Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sink estate


 * 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sink estate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article is a moderately recent pejorative buzzword that is only used by the UK Conservative party and allied newspapers to refer to poorer housing estates. Its contents can be divided into a) material already existing in the Housing estate article, b) non-neutral political opinion, c) unreferenced assertions.

Inasmuch, it meets the following "Reasons for deletion" set out in WP:Deletion_policy:

6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

7. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline

14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia Ordinary Person (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article could do with some more sources, but notability can be established from the Scholar hits alone - which also establish that the term has been used in an academic context since at least 1981. Kolbasz (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is useful sociology and suggestions for improving social housing in the article. The References section includes material from The Observer and The New Statesman which are both centre left, that shows it's not just a Conservative term. Nuggets of Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep term in wide use for over a decade and therefore unlikely to fall foul of WP:NEO. Artw (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is not in a good shape, but that is not a reason to delete it. I have added a few sources, and it is not hard to find news pieces regularly using the term in political discussions (eg:, , ) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:40, 20 January 2016 (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.