Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thatto Heath


 * 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The result was withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thatto Heath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has been here for six years and still has only a single source, that one is for a school and not the subject itself. All the content appears to be OR. I think the topic may not be notable. MY PROD was deleted because the originator was minimally involved so others should have been notified as well, there are many articles like this on Wikipedia and why pick on this one, and Wikipedia policy was looser when this article was started so it should be excused. None of these objections address notability or policy. Joja lozzo  15:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I was the editor who removed the Proposed Deletion template. That an article is poorly referenced or may contain a certain amount of irrelevant material is grounds for improving the article, not for deleting it.  The nominator's grounds for the proposed deletion appeared to be uncertainty about whether the subject was notable: I would assert that Thatto Heath's status as a ward of the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens  make it a "Populated, legally-recognized place" under WP:GEOLAND, and therefore it passes the notability guidelines for geographical places.
 * Besides, my remarks linked to above still stand: (i) notifying an editor who created a stub article over six years ago and never touched it again does not appear to be appropriate, given that a number of other editors have worked on the article in the mean time; (ii) despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the precedent of there being many other similar articles which this nominator hasn't proposed for deletion suggests that the rules are being applied indiscriminately; (iii) one should not expect that articles written in the early days of Wikipedia when the rules were less strict to conform to modern standards. If they don't, then if the subject is notable enough, they should be improved, not deleted.  --RFBailey (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (i) You were automatically notified as a result of posting the prod template. Notifying the originator is standard practice. If you think others should be notified you can do that. (ii) I happened to notice the poor quality of this article. That means I am applying policy carefully not the opposite. (iii) If we decide to keep this, then we should remove the unsourced content and revert it to a stub with the basics (e.g. "a ward of the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens "). Just because content is there doesn't mean its worth keeping. It's verifiable sources, at a minimum, that make something worth keeping. Joja  lozzo  18:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Notifying the originator is standard practice"---yes, in cases where the article is new or where the orignator is the editor who has done most of the work. As for (iii), why not improve the article yourself rather than starting deletion discussions?  --RFBailey (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: the poor quality of the article is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for improvement. The wiki has an informal style, but that's easily remedied. Revert to stub and the verified content. For development, Thatto Heath should really pick up on its historical notability. It was home to some of the earliest coal mining and tableware / plate glass foundries with links to the historic Leafe family, Scottish Industrialist John Mackay (of the Parys Mines and the British Plate Glass Foundry) and John Henzy. Koncorde (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination: I am convinced the topic is notable and the lack of sources is due to relaxed standards (which we are told is endemic to articles in the category of small English places). I've reverted it to a stub and it's ready to be expanded. As far as I'm concerned we can close this now but it will probably have to wait the normal seven day AFD run unless an admin notices it sooner. Joja  lozzo  04:33, 9 January 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.