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 Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneycroft[edit]

Stoneycroft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:LOCAL. Nv8200p talk 13:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is Stoneycroft in some way less notable than other districts of Liverpool, or are you planning to nominate all of them for deletion? --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless they meet WP:LOCAL. -Nv8200p talk 13:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article currently has very little content but communities/locations such as city districts and villages are generally notable. I think this article needs improvement, not deletion. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's a real district in a major metorpolitan area. Inherently notable. --Oakshade 04:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the precedents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Nuttah68 11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it just needs some historical information and other additions. Of course it should not be deleted. L1v3rp00l 22:49, 1 March 2007 (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.