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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parade, Leamington Spa[edit]

Parade, Leamington Spa (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 page relies heavily on one single source with no real WP:Notability and WP:Original research is more prevalent. I propose deletion of the article and maybe this all being moved to the Leamington Spa article? DragonofBatley (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it has some interesting features and has been the subject of some fairly famous paintings, photographs and images. However I think to be considered notable it would need to be the main feature in a substantial RS. Which I'm not seeing. JMWt (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I have additional book references for it. G-13114 (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that a large chunk of the article, present since its 2nd edit six years ago in 2017, was removed as "Remove unsoured material" 2 minutes before this AfD nomination. Yes it was unsourced, but it had never been tagged as such and appeared to be plausible information and of interest to readers. It is so much more constructive to add a {{cn}} tag and prompt other editors into sourcing the material, rather than just chucking it out. PamD 14:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't exactly call that a "large chunk of the article", but rather a "misconceptions" section which looks entirely original research. I lived in this town at one point in my life, and I never heard of anyone having such a misconception and it would certainly need citing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But I suggest it would have been better practice to tag it as needing citation, rather than just remove it on one editor's "I don't like this" decision. This particular editor tends to remove other editors' contributions like this quite often. Once removed, the content is lost. If tagged, it can prompt the editor who wrote it, or others interested in the article, to find sources and improve the encyclopedia. PamD 20:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that this should be improved rather than deleted. G-13114 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And this editor at times tends to WP:Stalk me and my page and my edits and they go on about me removing things. I'm their favourite chew toy for when their bored like they made clear on my talk page with the captions

  "For some reason I wondered what you are doing these days and this was the first edit I looked at. I hope you're editing carefully - I won't look further as I've got other things to do today." - so yeah, I'm their favourite chew toy to give a hard time to. If that isn't stalking I don't know what is. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge to Leamington Spa. There's already some content about this there, and it can be covered there fine. Reywas92^Talk 02:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I just did a quick Google search for "parade leamington spa listed building", and immediately found eight individual Grade II listed buildings on the street - there may be more, that was just from the first page of Google results. I don't happen to own a copy of the Pevsner guide for Warwickshire, but I would be amazed if it did not contain substantial coverage of a street with so many listed buildings on it, both in terms of description and history, which could be used to expand the article. This article wants expanding, not deleting. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Per Girth Summit. Streets can be notable, and plenty of evidence that this one is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThere are plenty of sources as to its notability, e.g.[1]Esemgee (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of sourcing is available to meet WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2023 (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.