Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Nicolas Park


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

St Nicolas Park

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lacks any real notability, has no sources and covers just a housing area north of Nuneaton not really a suburb or anything. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Comment - It gets a couple of mentions in papers, although these are incidental. At least one incidental book mention as well. There may be more, because the name is reasonably common even with that spelling. I think I would like to research this one more but at this stage notability is not established. Counter this with WP:GEOLAND appears to favour allowing populated named locations though. Article needs a lot of work but it appears that there is enough for an encylopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is an OS settlement but could perhaps be redirected to Nuneaton if NN.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)*'
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - Mentioned in e.g. although not significant coverage. Nevertheless plenty of news and other coverage. Clearly is a district of Nuneaton, with associated history and community information. Churches are listed in a church directory, pubs get a mention in directories etc The article is in a poor state and I have templated it because of its failure to mention any sources, but it passed WP:GEOLAND. Sufficient sources very likely do exist to make an encyclopaedic article. Aplogies for not getting back to this one sooner. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep on the same basis - clearly a well known area per its use in local and national media (albeit the ever unreliable Daily Mail), I think it passes the second GEOLAND criterion. Waggers</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  13:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.