Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soho walk up


 * 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) Kraxler (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Soho walk up

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unrelated sources. Eat me, I&#39;m a red bean (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The article does not contravene any of the policies and guidelines listed as reasons to delete an article. All statements are factual and all cite references contain reinvent material to back up the statements. There an no unrelated sources. A Soho walk up is an entity that people discuss and visit and it is therefore something that one would expect to be able to find out about in an encyclopaedia. A simple Google of the subject quickly demonstrates its existence and that it is a part of London culture. For all of the above reasons I reject this call for deletion.--Timnic (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that as well as being factual, the article's subject has to be notable.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't understand the nominator's sole argument of "unrelated sources". Each of the five references at the time of nomination appear relevant. (It does concern me that some are from people's blogs so would fail WP:RS, but I think that's a side issue.) As User:Timnic (NB: the originator of the article) pointed out, Google searches do indicate the concept of a walk-up exists, and although I feel such results are on the weak side as sources, my feeling is the subject has some inherent notability.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering whether the article should be renamed. First, perhaps there ought to be a hyphen in "walk up". Second, presumably walk-ups exist elsewhere in England. So maybe it should be renamed simply "walk-up".--A bit iffy (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)--A bit iffy (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  11:03, 7 September 2015 (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.