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 delete and redirect to Castleknock. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

This article replicates almost entirely the content of St Thomas the Apostle parish, Laurel Lodge while not even referring to the latter in its content. It is about an informal, ill-defined district or collection of housing estates. There is no authority to decide which estates are included or not. No citations in the article define the limits of the district. The area is probably co-terminous with the area of the Catholic parish. No part of the district is situated outside the parish. Most of the photographs used in the article were taken by me because I know the district well. Any info that the article contains that is not in the parish article can be easily folded into the latter. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I didn't get any of the information (bar some of the photos) for the new page from the Laurel Lodge parish page. Similar to how Darndale is a part of Coolock but is big enough to merit it's own page on Wikipedia I think that Laurel Lodge is big enough to merit it's own page. Darren J. Prior ( talk) 00:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. Prior Darren J. Prior ( talk) 00:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

You will struggle to find any sources that refer to Laurel Lodge as a field, prior to the housing developements. You will find it even harder to find sources to define its current boundaries. Without sources, I don't see how there can be an article. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 07:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I intended it to be a stub. Darren J. Prior ( talk) 08:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. Prior Darren J. Prior ( talk) 08:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't see any reason why it can't stay. There are very similar pages for similar sub residential areas on Wikipedia -e.g. Edenmore which is really part of Raheny would be a very similar example. The article on the parish of St Thomas the Apostle parish, Laurel Lodge seems to contain a lot information relating to the residential area and not relating to the Parish but failing that if you cannot manage to get the residential area page to at least stub level with some reliable references then it should probably be deleted and the parish page left as is. Financefactz ( talk) 08:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks Financefactz. :) Darren J. Prior ( talk) 09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. Prior Darren J. Prior ( talk) 09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I would actually go as far as to say that Edenmore should be used as the template for the Laurel Lodge page. Financefactz ( talk) 08:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The Edenmore page is flagged as "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.". It will probably be deleted soon as it replicates Raheny to an unreasonable degree IMHO. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The Edenmore page was created in 2008 so I don't think it is going to be deleted. I actually agree with you Laurel Lodged that the format of that page does not look good as (although I don't know the area) it doesn't seem to merit such specific headings, for information that could be fitted into one or two paragraphs. Darren J. Prior ( talk) 09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. Prior Darren J. Prior ( talk) 09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The Irish language version of Wikipedia Vicipéid has loads of stubs a lot of which are only a sentence long. Darren J. Prior ( talk) 09:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. Prior Darren J. Prior ( talk) 09:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Is there a way to get more people to determine whether this page merits staying? I am intending to do a (which will probably be a bit shorter) stub for Carpenterstown also and I would rather know if I am going to run into the same difficulty. (After Carpenterstown I don't imagine creating anymore stubs for residential areas). Darren J. Prior ( talk) 09:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. Prior Darren J. Prior ( talk) 09:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

It isn't so much the merit of having or not having a page. Almost anything is worthy of a page as long as it is not seen to be an advertisement for a business or person and can be seen to be notable. It is the following points

• It does not seem to have a clear definition. What is the page about? Is it a townland (it isn't) is it a housing estate (it isn't), is it a group of housing estates and if so why are they being grouped together?
• It is not cited to a satisfactory degree or anywhere close to a satisfactory degree
• It seems to cover a lot of the same information as another page
  

Financefactz ( talk) 12:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

It is about a housing estate- a big housing estate. I don't think the local Catholic Church parish Wikipedia page merits being the only Wikipedia page about the estate. If the estate was a small estate I wouldn't have created a page about it. Darren J. Prior ( talk) 03:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. Prior Darren J. Prior ( talk) 03:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I realise the Edenmore page is far from perfect. I was really referring to the fact that it is residential district somewhere between a suburb and an estate and the tone, content and description could be a good basis from which to work off here. Financefactz ( talk) 12:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Can the delete notification be taken off it now? Darren J. Prior ( talk) 03:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. Prior Darren J. Prior ( talk) 03:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

No. From the above, the reasons for deletion are (1) It does not seem to have a clear definition. (2) It is not cited to a satisfactory degree (3) It covers a lot of the same information as another page. (4) it covers the same territory as an article about a Catholic parish. The reason for retention seems to be the personal bias of 1 editor against articles mainly about the Catholic Church. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 07:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I created it as a stub. It has a clear definition- it is about a big housing estate. I am not advocating that the Catholic Church article on the area be deleted but I don't see why the latter has to the the sole or main article on the area. Stubs are either welcome or they are not. Can we have more opinion's on this? currently there is a notice to delete this new page yet only 1 person is calling for it to be deleted. Darren J. Prior ( talk) 07:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. Prior Darren J. Prior ( talk) 07:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I would agree with all of Laurel Lodged points apart from point 4 and the personal bias point. It has now been a few days since it has been published and there have been no real improvements to the page or clear responses to issues raised. There is no bias towards the parish page, it is just that it has a clear definition and is better referenced and contains more detail and was created first. The benefits of significantly changing that the parish page and moving a lot of the information to a separate residential area page are not clear at the moment although that might change at some point in the future. Currently however it looks like Laurel Lodge is likely to be an article for deletion. Don't let this discourage you though as it may be the case that you can create something of high quality in the near future which can be of value to the project.
Financefactz ( talk) 22:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

In response to 4 points: 1) It is about a big housing estate 2) There are loads of citations on it. 3 & 4) Not relevant. The Catholic church do not own the housing estate.

Laurel Lodge is not a small housing estate.

It would be useful if I knew if stubs are generally not welcome on Wikipedia like they are on Vicipéid. ~~Darren J. Prior Darren J. Prior ( talk) 00:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Discussion page was created without the {{ afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I am neutral on the nomination itself. -- Finngall ^talk 14:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall ^talk 15:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete (and/or merge to Castleknock). The nominator should probably take a look at the policy they are proposing under. However, in terms of NN (and WP:GNG in particular), any searches for material and references suggest that the principal meaning/use of the term "Laurel Lodge" is in relation to the parish in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. Rather than the housing development/former manor house estate. And, as mentioned by others, this topic (the parish) is already covered in the St Thomas the Apostle parish, Laurel Lodge article. Otherwise, in terms of WP:GEOLAND, as a "populated place without legal recognition", I am not seeing anything which indicates that there is "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". Where this is the case, the information on this type of place "should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it". In this case this would mean covering the topic in the Castleknock article. If the content is merged there, I'm not sure we need a redirect. As, frankly, I just don't see how a housing estate (however large) needs its own article or title. I have not been able to fully follow the wall-of-text above. But I note what appear to be WP:OSE and similar arguments. Guliolopez ( talk) 16:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Castleknock (first preference) or St Thomas the Apostle parish, Laurel Lodge (second preference). I agree with Guliolopez's analysis that there is no evidence of significant coverage of this housing estate and according to general practice it should be redirected to the next-higher entity that does have such coverage. There does not appear to be any significant text worth merging. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Castleknock or delete. I agree with Guliolopez's analysis and was inclined to give the page a chance at the start but it is somewhere between a housing estate and a suburb. It isn't even really at the level of an localities/townlands such as Bayside, Dublin or Edenmore which I believe are easily worthy of articles in themselves irrespective of the qualities of those articles.

Financefactz ( talk) 21:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Castleknock. Spleodrach ( talk) 21:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - mentions are as passing as they come. Fails my standards for Estates. I won't oppose a redirect. Bearian ( talk) 17:05, 30 June 2020 (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.