Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottingham Forest, Houston (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Though the nominator makes a plausible case for deletion and the keep !votes weren't the strongest I've seen, there's enough here to demonstrate that consensus hasn't changed from the previous AFD. (and yes, this is the same subject so this is a "renomination") Also, I was unconvinced by the WP:NOEFFORT argument. The issue of redirecting or merging is an editorial decision and can continue on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Forest, Houston

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nottingham Forest, Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would like to nominate this article for deletion. I know it was nominated in February 2009 and the result was “keep”, but there are reasons I believe a new AfD is in order, which I will discuss now: The article in February 2009 focused only on a subsection of Nottingham Forest (Section VIII), and the “keep” !vote was really a decision to expand the article to include all of Nottingham Forest. This is significant because:

1. On deciding to expand the article, the discussion pretty much wound down, so there was not adequate discussion on whether or not the as-yet unwritten expanded article itself would qualify as notable; and
2. Any discussion of the notability of the unwritten article would be difficult as it would be muddled by the discussion of the then-current article, as well as the difficulty of really analyzing the notability of an article with had not yet been written; and
3. I would posit that since the Feb 2009 AfD nominated an article on Nottingham Forest, Section VIII, but the article I am nominating for deletion in September 2010 is on the whole of Nottingham Forest, it is a different article, so technically this is a new AfD, not a renomination.

K Now, before going on to make the case for deleting the current article, I would like to try to anticipate possible discussion of the previous “keep” !vote. This was not an unqualified decision to keep after determining that the article was in fact notable. Several of the comments in favor of keeping the article recognized that the section VIII itself was not notable, and their comments were actually “Keep/Rewrite” with the belief that rewriting the article to expand it would establish its notability. There was not adequate discussion on the notability of (and how could there be for an as-yet unwritten article) on Nottingham Forest as a whole.

Now, I will move onto my reasons for why the current article on the Nottingham Forest Subdivision is not notable. The General Notability Guidelines are:

1. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
3. "Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
4. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]

The sources for the article, followed by my reasons they fail WP:GNG are:

1. ^ Nottingham Forest at Houston Association of Relators website: Merely provides price data for people interested in buying houses in the neighborhood, provided by relators interested in selling houses in that neighborhood. This makes it commercial and does not establish notability
2. ^ a b "Houston Freeways" (PDF, 2003) — Interstate 10 West. : Does not mention Nottingham Forest at all.
3. ^ Houston Chronicle HomeFront: this is a broken link, it gets a 404 error on Houston Chronicle’s website.
4. ^ The Houston Chronicle: Another unretrievable article from Houston Chronicle.
5. ^ Houston Police Department - Westside Patrol Division page Nottingham Forest is just one of many subdivisions listed as being patroled by the Westside Patrol. Having a particular police precinct be responsible for partrolling your neighborhood does not establish encyclopedic notabilit.
6. ^ RAP news stories at Westchester.org: Is a website for a civic association that serves and is made up of residents of Nottingham Forest, Section VIII, so it is neither a Secondary Source, nor Independent of the Subject.
7. ^ a b Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project (TSARP) floodplain and elevation map: Being on a floodplain map does not establish encyclopedic notability
8. ^ Official map of Spring Branch Independent School District: Being served by a school district does not establish notability.

