Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grove Avenue, London: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:22, 13 November 2010

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 Hanwell. Everybody is free to merge any reliably sourced, relevant info to that article of course. However, it is clear from this discussion that the consensus is that a separate article for this street is not warranted. Fram (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Avenue, London

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

Contest PROD - non-notable street -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly the world's most promising start to an article when two out of the four sentences are falsehoods. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of notability. And no, leading to a golf course doesn't count. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the falsehoods. Brent Valley Golf Course is on Church road. Uncle G (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Grove Avenue provides access on the eastern side of the golf course. What's the other falsehood supposed to be? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong. It doesn't. That's amply clear from the golf course's own map. One can see where the entrance is, and where there there are no entrances. And that's without even reading the part of that very same page where it gives its street address. These aren't supposed falsehoods. These are easy to determine from what one can check from maps falsehoods. As such, I leave it as an exercise to spot which of the other three sentences are also falsehoods. Uncle G (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Eastern access to the golf course looks to be via Elmwood Gardens or Westview, so Grove Avenue perhaps only indirectly provides access. I can't see what else is wrong - it looks like it's in Hanwell, Ealing, has Greenford Avenue and Cuckoo lane at its ends, and its postcode does appear to be W7 3EX -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Hint Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, it covers several post codes - but at least W7 3EX is one of them. And so the statement "Grove Avenue has the postcode W7 3EX" is not a falsehood - it is incomplete, but not untrue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First contribution from a new editor, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you'll continue to contribute-- but most city streets aren't famous at all. There are a few like Fleet Street and Downing Street that get a lot of mention; I have serious doubts about the notability of a lot of the entries in Category:Streets in the City of London, and suspect that they're hangovers from the "every bus stop is important" days of Wikipedia. Mandsford 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the topic we discuss here is not in the City of London and so your comment is irrelevant. But I'm putting all members of that category on my watch list, just in case. Is there an easy way of doing this? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you where you can go. Help:Watching pages is one suggestion. Mandsford 13:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, City streets just aren't notable. Winner 42 ( Talk to me! ) 19:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The place has an interesting history and I have made a start upon improving the article in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked what I could of these references, and they seem to be mostly one-sentence references to the battlefield. This is a long way from significant coverage, and quite of lot of claimed notability by association. However, there is definitely a case for an articles about the battle (and William Retford's business on that road certainly has a place in the Wiliam Retford article). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you agree that we should do something with this sourced information per our editing policy of WP:PRESERVE?

