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 to Woolaston. and merge as appropriate Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woolaston Common

[edit]

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

This appears to be just another name for Woolaston. The same applies to Woolaston Slade and Woolaston Woodside. If I'm wrong, please let me know. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You may or may not be right, but if you don't know, you might first do some research or put a note on the article talk page inviting others to advise you rather than simply apply to delete. "appears to be" and "If I'm wrong, please let me know" seems an insubstantial basis for seeking deletion. Opbeith (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For little-trafficed articles like these, a comment on the talk page would be ignored for at least six months, assuming if anyone ever commented on it. I know there's no time limit here, but I'd like to see something happen rather than nothing. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Ordnance Survey mappers seem to think that these are distinct places. Deor (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are districts within the scattered village of Woolaston. The names are rarely used outside the village and its immediate environs, and the article contents (such as they are) would be better placed within the main article at Woolaston, which already contains information on other hamlets in the area, such as Stroat. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Borderline as to whether they can do considered separate settlements, but if the Ordnance Survey is naming them separately, we'll probably have to go with that. Failing that, redirect all to Woolaston. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The article on Woolaston calls it a hamlet. WE are unlikely ever to get more than a short stub, so that it is better to concentrate on the article on the parish of which it is part. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2011 (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.