Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Oaks

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Oaks

I marked this as a speedy several months ago, it was removed, so I'm bringing it here for a wider audience. The article makes no claim to notability compared to thousands of other neighborhoods worldwide, and has not been expanded in recent months. In addition, it is an orphaned article. Originally created by an anon user in 2004, largely unchanged since then[1]. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not encyclopedic or noteable. --MECU≈talk 23:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. --Ricaud 08:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above comments. --HResearcher 11:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because the article is rubbish doesn't mean it should be deleted. Improve rather than delete. Dev920 21:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think the criteria for deletion is over notibility not the quality of the article. How is this neighborhood notable to the world? --HResearcher 09:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, notability not established. Until further notability can be established, this should be deleted. --TheM62Manchester 11:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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.