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 Redirect (non-admin closure). Quantpole (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delves[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article (Delves) is a duplicate of Delves Lane, and one needs to be deleted. Delves Lane is the more complete article. There is some confusion as streetmaps shows the lcation as Delves, but google has many hits for Delves Lane etc. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect one or the other. It's really weird, as the Ordnance Survey map has it as Delves at one resolution and Delves Lane at another! ([1] vs [2]). Either way, a redirect is fine in this instance, and would suggest that we don't need to do a full AfD on it ,if the nominator concurs. Quantpole (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close and redirect. I can't see anything worth arguing over here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As nominator I agree with that and will do it immediately; and would have done that initially if I had thought more carefully about it. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2009 (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.