If a sourced article on the Bloody Croft could be created, the fact that Grove St. exists there now would be an appropriate and brief footnote. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (amend: alternatively, merge/redirect per discussion below if such a consensus can be justified). I have to concur with User:Chris Neville-Smith's comment above; the sources indicate the battlefield, but not the road, per se. I'm certain this isn't the only road which exists on a site that served as a battlefield centuries ago, and to say notability is inherited from that without significant referencing is quite a stretch, in my opinion. Likewise, the notability of a street isn't inherited from residents who have lived/worked there... well, Downing Street notwithstanding, mind you :). --Kinu ^t/_c 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our guideline defines "Significant coverage": "... means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.". There is no original research here and so the guideline seems satisfied. What is your policy reason to delete this, please? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is curious to ask me for a policy reason for deletion when you yourself cite a guideline reason for inclusion. To address your position, as indicated above, I see no evidence that the sources address the subject directly in detail, simply that Grove Street happens to be located where the battlefield (which seems to be the primary subject of discussion in the text of the sources) once was. One sentence mentions, such as here or in the other sources, do not convince me the guideline is satisfied. (Searching for "grove" in The "History of Wembley" text doesn't yield any matches, either.) Thus, while the battle or the at-the-time location at which it occurred might be shown to be notable, I see no reason that the street itself is. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have multiple sources; multiple sentences; multiple facts. These are details. The point of the guideline is that we require more than a name check such as one might find in a index; we also require some details of the place. But we have these now and they are non-trivial. Nothing more seems required to satisfy our notability guideline. My impression is that you are expecting pages of detail. But this is not a requirement of the guideline nor do we have a minimum article size. Enough is as good as a feast. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the History of Wembley, this refers to the place as Cuckoo Hill. Grove Avenue is on the slopes of this hill. We do not have an article about that hill yet. It may be a better title for the topic, affording more detail and more expansion but this would be a move achieved by ordinary editing not by deletion. It is by such ordinary editing that we build and develop the article. How would deletion assist us in this? The relevant policy is WP:PRESERVE which indicates that deletion should not be used when we have material worth preserving. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"My impression is that you are expecting pages of detail"... er, yes, I am? That's what "in detail" means to me. A one-sentence mention is a detail (fact), not a topic of discussion in detail (coverage). In other words, a simple statement that says "X occurred where Y is now" actually makes neither X nor Y notable. X is notable if there are reliable sources which clearly discuss X, and the same goes for Y. If X is notable, then Y would ostensibly be an appropriate fact in the article for X (and WP:PRESERVE would be reasonable), but such a statement does not automatically grant inherent notability to Y. Y would need to show standalone notability through being addressed by sources in detail. That does not seem to be the case here. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If X and Y are covered together in sources then this is evidence of their notability and association. Places often have multiple names which we may support with alternate titles and redirects such as the Bloody tower. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, technically, that means you do agree with me... if they are covered together, then both are notable, undoubtedly. My logic above refers to mentions, such as single sentences, as is the case here. Those ultimately verify existence and a relationship, but do not grant notability to either. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a guideline and so, following your point above, is inferior to our policy of preserving material rather than deleting it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As I've indicated several times in this discussion, I would not be averse to moving any sourced content to an appropriate location if one can be found, such as Hanwell as several editors have suggested. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary !vote above is still "Delete". If the delete button is pressed then everything goes. See WP:MAD. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that; I'm the one who wrote it. As I said, I wouldn't be averse to a merge/move as a compromise. However, I do not desire to explicitly indicate that I endorse it, because while the information could be useful, I'm not wholly convinced that it is, given the current sourcing and ambiguity as to a proper merge/move target. Nonetheless, I will add a parenthetical to my !vote above indicating such. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't notable, it's a road that pretty much goes nowhere. My house is probably built on the site of a notorious murder of a couple of cats in 1732, that doesn't make my house notable it makes the location notable... If the battlefield is notable, then move this article to that name and build it out IMO. QU ^TalkQu 22:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't move it if it has been deleted. Your comments are self-contradictory. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But are your sources reliable sources. They may well all be quoting one source. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem quite reliable per our usual standards. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just another NN street. If a reliable source can be found for the battle, something on it might be added to Hanwell. The discovery of burials was presumably reported at the time, and possibly in archaeological literature, rather than merely newspapers. The orthography of the name Hanwell looks suspect to me, but I am no great expert. I doubt there is any ancient literary source for the battle, so that I suspect this is a hisotrian's interpretation of the burials, from a time when the study of ancient bones was much less advanced than today. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not an expert then you are not a reliable source. Your doubts and suppositions seem to be contrary to core policy. It is our policy to present what sources say rather than to decide the truth for ourselves. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that a source is reliable is no more authoritative than someone else's opinion that it isn't. And if your interpretation of original research applies non non-mainspace pages, that would invalidate virtually every argument for and against deletion in every article. After all, attmpts to find sources, or show lack of them, is original research. