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 delete. ✗plicit 07:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banc Llety-spence (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 is a site of special scientific interest because there may be certain wildlife that uses the site, but this is not sufficient to be notable, and indeed there is almost no information available on it beyond the SSSI listing. The site is already listed on our List of SSSIs in Ceredigion. The name literally means "Spence Lodge bank". Llety-spence is a named site but the bank (presumably the river bank) is not. It is just a description used for the SSSI (these are usually fields or other geographic areas where there is interest). The site is not populated, and does not meet WP:GEOLAND under any category. There is not sufficient information available to construct an article, and the information is better treated on the SSSI page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 10:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There are only around 356 Google hits so that's not a good sign. WP:GEOFEAT item 1 for those of cultural heritage or national heritage may similarly apply to SSSIs but there doesn't appear to be much information for it. The Welsh Wikipedia article has more info but the reference is dead, there may be enough coverage for it to be notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient information available to draft an article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is difficult. On the one hand, there seem to be few or no sources that are available. If it is a site of special scientific interest, wouldn't we expect there to be published studies written about it? On the other hand, a site that has government/international designation for protection must have had reports and documents written about it to get the designation. I'm not sure how to resolve this with regard to WP policy. I've seen it said several times that there are more than 1,000 SSSIs in Wales covering 12% of the land area (not dug enough to see a source for this, it may be WP!). On that basis, we can't necessarily keep pages just because they are an SSSI, so sadly I'd say delete until or unless someone can find significant scientific studies about it. JMWt (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2022 (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.