Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seacourt

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. Clear consensus to keep. Schwede66 18:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seacourt (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 subject may be worthy of an article, but this writing isn’t yet an article. Nuke, draftify or something, but get it from mainspace. Qwirkle (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Geography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this version is totally fine, though unremarkable. That someone added a bunch of questionably-sourced notes since doesn't change the notability here. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Elli. It needs some clean up, particularly to the section on the name, but the previous version is fine and the subject seems to be notable. I don't think this is in WP:TNT territory. MCE89 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it looks like it was a perfectly normal article before TRESISR (talk · contribs) edited it – just revert most or all of those edits, they are the source of all the weirdness and original research in this article and in another AfD. I have already cleaned up or reverted a lot of their extensive history of unsuitable edits on other articles. Joe D (t) 10:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Elli. 17 years of edits can hardly lead to a conclusion that "this writing isn’t yet an article", even if some of the edits are questionable. We do not delete articles just because they need improvement. We try and improve them.--Mhockey (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I removed all of the OR per comments above. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and thanks to @LaundryPizza03: for their cleanup. PamD 11:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep it has plenty of content anyway but clearly passes GEOLAND as it was a parish in its own right even if long ago and it probably only had a parish meeting. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looking at the article at the time of nomination, how the heck was this even nominated? It just needed cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 07:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Came here looking for Motacilla. This is a clear keep. It is a scheduled monument with the some decent secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD is not cleanup. It may be snowing soon. ResonantDis_tortion 16:44, 25 January 2025 (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.