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does look like a run-of-the-mill side street. But if you look at the sources, there is information about the street and its history, something uncommon to find about most side streets. Sebwite (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please address the lack of depth of the sourcing, as has been indicated above? --Kinu ^t/_c 04:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This isn't clear cut, as there do appear to be some sources available and the street has a bit of history. The problem is that of the five sources cited, none is really good enough. This and this hardly mention it. This is better but only one line in a 216-page book, so not really significant. This may or may not be reliable, but half of one sentence isn't really enough. And this only gives coverage to one resident, not the street itself. Some of the content given isn't really backed up by the sources either. What we need is a source about the road itself, but there don't appear to be any around, so I can't see how WP:GNG can be met. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable street. Merge and redirect if there is an appropriate target. SnottyWong ^squeal 17:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the research of Colonel. Sorry we are so bitty to new editors :( Okip 21:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like any other side street. Dough 48 72 01:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename? I opened this AfD (after a PROD was contested), because what was there really didn't seem to be of notability. However, I think the information now uncovered and added to the article is of notability. I'm just not sure it is specifically about the road itself, rather than the area - but I really think the current content is worth keeping, perhaps under a different title or perhaps merged to Hanwell? (Apologies for not being more decisive, but I'm not at my most creative right now) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as a section of Hanwell. Multiple sources locate the battlefield there and relate it to the placename. But the modern street is not sufficiently notable in itself - unless it's received newspaper or magazine coverage as a locality. If the article creator or someone else who looks here is in the area, I suggest an offline search for such articles; if any are found I think that would suffice to keep this as an independent article. I see the redirects from Blood Croft and Cuckoo Hill have already been created. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with battlefields and manor estates in its history this area is notable, but probably under the wrong name. I would hope it acts as a magnet for expansion of coverage of those areas, so a name will depend on which direction it takes, but from looking at the sources Hanwell Park would be the more likely name. This is an article editing issue, not a deletion issue. And to those moaning about biting the newbies, why didn't they go and say hello? I found a talk page filled with templates when I went to actually offer them a hand... Bigger digger (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ~~to Bloody Croft (which is at present a redirect to this article)~~ per Chris Neville-Smith and several other posters. I'm not thrilled about the prospect of an article about the street. However, I'm quite happy with the prospect of a combined article about the archaeological finds and the sixth century battle.—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as far as I can tell there's only one book source on Bloody Croft which is then quoted pretty much verbatim in another local history book and a few Hanwell-related sites. In this search User:Colonel_Warden/creations is ranked 7th! Hanwell Park is the way forward! Bigger digger (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, Bigger digger—I accept that.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hanwell per above concerns. Not really notable enough to have its own article, but certainly needs a section. Vodello (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (EDIT: or refocus and rename (see comments below)). (Technical note, if kept, it should be moved to Grove Avenue, Ealing, London as there is another Grove Avenue in Tottenham, London.) A look at Google maps shows what status this street has: it is basically a fairly short and unremarkable residential street. This is not a major artery constituting a significant part of London's transportation system in any way. All the sources provided refer to the area, not to this street in particular. A possibly notable old building along the street does not necessarily confer notability to the street. Colonel Warden has made a good effort to provide worthwhile information, but I am unconvinced that this is the correct article to put it in (Cuckoo Hill or Bloody Croft are more historical terms which describe the material better.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of information between article titles is not achieved by deletion. Please see WP:MAD. Also your argument that we can deduce the notability of a road by looking at a map is neither correct nor supported by policy. Downing Street, for example, is a minor cul-de-sac not a major artery. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Downing Street is not notable as a means of transportation, but the area is very notable since it is the executive political authority in the United Kingdom is headquartered. A residential street like Grove Avenue has none of that. I appreciate the points you are making, but at the very least, I think the article needs to be refocussed to be about the geography and history area, and retitled to reflect that. All the content which makes the area notable predates the street by a considerable margin. Renaming and rewriting the article entirely is pretty much the same as deleting an article, and then writing another one on a similar but more notable topic. If you would prefer to do this all this without deleting the article, then that is fine as well (and I have added that to my original vote above.). My original "delete" vote means that I oppose the presence of an article which is primarily about the avenue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are admins who seem to do little more than look at the summary words in bold per the AFD statistics above. The primary purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the delete function should be used to remove this article and its contents in their entirety. Other outcomes which may be achieved without use of the delete function are varieties of Keep and so should be summarised in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination and most of the following arguments for deletion are actually arguments to correct the article and to improve the references. patsw (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim to notability seems to be that this street runs alongside a notable institution, traverses a larger area where a possibly notable event occurred, etc. Notability of the location itself has not been demonstrated, and it does not look likely that it will be. That does not preclude a mention in another article. --Boson (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The past and present practice of Wikipedia has been to consider named places verifiable to a government or other reliable source to be notable and included in the Wikipedia if only as a stub. Thousands of articles on place names exist for which there are no references to significant coverage by multiple independent sources. patsw (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general practice, though not set in stone, is that articles about inhabited communities are kept, and even that is not a specific policy. In addition, numbered federal, national, state and provincial highways are considered notable. On the other hand, most streets, small neighborhoods, trailer parks, fishing holes, etc. are not considered entitled to their own page, and thank God for that. Otherwise, we would be inundated with pages from people wanting to write about the street where they live. Mandsford 17:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe merge. It's a nice little sourced article at this point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't read the sources. Guess how I can tell. In fact, most people, including the writers of the article, clearly haven't properly read the sources here. Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two relists for a discussion like this is usually pretty good evidence that we won't reach a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Patsw's "correction" would involve not ascribing historical events to an unremarkable suburban street that they pre-date the existence of by a millennium and a half. This article is geographically and historically misleading, in part because it's a grasping-at-straws write-up of an undocumented subject, complete with an etymology of the name "Hanwell" that for starters Hanwell#Etymology outright contradicts (as do various sources). The actual history here, which a proper reading of the history books cited (paying attention to their authors, for starters!) would have revealed, is a quite different subject, quite differently structured. It has pretty much nothing to do with a suburban housing development that post-dated it by decades and centuries. The two are not even co-terminous. This is just laughably bad, from a historical perspective. It's an original synthesis of muddled history made as a desperate attempt to prevent the exercise of a MediaWiki function rather than as an encyclopaedic coverage of a subject. The actual historical subject, which Bigger digger almost gave away above, is still redlinked, and this would be a woeful and confused start to it. This article started with falsehoods about an unremarkable street, and is now a synthesized and muddled admixture of history supposedly, but not in fact, occurring on an unremarkable street. Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you suggest we do? I can admit that this article doesn't seem to belong, and is very mixed up (which I added to when trying to help), but has useful information about the area and its history. I think there seems to be a consensus that various bits of the article are notable, but added together they do not create a notable article on Grove Avenue, but I don't have the experience to suggest what the next step is... Bigger digger (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be rather helpful if Uncle G would be kind enough to tell us what he thinks should be done in ~~plain English~~ huge red font accompanied by a picture of an elephant, as opposed to veiled hints.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In plain English, the best solution to indecision on an evenly split debate is to simply say "no consensus", rather than going into Round 3. I'm starting to think that Grove Avenue must be notable if 18 different people have registered an opinion on it. Maybe someone can put up a sign. Mandsford 13:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mandsford, even though I've already said that a "no consensus" outcome seems likely to me, I think solutions are better than compromises. If there's a good answer let's hear it.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supposing that the discussion is closed as no consensus or keep, then what is likely to happen next is that I will move the current content to a new title. Where the article goes from there depends upon that title and the input from other contributors. This is ordinary editing work and the AFD is now obstructing this. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Random assortment of facts which have a loose connection with this present day bog standard street. To be clear - there are no sources specifically discussing this street. There are bits about Hanwell, and bits about Cuckoo Hill and so on, but no reliable sources have discussed this street in any depth. What we have now is a synthesis of bits and bobs which bear little relation to this suburban street. This is a bad thing. Quantpole (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources which discuss the actual road surface in detail can be provided, such as The London Gazette. It is our general policy to keep articles about places because there is usually an abundance of such sourcing. The project contains many thousands of stubs about other places which have inferior sourcing and so there is no case for deleting this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source containing no interpretive material. It does not contribute anything to show the notability the road, much the same as you could go through council planning records and find thousands of documents which mention individual roads, all of which would be equally non-notable. And this is not a 'place' it is a residential street, which it certainly is not general policy to keep. And the article is misleading - synthesising together various sources which are not about the road. You are quite correct that many articles on places are badly sourced so why don't you make those articles better rather than attempting to construct an article on something that isn't notable. Quantpole (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The London Gazette is a journal of record - the oldest English newspaper in the world. It is not a primary source - that would be the local authority planning documents. This is a public announcement made to ensure that the public has good notice of the matter and so is good evidence of notability. Regarding places, we have numerous articles about villages and hamlets which have less households, value and history than the place in question. There is no reason in logic or policy to delete this when we keep the others. All this street-hate is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that is contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read up on what does or doesn't count as a primary source - all they are doing is repeating a council memorandum which most certainly does not count as a secondary source. I have nothing against streets providing there is coverage to show they meet the GNG (one off the top of my head is Baldwin Street, Dunedin). However, saying that it is normal wikipedia practice to keep articles on streets is false. Quantpole (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a primary source, being a digest or summary of the Order to which the source relates. The Order would contain quite detailed plans for the proposed schemes. I am quite familiar with coverage of streets on Wikipedia, having defended many of them at AFD. Deletion is usually quite inappropriate because, even if the street seems too inconsequential to stand by itself, it can usually be merged with some higher-level article about the locality. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Merge to Hanwell. Whilst I'm all for article rescue, I don't think the practice of sticking in vaguely related information into an article in order to obstruct deletion using WP:PRESERVE is helpful (and the selective interpretation of wikipedia policy to prove a point is especially unhelpful). It would have been far easier to just include this information in the Hanwell article in the first place (where the information is equally relevant). However, if merging is going to settle the arguments over preserving the encyclopaedic information, so be it. Should a lot of information be unearthed later specific to the road itself, the information can always be split off again later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanwell Park

