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.
This appears to be something personal from 2008 with no significant changes since then. There are no references and no reason for its notability. The two images are of extremely low quality and provide neither identification nor any reason for notability. It seems to me that it might merit a section and better image on
Ireland Wood. I cannot see that it merits its own page.
Chemical Engineer (
talk)
20:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not seem to be a recognized place, therefore fails
WP:GEOLAND. Searching does not turn up anything else, so also fails GNG. Satellite imagery shows the old quarry and no development - so it appears no housing development has occurred. I don't think it belongs in
Ireland Wood since there are no sources and it is not clear if this area is within Ireland Wood.
MB04:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:5, Wikipedia's function includes that of a
gazetteer. For this reason, all valid placenames should be blue links. If the details are meagre, there will always be a higher-level geographical area to merge into and so, per our
editing policy, we should always prefer this
alternative to deletion. In this case, there seems to be plenty to say about the topic. I could expand the page but
AFD is not cleanup and we must first dismiss this question of deletion.
Andrew D. (
talk)
16:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:5 does not say it is a gazetteer, it says it combines features of encylopedias, almanacs and gazetteers. There are many woods in Leeds: I do not believe that all the woods in the world each deserve a page. According to
WP:GEOLAND "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography."
Chemical Engineer (
talk)
16:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The
University of Leeds has a geology department, and thus journals in the library. I have searched the library (online) and other university libraries plus Google Scholar without finding anything other than a single mention of mushroom sample being taken there (British Mycological Society 1955) amongst other places.
Chemical Engineer (
talk)
17:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Well I have just browsed online from home and have done much better than that. My position remains that this place is quite notable and the page should be improved rather than deleted.
Andrew D. (
talk)
19:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as a location with no claim to notability. While AfD isn't cleanup, there's nothing at all precluding anyone who's found sources and claims to notability from adding these during the discussion, and I for one would happily revisit my opinion at such a time.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an04:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
This appears to be something personal from 2008 with no significant changes since then. There are no references and no reason for its notability. The two images are of extremely low quality and provide neither identification nor any reason for notability. It seems to me that it might merit a section and better image on
Ireland Wood. I cannot see that it merits its own page.
Chemical Engineer (
talk)
20:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not seem to be a recognized place, therefore fails
WP:GEOLAND. Searching does not turn up anything else, so also fails GNG. Satellite imagery shows the old quarry and no development - so it appears no housing development has occurred. I don't think it belongs in
Ireland Wood since there are no sources and it is not clear if this area is within Ireland Wood.
MB04:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:5, Wikipedia's function includes that of a
gazetteer. For this reason, all valid placenames should be blue links. If the details are meagre, there will always be a higher-level geographical area to merge into and so, per our
editing policy, we should always prefer this
alternative to deletion. In this case, there seems to be plenty to say about the topic. I could expand the page but
AFD is not cleanup and we must first dismiss this question of deletion.
Andrew D. (
talk)
16:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:5 does not say it is a gazetteer, it says it combines features of encylopedias, almanacs and gazetteers. There are many woods in Leeds: I do not believe that all the woods in the world each deserve a page. According to
WP:GEOLAND "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography."
Chemical Engineer (
talk)
16:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The
University of Leeds has a geology department, and thus journals in the library. I have searched the library (online) and other university libraries plus Google Scholar without finding anything other than a single mention of mushroom sample being taken there (British Mycological Society 1955) amongst other places.
Chemical Engineer (
talk)
17:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Well I have just browsed online from home and have done much better than that. My position remains that this place is quite notable and the page should be improved rather than deleted.
Andrew D. (
talk)
19:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as a location with no claim to notability. While AfD isn't cleanup, there's nothing at all precluding anyone who's found sources and claims to notability from adding these during the discussion, and I for one would happily revisit my opinion at such a time.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an04:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
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.