Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convent Wood

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 Procedural Keep‎. Nominator was a sock and no one is arguing for deletion. Any editor in good standing is welcome to renominate this in less time than normal if there is merit, although recommend the AtD discussion as was mentioned here before returning to AfD. Speedy is not applicable as the AfD has run its normal time, otherwise that would be fine too. Star Mississippi 02:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convent Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This feels WP:TOOSOON and exclusively uses primary and unreliable sources, along with original research in the form of maps. You can redirect with Great North Wood which offers a broader concept of the topic. Jinnllee90 (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This should probably be closed; instead propose merging and redirecting the article as an alternative to deletion. I don't know why the sources would be considered unreliable but they don't do anything more than mention the name and show it as part of the Great North Wood - if it created recently it would have probably been moved to the Draft namespace. It is also not original research to use maps, depending on how they are used, it's just that a name and symbol on a map is not significant coverage. Sources not currently in the article should also be considered (WP:NEXIST), and some can be found including https://www.wildlondon.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/GNW%20Toolkit.pdf and https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Wood_that_Built_London/vgQ_EAAAQBAJ, also https://insidecroydon.com/2022/05/18/great-north-wood-under-threat-from-holy-orders-3-5m-scheme/ (although I'm unsure of its reliability and there could be better sources for it). Peter James (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at the very least merge if there's a good merge target - a before search brings up some coverage, including multiple references in The Wood that Built London (looks like it's been linked above already). Also WP:TOOSOON appears used here to talk about an under-developed article, and not about a speculative future event. SportingFlyer T·C 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• CU note nominator blocked as a checkuser confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep with WP:NPASR due to nomination by a sock. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2024 (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.