Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheadle Bleachworks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. John254 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheadle Bleachworks

Cheadle Bleachworks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I had a look on Google and, as stated Cheadle Bleachworks has now been demolished and replaced with housing. Does this constitute CSD A7? »xytram« talk 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, Don't believe it qualifies for CSD#A7 ad that states A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, but with no reliable sources, it does fail WP:N, I could only find 2 sources [1],[2] that just mention the sale of the building. Perhaps someone in the UK has access to other databases that can provide sources on the history of this building. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Mark for expansion by expert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammelsauce (talk • contribs) 12:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I presume you're in Cheadle and you cared enough about the bleachworks to create the article - congratulations, you're the expert. Presumably this place is notable, at least in your mind? Why? What's the big deal with it? Notable employer, notable building, or even a notable local smell? Get it into the article! Compare other similar articles for examples. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP (with strong reservations and a healthy dose of WP:BITE) This article was one hour old at the time it was AfD'ed, being the first edit by a newbie. It is simply impossible to tell as yet whether they are still working on it and will shortly have added sufficient notable content to justify it. It's entirely wrong and impatient to delete a non-harmful article so early on. Let us watch and wait, then delete it if necessary.
As it stands, if left like that, I'd have no problem in deleting it - but give the editor a chance. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean - added a bit more as to why it is significant. Until they built the apartment complex we used it as a playground for parkour, yet little of the internet mentions it!!! i felt i had to put it down for others to see —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammelsauce (talk • contribs) 06:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment, Sources do not have to be on the Internet, they can be a magazine, journal or newspaper article that you find in a library, you just have to put the full source info in your article as a reference. That was what I meant by my comment about someone in the UK having access to other databases. A trip to a local library might reveal info that will support this articles notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep Further to the comments shown I now think this should be kept. Time to get a library card Jammelsauce! »xytram« talk 09:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • indeedy. i just hope the police dont see this as technically we were trespassing! (too late now) lol. thanks for all your help you lot!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammelsauce (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP - for now, to give the creator a chance to improve it. Unfortunately the fact that you used it for something doesn't make it notable unless there is an independant report about it that you can quote. The fact that only you and your friends know about it makes it independant research which isn't allowable in wikipedia. You need to look at WP:notability to see what's required for an article to be kept. I would suggest you look up the history of the works and see what you can find out. Best of luck Richerman (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A reluctant keep for now. It was still there about four months ago, but seriously delapidated. The thing is, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of these ex-textiles mills in the Greater Manchester area. By and large, they are not worth articles. The information in this article could be a few lines in something like "Textile trades in Stockport", an article with planty of room for expansion if it's ever created. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • i guess, looking at it from a neutral point of view, you're all right really - i've done some digging and can't really find anything of interest about this particular plant's history. maybe it is appropriate to delete. i just thought its unofficial history might be interesting to someone rather than be forgotten :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammelsauce (talk • contribs) 12:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the place is being redeveloped into housing with some of the old buildings being reclaimed. See here for more information. I'd be happy to expand the article a little. —PolishName 16:15, 9 June 2008 (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.