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 redirect to Wellingborough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hemmingwell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources; so can't prove notability. In Memoriam A.H.H. ^{What, you egg?}. 22:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - a simple Google search brings up multiple articles about activities in this location. For example: this and this. Jmertel23 ( talk) 23:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Wellingborough as a categorized {{ R to related topic}}, (the script Sagittarius+ can be useful), the title is a valid search term. Sources exist, but I don't see there is material for a stand-alone article here. It is one of five wells of Wellingborough, none of the four other have stand-alone articles. Per WP:GEOLAND populated places without legal recognition such as subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it, if a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources. Sam Sailor 00:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 01:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I believe this should be kept so that more people can be aware of the neighborhoods in Wellingborough, however, this does stand alone meaning that an article should really be made for the other 4 wells of Wellingborough. I have come to my personal decision that this page should be kept up, however, it will need a lot more work put into it i.e history, population etc. -- Buntz06 ( talk) 20:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Buntz06 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply

  I have restored the above "keep" vote. Once other editors have mede comments in a discussion, we are not allowed to remove our previous comment. Editor can strike the comment per WP:REDACTED should they so wish. Sam Sailor 19:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I believe we should give the article time to develop. If it just stays like this for a few months after the AfD is closed, maybe a merge with Wellingborough would be a better idea. Jeff5102 ( talk) 09:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  Delete and move the contents to the Wellingborough-article. My intention was to allow the creator some time to expand the article, so that more sources could confirm the notability. However, if the creator prefers the article to be deleted, then that is all right with me too. Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, but what article creator prefers has no bearing here. And the title is a perfectly valid search term and therefor good for redirecting. Sam Sailor 19:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC) reply

  Comment : that might be true. However, my point was that I wanted to keep the article, so that the creator might have the chance and time to expand it. Now, since the creator has no interest in doing so, we'd better delete it. I have no objection to a redirect, though. Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 12:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Again, WP:GEOLAND: "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, ... etc. should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place" (my bolding).
  The two sources presented here are not verifiable evidence of notability on a level that warrents a standalone page.
  The argument that this does stand alone meaning that an article should really be made for the other 4 wells of Wellingborough sounds dubious; five small stubs doesn't make each other look less stub-ish. Sam Sailor 10:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or merge. Unfortunately we can't keep this unsourced article under WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND as it stands - my WP:BEFORE search brought up surprisingly little (youths getting shot, car thefts, and primary sources from the Wellingborough council.) WP:GEOLAND says: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. - including this information in the Wellingborough article would be the proper thing to do for this unsourced stub (possibly with the other four wells), unless other sources/other independent notability can be shown. SportingFlyer talk 15:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Would it be possible for me to delete this because I made it and I think it should be deleted? -- Buntz06 ( talk) 16:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply
  • User:Buntz06, if there was no disagreement about deletion yet, and the creator of the article agreed as you have now, then pretty much anyone could close the AFD. But here there have been "Keep" votes so that can't be done. Your opinion is a little bit more important than others, I think, because it means the rest of us can't hope for more development to come from the creator as sometimes happens, but this will have to be kept open further. AFDs are usually closed after about 7 days if there has been adequate discussion. -- Doncram ( talk) 16:44, 9 July 2018 (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.