Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings Hall

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 CSD G12. v/r - T P 01:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Hall

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

Copy and paste from

Fatuorum 03:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - clearly not a case of Merge as the same content appears in Belle Vue Zoological Gardens (but with sources), as noted above. Would venture to suggest this article could be improved (with the addition of the 7 sources from the parent gardens article) and that a substantial portion of the text could be removed from the parent article with a {{main| redirect tag. Just not sure that there is value in keeping the page just because we can. It would forever remain not much more than a stub (I would suggest). The page could always be recreated if there is some substantial amount of coverage in the future about this particular part of the gardens which would make the parent gardens article to large to navigate comfortably. Thoughts? Stalwart111 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep i think the article should remain and the portiom in the belle vue article reduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttchunker (talk • contribs) 07:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

XfD. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete and redirect this article which has been cut and pasted from a featured article. To remove it would mean the featured article wasn't comprehensively covered. J3Mrs (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make sure the original redirect to the disambiguation article is replaced (Kings Hall -> King's Hall). There are many similarly named halls, so even if it was kept the article should be renamed to include the city. I agree with Malleus, however, that the article is not likely to ever get much larger, so we should keep it part of the Belle Vue article. Once someone provides evidence (with new referenced content in the Belle Vue article) that the subject can be expanded, we can always split the article out properly (with its citations). Don Lammers (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in the main article. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in the main article.--John (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the deletion tool. No need for AFD. No need for administrators. Just revert to this revision of the article and undo this edit. That's two edits. Uncle G (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already tried, not once but twice. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per most of the above. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is a content fork placed at an ambiguous title. I have restored the title as a redirect to the disambiguation page. If there is any reason to have a separate article on this subject, it should be at an unambiguous name. older ≠ wiser 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - after Uncle G above, Mr Stephen's previous efforts and older ≠ wiser's new redirect I have asked an uninvolved admin to consider closing this AfD. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2012 (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.