Therefore, the article fails to establish the notability of Nottingham Forest; it has not received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a directory, so housing subdivisions that have not achieved notability through specific circumstances are not generally notable, and are not encyclopedic.Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The neighborhood was the childhood home of comedian Bill Hicks. There are many sources that mention the neighborhood in reference to the comedian. I've added a few. I think this establishes notability for the neighborhood. Many of the Chronicle references you claim are no longer valid could probably be found in the archives. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did do my best to search the Chronicle archives for them, and I welcome you to try. Though I'm a big fan of Bill Hicks, I agree with Xanderliptak and Location that it doesn't make the neighborhood notable. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe notability for the neighborhood has been established because it has received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject, please see WP:NRVE. Please go to Google and search: Bill Hicks Nottingham Forest. I don't think anyone can deny this coverage. Postoak (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused; as the person nominating the article for deletion, I am under no burden to start digging around the Internet for significant, reliable coverage to support the notability of the neighborhood when the editors of the article failed to provide it as they have. That burden is on those who wrote the article, and those who want to keep the article. And again, though I am a fan of Hicks, it's not like the guy is Eddie Murphy or another household name, he's not THAT well known a comic, and even if he were, that wouldn't automatically confer notability on the little subdivision he grew up in.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not confused at all, please WP:AFG. The neighborhood has received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Nobody asked for you to dig for anything, I simply demonstrated how easy it was to find the sources that establish notability (i.e. New Yorker Magazine [1], plus others provided in the article) Postoak (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assumptions of good faith have nothing whatsoever to do with this. You said to me "Please go to Google and search" but now you say "Nobody asked for you to dig for anything" so you are contradicting youself. NOW you try to change your story by saying that you were demonstrating how easy it was to find something, yet you didn't demonstrate at that time, you didn't provide anything, you only directed me to do a Google search. As for the New Yorker article, I don't know how to stress this enough - a PASSING REFERENCE to the neighborhood he grew up in does not in any way whatsover consitute SIGNIGICANT coverage. WP:GNG defines significant coverage as "means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The New Yorker article you provided is over 5,000 words long, and all it says about Nottingham Forest is “When I was about eleven, it dawned on me that I didn’t like where I was,” he said, speaking of the subdivision where he lived, which was called Nottingham Forest." 30 words out of 5,000, are you trying to tell me this "source address[es] the subject directly in detail"? Come on. Furthermore, all of your new sources seem to be Bill Hicks biographies with passing mention of where he lived. Your support for notability hinges solely on it having once been the neighborhood of a comic of relatively minor reknown who has been dead for 16 years.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, comment on the article not the editor. "You are confused" was targeted at me, not the article. This is not assuming good faith on your part. And now I'm CONTRADICTING myself (I threw in all caps just to demonstrate your style) and I'm "changing my story"? Huh? Again for you, please see WP:AGF. Actually, anyone can search Google to see the results returned. This isn't demanding anyone to dig anything up, just demonstrating how I found the references. And how does being dead 16 years lessen anything? Again, I believe notability for the neighborhood has been established because it has received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This is my opinion. I don't plan to respond further. I will respect the admins decision. Postoak (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on your arguments for keeping the article, not on you. Again, you misuse WP:AGF. The directive to assume good faith means to not assume that someone is editing out of malice, or with a biased agenda. I have made no such accusations against you. You can be confused and still making confused statements in good faith. And yes, you have contradicted yourself, it's up here for anyone to see. You directed me to "Please go to Google and search" but now you say "Nobody asked for you to dig for anything" I assume you don't realize you have contradicted yourself, so I'm still assuming good faith on your part. I also assume there is no malice in your lack of understanding that it is the burden of people like you who want to keep the article to "please go to Google and search," not the burden of people like me who think the article is not notable. You seem to be making an issue out of my use of all caps in places, I simply find it faster on talk pages to use all caps instead of bold letters for emphasis.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to merge the neighborhood in another article? Simply because it was the childhood home of a comedian does not give it notability on its own, but perhaps should be mentioned either in that comedians article and, if possible, somewhere else under the Houston articles. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "Memorial Area, Houston" article that I think it would fit into nicely, and that did come up in discussion around the time of the first afd, but with the idea of expanding the article, that was not fully explored.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, I love Bill Hicks, but just because someone of some notoriety is from somewhere doesn't make that place notable as well. If it were, everyone from Philadelphia would be notable because the US Constitution is notable and it was drafted there. But that's not how WP works, so, can we please start making everyone who signs up to edit WP get that tattoed on the inside of their eyelids maybe? Or maybe something more catchy "Notability, it's not inherited." Second, if the consensus from the first nomination boils down to "Keep because it can be re-written to meet WP standards," and after a sold effing year it hasn't been re-written to meet WP standards, well, then delete the damned thing. Sh*t or get off the pot, as is said. Mtiffany71 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referenced article about a neigborhood of a major city. It would be great if every major city had a few dozen such articles. Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I note that a commenter in the previous AfD pointed out that Nottingham Forest has a GNIS entry as a populated place. Given that, and the Notability (geography) essay which doesn't give a clear keep or delete recommendation for such places, I'm leaning keep (weakly) for now. I'm a little concerned by the lack of non-Bill Hicks secondary sources, though. The Chronicle link in the article is broken, and doing a search on the Chron website only gives real estate results, which isn't encouraging. 28bytes (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is well established that places are notable. The rest just seems to be WP:NOEFFORT contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Houston neighborhoods not independently notable, I have two cousins that live in that neighborhood and they always refer to it as "west memorial." I am forced to conclude if they refer to it as such then its not notable if people who live there dont refer to it as such. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:20, 4 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nottingham_Forest,_Houston_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069209679"