Honestly, people! I explicitly noted this last month, and pointed Bigger digger in the direction of it too. It's screaming from the sources cited. The very first source cited at all, in this edit cites a book by Montagu Sharpe. Even a little work with the old research tools turns up the fact that Sir Montagu Sharpe once owned Hanwell Park (even if one hadn't seen what is written about him in Hanwell). If you go to Hibbert's 2010 London Encyclopaedia (ISBN 9781405049252) and look up the entry for Hanwell, Hanwell Park is right there. Some random suburban backstreet isn't, and neither is this particular etymology of the name. The blooming great elephant in this room is, though.

And it's all over the place as well. There's Edward Mogg's 19th century railway travel guide (and Charles Knight's guide as well) that mentions Hanwell Park on one side of the railway line and Hanwell Asylum on the other. There are history books that tell us how Hanwell Park was merged together in the first place. There are WWW sites that tell us how Hanwell Park was then split up and sold off in bits to become variously a golf course, a school, some housing estates, and allotments apparently. There's stuff about Benjamin Sharpe, Montagu's predecessor, who invented stuff. Even Ealing Council has something to say about the history of Hanwell Park and the farms surrounding it.

This subject is just one road in one part of what used to be (at its height) Hanwell Park. And it's a bad and misleading portrayal of the actual history of Hanwell, which unsurprisingly did not all occur in the area occupied by one suburban street. If you read this (a re-print of one of the aforementioned history books), you'll see that the real history of Hanwell is rather different to the view of it through a narrow slit that is given here. Indeed, even Hanwell Park may be too small a subject to give a proper view — hence the tantalizing redlink subtly introduced just now.

Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the Hanwell Park estate was highlighted in the article many days ago. But note that the London Encyclopedia (which I keep by my bedside) gives equal prominence to the Hanwell Grove estate (aka The Grove) which was highlighted at the same time.

The creature which really dominates in this area is not the elephant nor the bunny but the cuckoo as we have Cuckoo Hill, Cuckoo Lane, Cuckoo Farm, Cuckoo Schools, Cuckoo Estate and conservation area. A large asylum for the cuckoo was built nearby but that is perhaps a coincidence. The current confinement of these topics within the article in question is due to the constraints of the crazy AFD process rather than a lack of knowledge or will.

Colonel Warden (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2010 (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.

The Page should come back

@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
 {{clear}}
 :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
+<big>The Page should come back</big>