Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 11:36, 8 February 2023

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 keep. MBisanz 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nottingham Forest, Houston

Nottingham Forest, Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Subject does not appear to be notable, as a subsection of an undistinguished suburban housing subdivision Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable neighborhood. Being on a list of most expensive neighborhoods in the city is not enough to establish notability. The article even frequently mentions "just like other neighborhoods in the area". Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable, Misplaced Pages is not a directory. Precedent from WP:OUTCOMES#Places is that "Smaller suburbs should generally be listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)." JohnCD (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think WP:N is clear on places; I can't see the harm. --  Chzz  ►  13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:NOHARM JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Nottingham Forest, Houston is notable, it's even listed at the USGS as a populated place: see U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Nottingham Forest, Houston. This article is about phase VIII of the neighborhood and phase VIII has no independent notability. This should be re-written for the entire neighborhood and then kept - or deleted and redone as an article on the whole neighborhood. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally I lean towards agreement with you that this has more of a chance of being notable if the article is rewritten to include all of Nottingham Forest, but I wonder about your assumption that USGS noting the existence of the entire neighborhood making it notabile. Elementary schools are included on USGS topo maps, but we all know that elementary schools are not generally notable. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Rewrite - I agree with the above comment - the article should be rewritten to accommodate all the Nottingham Forest subdivisions. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 05:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See JohnCD's comment - the precedent seems pretty clear that even all of Nottingham Forest would not be notable enough to merit its own article. Perhaps "Memorial Area, Houston" would be encompassing enough to be notable.Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep informative article, I do not see why this is even here at AfD.Rewrite- See commment made by Mmyers1976. §hawnpoo 05:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Informative to whom? Other than the people living in Nottingham Forest, Section VIII, I can't see how it could be of any interest to anyone. Furthermore, read WP:GNG. In order for a subject to be notable, it has to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources "address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content." That is not the case for Nottingham Forest Section VIII - there is not a singlereference in the whole article which directly addresses Nottingham Forest Section VIII. Also, see precedent from WP:OUTCOMES#Places : "Smaller suburbs should generally be listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)." NF Sec. VIII is not a legally separate municipality. It isn't even its own municipal utility district. That is why this article is here at AfD. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, that is an argument for merger. AFD is only for hopeless cases per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Rewrite I just moved to this neighborhood and found this article useful. I'd like to see the entry brought up to standard and saved. Stephenpace (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See JohnCD's comment - the precedent seems pretty clear that even all of Nottingham Forest would not be notable enough to merit its own article. Perhaps "Memorial Area, Houston" would be encompassing enough to be notable.Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep/Rewrite This article could certainly be expanded to cover Nottingham Forest and such an article would be an asset to Misplaced Pages's coverage of Neighborhoods in Houston, Texas.
  Mmyers1976— I suggest you read WP:POINT
  Closing admin, note bias
  --Tothwolf (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not do anything to disrupt wikipedia, nor did I attempt to do so in order to prove a point. I suggest you read WP:AGF. Also, bringing up already deleted comments of mine from my own User Page which I have changed my mind about (hence the deletion) in an attempt to discredit me is poor form. I respectfully but firmly request that you edit your above comment to make it more neutral, stick to the issue at hand, and leave your baseless conjecture about other editors' current motives out of it.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you also add WP:CIVIL to your reading list. Tothwolf (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf, I'm not sure where you're coming from, but old revisions of someone's user page are only relevant if we are discussing a user or the deletion of their page. AfD is for discussion of whether or not Misplaced Pages should have an article on a particular subject, not discussion of the formerly held opinions of the persons involved, please assume good faith and stay on topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(fixed formatting)
Because this isn't the place for this, Beeblebrox, I've left a much longer reply here:
The short version is Mmyers1976's bias is very much a valid concern in this AfD, especially considering the fact that they are still attempting to browbeat anyone who expresses an opposing view. The very fact that Mmyers1976 has gone so far as to file a complaint against me at WP:WQA after reading WP:CIVIL in an attempt to force me to change my comments where I pointed out potential bias makes it even more obvious. If that wasn't enough, the comments Mmyers1976 left on my talk page show just how on track my suggestion that they read WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL really were.
--Tothwolf (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It has notable references in third party media sources. Doesn't that count? And there is nothing wrong with the article. I'd like to see articles like this for every town in the world. Dream Focus 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

References specific to Nottingham Forest, Section VIII? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmyers1976 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the article name now generally covers all the Nottingham Forests in Houston, we should simply rewrite the article to include the rest of them. The third party media sources refer to NF8 as "Nottingham Forest" as it is described by many - for example, Rand McNally refers to section 8 of Nottingham Forest as simply "Nottingham Forest" on its maps. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 12:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep It is well-established that named areas of habitation are notable. This article seems fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Request to Close It has been over 5 days, and it seems time to close this discussion with a result of Keep and work on improving the article through the editing process. As the person who nominated the article for deletion, I'd like to ask if an admin could close the discussion. Thanks Mmyers1976 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 11 March 2009 (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.