Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burton Waters

Burton Waters

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Burton Waters (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 is not a settlement - it's a commercial housing development which must meet WP:GNG to be notable. Other than a routine planning announcement in the local press this development does not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to show that it is notable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Burton parish council have noted Burton Waters as part of the parish, additionally there are plenty of news articles, a memoir for Odder and Burton Fen about the Woodcocks pub in Burton Waters. May I also point to these links outside of Lincolnshire?

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Plenty of sources there including an ons map and Lincolnshire CC Annual Report patrol uk.

DragonofBatley (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Additional sources:

• [6] - Mentions Burton Waters Lincolnshire
• [7] - Mentions Burton Waters
• [8] - Mentions Burton Waters and the development
• [9] - Gym at Burton Waters
• [10] - Scholar report about the Burton Waters cup Bronze something

More sources that prove it does exist and is notable DragonofBatley (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale, @PamD, @JMF, @A D Hope, @KeithD, @Eopsid and @Rupples. Thoughts? DragonofBatley (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources, maps and mentions do not support notability. At best this is a merge/redirect to Burton, Lincolnshire. Also please read WP:VOTESTACKING. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley, I'm not sure it was necessary to make that "Oppose" word bigger. The argument doesn't get more weight from using bigger font. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Possibly merge with Burton, Lincolnshire its parish? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. That is the solution we have used for neighbourhoods in Milton Keynes. See for example Stantonbury (the parish) contains Bancroft, Blue Bridge, Bradville, Linford Wood, Oakridge Park and Stantonbury. So at best Burton Waters should be a redirect to Burton, Lincolnshire#Burton Waters. Hope that squares the circle? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that Burton (strictly "Burton-by-Lincoln") is a CP. NOMIS just has it as built-up area. The citation given in the article for the population figures is dead, but the number is a lot more that NOMIS gives. So what is the actual parish? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Unsurprisingly, the Lincolnshire Echo has sustained coverage on the planning and proposals for, and objections to the development from 1992 onwards, with which to write a background to the development. It looks to have been controversial. They can be found in the the British Newspaper Archive. An example is here for those who have access: [11]. There's enough to pass the GNG. Although a part of of Burton civil parish, the Ordnance Survey does describe it as a village and it looks to have a resident population so may come within the scope of WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place with presumed notability. I did consider whether I was WP:CANVASSED and should express an opinion. I don't think User:DragonofBatley's notifications amount to WP:VOTESTACKING. I've had no prior discussion about this topic, so DragonofBatley had no idea of my opinion. Looking at the editors contacted they are regular contributors to WP:UKGEO. I'm firmly of the opinion this has been done to broaden the number of contributors to the discussion, not to sway the discussion in a specific direction. Rupples (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)