- 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 Glasgow. In case there is material worth copying. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Wearieston ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Careful Google search shows no indication this is an actual neighborhood or conservation area. This was apparently once the name of a farm that now appears to be all residences, there's one very old book on Google Books that mentions a bird count there & one old survey book that mentions a farm and office buildings by that name but nothing about a current neighborhood, conservation area, or other serious designation. Bing & Google Maps show a spot with that name but it's one building, not a neighborhood. This would need serious sourcing to remain. JamesG5 ( talk) 01:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete areas are not inherently notable. Legally recognized places are. Failing that, areas can only be notable with RSs. This area does not pass GNG. Lightburst ( talk) 01:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - If this turns out to be some historical predecessor to the current area then I wouldn't be against a recreation of an article in that context provided there is good sourcing. As it stand with this, it's claiming it's an actual current designation of this part of Glasgow which it's not and doesn't even bother with the properties that stood there that the nom learned of. Oakshade ( talk) 08:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of notability. Moorepark, Glasgow and Langshot are similarly unclear to their actual status. Reywas92 Talk 09:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete not a legally recognized place or an OS settlement. ScotlandPlaces says its just "A farm house and offices". This seems to be unverifable never mind notable. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 11:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Merge with and redirect to Glasgow. The article on Wearieston does not have a lot of information on the place, and could be redirected to Glasgow. Vorbee ( talk) 11:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Craigton, Glasgow as it falls between there and Mosspark but shares a building style more with the former, but then would anyone ever search for the term? I have been in this area several times in the past, walking and driving (slowly and badly, it was in my lesson route) and would have supported its inclusion if I had seen any local businesses, signs or anything called Weariston which would reinforce a usage locally, but didn't see anything. The houses possibly got referred to as that shortly after they were built (early 1930s I think) due to the farm being there beforehand, but I don't think that was ever anything official and it fell out of use long ago. The oldest local residents may recognise the name and it's maybe worthy of quick mention on the aforementioned articles, but nothing more than that IMO. Crowsus ( talk) 14:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - I think this is at best an obscure name (and one that has fallen out of use) for a subsection of a larger area. On top of this, this sub-area would not seem to be notable enough to merit its own article. I do not even think a redirect is worth it as I am skeptical that it is a likely search term. Dunarc ( talk) 21:51, 22 December 2019 (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.
- 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 Glasgow. In case there is material worth copying. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Wearieston ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Careful Google search shows no indication this is an actual neighborhood or conservation area. This was apparently once the name of a farm that now appears to be all residences, there's one very old book on Google Books that mentions a bird count there & one old survey book that mentions a farm and office buildings by that name but nothing about a current neighborhood, conservation area, or other serious designation. Bing & Google Maps show a spot with that name but it's one building, not a neighborhood. This would need serious sourcing to remain. JamesG5 ( talk) 01:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 01:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete areas are not inherently notable. Legally recognized places are. Failing that, areas can only be notable with RSs. This area does not pass GNG. Lightburst ( talk) 01:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - If this turns out to be some historical predecessor to the current area then I wouldn't be against a recreation of an article in that context provided there is good sourcing. As it stand with this, it's claiming it's an actual current designation of this part of Glasgow which it's not and doesn't even bother with the properties that stood there that the nom learned of. Oakshade ( talk) 08:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of notability. Moorepark, Glasgow and Langshot are similarly unclear to their actual status. Reywas92 Talk 09:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete not a legally recognized place or an OS settlement. ScotlandPlaces says its just "A farm house and offices". This seems to be unverifable never mind notable. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 11:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Merge with and redirect to Glasgow. The article on Wearieston does not have a lot of information on the place, and could be redirected to Glasgow. Vorbee ( talk) 11:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Craigton, Glasgow as it falls between there and Mosspark but shares a building style more with the former, but then would anyone ever search for the term? I have been in this area several times in the past, walking and driving (slowly and badly, it was in my lesson route) and would have supported its inclusion if I had seen any local businesses, signs or anything called Weariston which would reinforce a usage locally, but didn't see anything. The houses possibly got referred to as that shortly after they were built (early 1930s I think) due to the farm being there beforehand, but I don't think that was ever anything official and it fell out of use long ago. The oldest local residents may recognise the name and it's maybe worthy of quick mention on the aforementioned articles, but nothing more than that IMO. Crowsus ( talk) 14:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - I think this is at best an obscure name (and one that has fallen out of use) for a subsection of a larger area. On top of this, this sub-area would not seem to be notable enough to merit its own article. I do not even think a redirect is worth it as I am skeptical that it is a likely search term. Dunarc ( talk) 21:51, 22 December 2019 (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.