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 no consensus‎. Mixed between redirect/merge and keep. A few expressed sentiments that the article had been improved over the course of the AfD. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Waters (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 not a settlement - it's a commercial housing development which must meet WP:GNG to be notable. Other than a routine planning announcement in the local press this development does not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to show that it is notable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Burton parish council have noted Burton Waters as part of the parish, additionally there are plenty of news articles, a memoir for Odder and Burton Fen about the Woodcocks pub in Burton Waters. May I also point to these links outside of Lincolnshire?

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Plenty of sources there including an ons map and Lincolnshire CC Annual Report patrol uk.

DragonofBatley (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources:

• [6] - Mentions Burton Waters Lincolnshire
• [7] - Mentions Burton Waters
• [8] - Mentions Burton Waters and the development
• [9] - Gym at Burton Waters
• [10] - Scholar report about the Burton Waters cup Bronze something

More sources that prove it does exist and is notable DragonofBatley (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale, @PamD, @JMF, @A D Hope, @KeithD, @Eopsid and @Rupples. Thoughts? DragonofBatley (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources, maps and mentions do not support notability. At best this is a merge/redirect to Burton, Lincolnshire. Also please read WP:VOTESTACKING. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley, I'm not sure it was necessary to make that "Oppose" word bigger. The argument doesn't get more weight from using bigger font. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly merge with Burton, Lincolnshire its parish? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge and redirect Yes, I agree. That is the solution we have used for neighbourhoods in Milton Keynes. See for example Stantonbury (the parish) contains Bancroft, Blue Bridge, Bradville, Linford Wood, Oakridge Park and Stantonbury. So at best Burton Waters should be a redirect to Burton, Lincolnshire#Burton Waters. Hope that squares the circle? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Amended retrospectively to show my !vote more evidently for the closer's convenience. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anonymous MK2006: You may have an interest because sauce for this goose is sauce for the Eagle Farm, Milton Keynes and Newton Leys ganders, as they are exceptions that disprove my rule above. So if this goose is cooked for the Xmas table, then you can guess what must happen next. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that Burton (strictly "Burton-by-Lincoln") is a CP. NOMIS just has it as built-up area. The citation given in the article for the population figures is dead, but the number is a lot more that NOMIS gives. So what is the actual parish? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @JMF It's a parish - see below. PamD 23:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Merge and redirect to Burton, Lincolnshire. Unsurprisingly, the Lincolnshire Echo has sustained coverage on the planning and proposals for, and objections to the development from 1992 onwards, with which to write a background to the development. It looks to have been controversial. They can be found in the the British Newspaper Archive. An example is here for those who have access: [11]. There's enough to pass the GNG. Although a part of of Burton civil parish, the Ordnance Survey does describe it as a village and it looks to have a resident population so may come within the scope of WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place with presumed notability. I did consider whether I was WP:CANVASSED and should express an opinion. I don't think User:DragonofBatley's notifications amount to WP:VOTESTACKING. I've had no prior discussion about this topic, so DragonofBatley had no idea of my opinion. Looking at the editors contacted they are regular contributors to WP:UKGEO. I'm firmly of the opinion this has been done to broaden the number of contributors to the discussion, not to sway the discussion in a specific direction. Rupples (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC). Changed initial opinion for reason set out in reply to User:Reywas92 below.[reply]
• Merge to Burton, Lincolnshire. This seems to be a gated residential and marina development, not a real settlement (as shown by the mention of second home owners on the Parish Council website, and the fact that it has candle shop, cafes, giftshop etc rather than practical shops, church, etc: a visitor attraction). (Please link to that Parish Council website, especially if using if to assert notability). I've cleaned up some sloppy non-sentences, fixed a link to a dab page, removed a link to another dab page (please, Dragon, use the helpful gadget which helps editors avoid accidental links to dab pages: I've told you about it before. Or, please check carefully every link you make, to be sure it goes somewhere useful.), but am not convinced it has notability beyond its developers' publicity. Re JMF's point: according to MAPIT the pub is definitely in Burton CP, and the parish council does exist, just no-one has yet mentioned it in the article on the village. I think it's called "Burton-by-Lincoln" or similar - am on phone, too much effort to find it again. PamD 23:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, moving to desktop machine and falling down the usual Wikipedia rabbithole... the article Burton, Lincolnshire now has a link to the NOMIS 2011 census (yes, parish pop is indeed 625 in 2011), and now has mention of, and link to, the Parish Council (which uses "Burton-by-Lincoln"). That article doesn't at present mention Burton Waters. PamD 23:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the website given in the infobox is of a boat sales company, not a place. PamD 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. That's inappropriate so I've removed it. Rupples (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources: Architects' Journal no. 220 feature [12], mention [13].Rupples (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Burton, Lincolnshire. Neighborhood/development within the parish doesn't need a separate article, can be covered together. Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's a valid point and the Burton article could do with additional content. While I believe there's sufficient sourcing to pass the GNG for a separate article on the topic, it doesn't need to have one and in any case the demographic stats cover both places. Changing opinion to merge. Rupples (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My opinion has fluctuated between keep and merge. The article has been expanded and refocussed on the development's/settlement's history since being nominated for deletion. Most of what could be taken as promotional referencing and text has been removed. I believe distinct settlements within the same parish that are physically separated from each other by non-built up land are normally covered by separate articles where sources are sufficient to write more than a stub. This is the case here. It is preferable for the Burton, Lincolnshire article to be expanded with a separate history of the overall parish and village of Burton-by-Lincoln and the Burton Waters article wikilinked — a brief Google search reveals content that could be used to expand the Burton article. Other than a promotional sounding narrative on the parish council's website there seems little in common between the two villages.[14] and thus little context would be added by combining the two articles into one. Rupples (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rupples: as the article stands today, Burton, Lincolnshire is an article about the CP of that name. It contains (and at present entrely consists of) material about a constituent village called Burton-by-Lincoln. I don't see an obvious reason why it couldn't contain a section about another village in the same parish, as many CP articles do? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a policy/guideline to merge distinct settlements within a civil parish into an article on the parish? I'm not aware there is, but maybe I've missed it. The lead of Burton, Lincolnshire was recently changed away from being about the village to be an article on Burton civil parish, presumably in response to and help support a merge opinion at this AfD. Nothing wrong with that per se but I don't believe this route is preferable here now Burton Waters has been expanded. Burton Waters is a settlement and so has presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND (there have been additional residential schemes built since the marina part opened and development is ongoing). I don't see an obvious reason why Burton Waters shouldn't have its own article when readers seeking information on the place will likely search for it under its own name rather than the parish. Rupples (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about parishes. "Burton" and "Burton-by-Lincoln" are synonymous names which means they should be covered in a single article however its fine to have separate articles for other places in the settlement like Burton Waters. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a pity that the Architects' Journal feature [15] (and to prove it's Burton Waters [16]) are only snippets (and despite searching I can't find a full version). It looks to have a description of some of the architectural features, but I've not added text from it because of uncertainty over content especially, who is saying what. Rupples (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per improvements. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've remained off Wikipedia since this article was nominated for deletion. I made a bunch of improvements by researching more books and scholars mentions of BW. I found a lot of sources as shared above in my responses and I'm still of the opinion per WP: Geoland and WP: Notability. The article has enough stance to remain in place and when looking at the different sources from websites and news to books and history. There's plenty of material for the settlement to be notable and worth an article of its own. It has bus times and services listed, it has it's own estate, it has plenty of sign posts and also the pub there is the oldest building dating back to the 60s before the entire area was redeveloped and the land was all previously occupied. So I lean heavily towards Rupples and Crouch, Swales points but Burton isn't part of this area it's a separate settlement being nearly a mile or so away. It's in the same parish district and county of course but not the same bua with greenbelt between them. Also look at Skellingthorpe (Great Northern Railway) railway station map coordinates and you'll see Burton Waters. Not that it served it but the site was near to the area. As well as said bus times/services and the Burton CP website among other things like books and the Burton Waters Cup. They all mention the area. So I feel the article can be improved but a rash deletion is not the way to do it. Be like putting Hykeham for deletion because of Birth and South Hykeham but the area is in Lincoln and notable so is Burton Waters. DragonofBatley (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Meant North Hykeham and South Hykeham as well as Hykeham. DragonofBatley (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As argued in previous comments. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be a development which has become somewhat of a populated place - in any case, it passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments invited re two similar cases

At talk:Wavendon#Merge and redirect, I ask for advice on whether there is any need for a formal RM to merge two (fairly significant) residential developments (either side of 52°01′58″N 0°39′44″W / 52.032838°N 0.662351°W / 52.032838; -0.662351, if anyone cares to look) into the Wavendon (CP and village) article. "Compare and contrast" those cases with this one. Advice welcome at talk:Wavendon. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2023 (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.