parties with local knowledge will expand, merge etc. as appropriate.  Dei zio  09:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all. These are all verifiable and merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Many of these Edinburgh suburbs were distinct villages in their own right with significant history. Per comments above, over time they will come to be expanded into decent articles - Colinton is a good example (compare to original stub). That many are stubs right now is not sufficient grounds for deletion. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  09:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Deizio. Death Eater Dan    [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] ( Muahaha ) 09:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Cactus.man although I'm not quite as optimistic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We'd be keeping these by default if they were still individual villages; it seems odd to delete them because they've grown! They all have potential for expansion - Marchmont or Merchiston are decent examples - and they're more definite areas than it might at first seem; Edinburgh is more clearly divided in this regard than many UK cities, IME. Shimgray | talk | 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To follow through on my above comment - the only reason for nominating these seems to be that they're stubs. Areas of exactly comparable importance with fleshed-out articles seem to be acceptable - but the notability of something, and the suitability for an article, should be somewhat independent of what's currently been written. Shimgray | talk | 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as per above. Joelito 15:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Cactus.man and Angus McLellan. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 18:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all. The notability varies, but some are definitely notable. --MacRusgail 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

With this much support I have more faith that these articles really do have a future. When I was looking at the edit histories of some of them and saw they basically had creation and a stub edit, I was a bit worried. Silverknowes in particular got to me when the only thing it said about the place was that it had a golf course. But if this many Wikipedians really believe these articles have a future, then I have no problem with the articles. Is there a way to retract my nominations or something? It's doubtful that we'd have to wait a week to see the end results. -- Ned Scott 19:54, 16 April 2006 (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.