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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dines Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Prodecural nom - second PROD.

First prod rationale: "Does not appear to meet the notability threshold, and is unsourced, possibly original research. Propose deletion per WP:N and WP:V"

Second prod rationale: "Not notable. Dines Green is not a place, it is simply one of the early large council estates in Worcester. The article lacks any information of encyclopedic value. lacks an info box. Lacks references since being tagged in Sept 2008." Marasmusine (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless non-trivial coverage in third-party sources found. Difficult to tell as GNews is swamped with news stories that happen to mention the housing estate. A early housing estate in a city may have some historical significance, but I can't find anything suggesting notability myself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep but consider merge to St. John's, Worcester, as then we will have one unsourced article instead of two ☺. More seriously, this housing estate seems a bit small to have an article of its own. St John is the city council ward that includes Dines Green (see Neighbourhood Statistics website) and i think wards are the smallest geographical unit potentially worthy of a separate article. I've just found that there is some 2001 census info available on Dines Green as a separate 'neighbourhood area' though ([1] obtained from [2]), so there is at least some reliable info (if you like numbers) that could be used to check the current article — e.g. 47% of households rent from council or other socially rented, which appears to disagree with current article's statement that "the vast majority are still owned by the local authority". Qwfp (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - just needs improving and sourcing. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started on that now, I still think there is loads more that can be done though! Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant expansion since AfD. Area has its own school (a good sign for an established neighbourhood.).--Kudpung (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - excellent rescue work carried out. Can see no valid reason for deletion. Saga City (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Coverage still seems to be on the incidental side, but it's definitely a step forward from the complete lack of evidence for notability. Changing to neutral. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient notability to warrant an article it its own right due to church and school.  Chzz  ►  04:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll say keep again because after the rescue operation we still have dozens of stubs in Worcestershire that are in a worse state than Dines Green is now.--118.175.130.58 (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, yes there is lots of coverage and it does seem like it could have a distinct community, but a lot of the coverage is about trivial matters. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has been significantly improved. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep quite good enough qualtity for retention. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 18 July 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.