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 as now clearly meeting WP:GNG. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton High Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I am not finding published secondary sources to indicate that this rather ordinary suburban high street is notable for a standalone article. Charles (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a major filming hub in south London.--Launchballer 10:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are at least two books about this topic: Sutton High Street: A Study of Pedestrianisation (1980) and No Small Change: 100 Years of Sutton High Street (1983). The topic is therefore notable. Andrew (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not only as the primary street in Sutton, but the the subject of two books. Most likely more coverage from other sources.--Oakshade (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew Davidson above. The entire Busses section is unreadable-at-any-speed crufty garbage and needs to go away. Carrite (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it's mentioned in 2 books, And totally agree with Carrite -The bus bollox has got to go!

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is - it's all sourced - but reworked into a list format and all 'via's removed. Better?--Launchballer 23:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was nothing but a huge mess hence the comment?, Anyway it's much better .... I'd even say it's readable!.. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually worse because Wikipedia should be mostly written in prose. It has to go anyway per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTTRAVEL. It is quite unacceptable cruft.--Charles (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I own two further books about Sutton, both of which cover the High Street in some detail: "Sutton - Past and Present" by Sara Goodwins ISBN 0-7509-3424-7 and "Sutton" by Jane E. M. Jones ISBN 1-84588-324-1. They contain more than enough info from which a short history could readily be produced for this article to complement the current and future sections it contains now - I would be happy to take on this small task. User:A P Monblat —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History section now written and added in. I am pleased with it (even if I say so myself!), but may yet polish it a little and/or add a bit to it.User:A P Monblat —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have put three citations at the end of the section but for verification we need to know which parts of the text are supported by which source. Otherwise it is synthesis. You may find WP:Citing sources helpful.--Charles (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have aligned the citations with the specific parts of the text that they support. Hope this is OK now.--A P Monblat (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work.--Charles (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2014 (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.