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.
Does not meet
WP:N in its own right per
WP:UKPLACES. Not even mentioned in expansive recent works such as the London Plan which names some very borderline areas such as Nags Head in the heart of fairly tiny Holloway as London places but which have a market or something more notable. Not all sub-neighbourhoods and subsets of streets meet
WP:N... -
Adam37Talk19:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Withdrawn by nominator see details below.reply
I think you misapprehend the relationship of this article, which is on the outskirts of London, England, and the
Battle of Crooked Billet, which took place in Pennsylvania, U.S. Or maybe I've misunderstood your intent? Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)02:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I was saying that if we don't keep the place in London or redirect it to a parent article, then the redirect should be restored to the US battle. However its looking like a keep anyway. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
19:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep:
WP:UKPLACES, cited by the nominator, is a guideline on naming conventions for places in the UK. It has nothing to do with assessing their notability. The applicable guideline here is
WP:GEOLAND, which the article clearly passes. SITH(talk)21:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article now includes two independent
WP:RS citations specifically about the place: titles, "Crooked Billet" and "Crooked Billet, Merton". That alone is enough to satisfy
WP:GNG.
Narky Blert (
talk)
10:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep but keep UK cities/towns policy under review; for areas with fewer than 200 self-identifying residents one has to maintain a sense of an article Section (sometimes) of the usually given parent place as being perfectly suitable.-
Adam37Talk14:22, 12 January 2019 (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.
Does not meet
WP:N in its own right per
WP:UKPLACES. Not even mentioned in expansive recent works such as the London Plan which names some very borderline areas such as Nags Head in the heart of fairly tiny Holloway as London places but which have a market or something more notable. Not all sub-neighbourhoods and subsets of streets meet
WP:N... -
Adam37Talk19:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Withdrawn by nominator see details below.reply
I think you misapprehend the relationship of this article, which is on the outskirts of London, England, and the
Battle of Crooked Billet, which took place in Pennsylvania, U.S. Or maybe I've misunderstood your intent? Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)02:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)reply
I was saying that if we don't keep the place in London or redirect it to a parent article, then the redirect should be restored to the US battle. However its looking like a keep anyway. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
19:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep:
WP:UKPLACES, cited by the nominator, is a guideline on naming conventions for places in the UK. It has nothing to do with assessing their notability. The applicable guideline here is
WP:GEOLAND, which the article clearly passes. SITH(talk)21:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article now includes two independent
WP:RS citations specifically about the place: titles, "Crooked Billet" and "Crooked Billet, Merton". That alone is enough to satisfy
WP:GNG.
Narky Blert (
talk)
10:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep but keep UK cities/towns policy under review; for areas with fewer than 200 self-identifying residents one has to maintain a sense of an article Section (sometimes) of the usually given parent place as being perfectly suitable.-
Adam37Talk14:22, 12 January 2019 (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.