Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nunsthorpe
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nunsthorpe[edit]
Was listed as a speedy but is not eligigle. About some suburb, but lacks context. Notable? No vote yet. jni 12:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And it's not eligible, either...
- From the deletion log:
- 15:50, 2005 Jan 26 Ike9898 deleted Nunsthorpe (nonsense)
- I agree that this wasn't a CSD. Uncle G 20:54, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
- Contributor was: Franklin College, Grimsby, Humberside. So if nothing else, we can be confident the contributor wrote from first-hand knowledge. (Or does that make it original research?) -- RHaworth 20:10, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
Keep. In the state I have left it, I think it is an OK geo-stub. If Williston, Ohio (pop. 211) originally posted as semi-vandalism (see diff page) gets an article then Nunsthorpe (pop. - what - 2500 at least) is certainly allowed one. (I did think of moving the original version to the talk page of something like social deprivation or council housing — for Nunsthorpe read any one of a thousand council estates nationwide.) -- RHaworth 07:22, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
Keep Nothing wrong with it now, just stubby.ike9898 13:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Nunsthorpe exists and is sufficiently notable for an article, although it could do with some expanding. TigerShark 12:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.