Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldorf Playing Fields


 * 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   No consensus. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Waldorf Playing Fields

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems to be a small local field with a tiny grassroots movement to save it. The only article on it other than the "save our fields" page is an article in a small local newspaper. --Seascic T/C 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Annette46 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It could make for a good article, but its too soon to tell for now. AGF and keep it.-- Bedford  Pray  03:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A prod tag was up, and for a week the editor didn't make any edits to the page. It seems unlikely that the only person to contribute to the article is going to do so. --Seascic T/C 04:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: No pages link to Waldorf Playing Fields. (links). My vote is extremely weak delete unless the page gets improved which it probably wont because as Seascic said, the original contributer seems to of abandoned the page. – Jerry  teps  04:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure I understand why some random playing fields somewhere should be notable enough for their own article ... at best, they should get a mention in the article for the locality, unless something special happened there. RayAYang (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful content into Hyde, Greater Manchester. --Deadly&forall;ssassin 08:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per RayAYang. It's hard to see just how this is suitably encyclopaedic. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- merging with the whole borough would lose its content in the description of a large area, but it might be merged with an article on a local neighbourhood. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested above or delete. Do not keep as an article. Getting lost in a larger article is not a reason to keep it as a separate article.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2008 (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.