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. John254 18:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welland Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log) (2nd nomination)

This article has been tagged needs additional citations for verification since February 2007 and may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards since July 2007. The area is not especially notable and does not form a distinct geographical part of the city of Peterborough; encyclopedic content is duplicated at Dogsthorpe, Peterborough. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked for sources? DGG (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want it deleted for the reasons given. Have you looked..? Chrisieboy (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, actually, that is part of the Nominators job according to WP:GTD, to do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I also stated the area is not especially notable and does not form a distinct geographical part of the city of Peterborough; encyclopedic content is duplicated at Dogsthorpe, Peterborough. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it appears to represent a small neighbourhood of Peterborough which is referred to by name repeatedly in news reports. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can you provide some examples? Chrisieboy (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - even a fairly brief google search brought up lots of mentions in the news relating to crime in this area, which backs up some of the information in the article. Of particular note are The Guardian, Peterborough Today, Peterborough City Council, the BBC (although the last merely mentions the estate). The article certainly requires cleanup, that's no reason to delete it though. -- Roleplayer (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the article does not appear to be an indiscriminate collection of information. The short burst of news reports is just what I uncovered in a quick 60 second search of google, and they mostly back up the information already found in the article. -- Roleplayer (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Nothing of value would be lost if this is deleted and there is nothing to prevent a future editor from recreating a well written and properly cited article. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep more than enough sources supplied. If Chrisie doesn't think it is well written Chrisie is of course welcome to rewrite it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just none in the actual article! I do not want to rewrite it; I believe that (certainly in its current state) it should be deleted as it clearly does not meet Wikipedia's standards. If you want to rewrite it in an attempt to bring it up to those standards, please do (but I suspect you will never go anywhere near it again). Chrisieboy (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep it does appear to be a distinct area, but only a small area of the Dogsthorpe ward (so it could be merged and redirected there). It does need to be rewritten, with any unverifiable and partly nonsensical content (for example: "78 murders", of which "8 were car accidents") removed. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would strongly support redirecting to Dogsthorpe, Peterborough. Encyclopedic content is already duplicated there. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2008 (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.