Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myatt's Fields South Estate

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Disagreement about whether this is a run-of-the-mill housing development, or has architectural or historic value warranting coverage. A renomination discussion, if there is any, should focus more on this topic's coverage in sources rather than on general principles.  Sandstein  06:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myatt's Fields South Estate

Myatt's Fields South Estate (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)

This is an article about a very ordinary housing estate in London. There is no evidence whatever that it is any more notable than most housing estates. I proposed deletion (WP:PROD) in May. An editor contested my proposal, and another editor stated that he knew of sources showing notability, and would add them to the article. I left the article so that they could provide the evidence of notability they both believed existed. Five months later they have not done so.

There are 13 sources cited in the article. At least 4 of those 13 don't even mention Myatt's Field South. Others merely briefly mention it in passing. (The most extreme case being a 32 page document which has no mention of Myatt's Field South except a footnote containing the document reference "Myatts Field South Development: LBL/BDD/1/92", which appears, as far as I can make out, to be merely a council record of phases in the building of the housing estate.) Many of them are about a dispute about heating on the estate, a single event in the 40 year or so history of the estate, and without significant coverage of the estate, as opposed to coverage of the dispute. One source is an obituary of the architect of the estate, which does not mention Myatt's Field South. Another is entirely about a nineteenth century estate in the same area, which had been demolished before Myatt's Field South was built. Two of them are about Myatts Field North, without any mention at all of Myatt's Field South.

Some of the sources are press releases, very local campaigning web sites, and so on. One of the sources is an interview with a resident of the estate named Ruth Lang, on a personal blog, consisting of Ruth Lang's personal reflections on the estate, such as the feeling that her contributing to the "gentrification" of the area "irks at [her] conscience". The article was created by a single-purpose account named Ruthlang.

The editor who contested the PROD gave an edit summary which said "it has received significant coverage from sources including the BBC, Evening Standard and Inside Housing, and is of historical architectural significance". However, the Evening Standard coverage is a brief report on the heating dispute, giving no substantial coverage of the estate, the BBC report is about Myatt's Field North, with no mention of Myatt's Field South, and in five months no source suggesting "historical architectural significance" has been produced.

In summary, no evidence at all has been produced which comes anywhere near to showing that this housing estate is notable in Wikipedia's terms. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. All Ted Hollamby estates are notable. I have had to revert a major deletion that JamesBWatson made to this article in the past. There is a lot more to add, but the correct approach is to go to the talk page (currently empty) and discuss it there. There is work to be done on the construction methods, in this case some are wooden frame which is in itself notable. Of the 13 references given, there is still a lot of information to be gleaned. I have checked and the article is included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Social Housing in the United Kingdom articles to be improved list. ClemRutter (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm currently working on a project to improve coverage of Social Housing estates in the UK and this estate is an important historical example of an estate by Ted Hollamby. The subject area is very topical, with the discussion of housing issues in the UK and the Grenfell Tower disaster. There's just been a major documentary released on the housing crisis called Dispossession which looks at other Ted Hollamby estates which are currently threatened with demolition, meaning this could be one of the last of his estates still in tact. There are sources available in the local Minet Library archives which I need to access and still plan to, so I would really appreciate if you would give this article more time to develop, rather than repeatedly nominating it for deletion. Jwslubbock (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwslubbock, are there references that state "all of the Edward Hollamby estates are notable"? His works are not well known to me. It appears that every social housing estate has been added to the english wikipedia. I'm genuinely interested in why every estate is listed? I'm not sure that is similar to other articles on urban planning as social housing across the United States and Canada are not discussed on a settlement by settlement basis. That might be why there is AFD for this article. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean 'every social housing estate has been added to the English wikipedia'. The coverage of Social Housing on EN-WP is very poor, which is the reason for the WikiProject Social Housing in the UK. There are a good 17 or so references on that article now. I'm not sure how many more it's going to require to prove notability. Perhaps I could propose the following solution: the article could be renamed 'Myatt's Fields Estate', and then incoporate all the references to Myatt's Fields North Estate too, which has since been demolished. The North part received greater coverage in the national press when it was demolished, and I think it would be quite hard to say that an article on the entire estate including the North part would not pass notability guidelines. What would you say to that proposal?Jwslubbock (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a housing estate, with no evidence of notability. The arguments for keeping don't relate to Wikipedia policies. "All Ted Hollamby estates are notable" amounts to WP:ITSNOTABLE. You need to say why they are notable, not just state that they are. "Some are wooden frame which is in itself notable" - again, you have to say why, not just state that it is notable, and in any case are we really to believe that every group of houses which use wooden frames are notable? How many articles on housing estates would we have in that case? The fact that an editor put it in a list of article to be improved is not a proof of notability. The fact that a subject area is "very topical" has no connection to any notability guideline, and the speculation that this "could be" one of the last remaining estates by a particular architect hasn't either. The king of the sun (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand how you can state 'no evidence of notability' with all the references that exist. Notability on Wikipedia is about reliable, independent sources talking about the subject, and there are lots of sources there. It's notable because it's been talked about and described in multiple sources.Jwslubbock (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sources comes near to being the kind of substantial coverage required by the notability guidelines. None of the reasons given for keeping stand up to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and Jwslubbock's arguments are based on several misconceptions about the guidelines, such as thinking that a large number of references supports notability. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm currently seeking opinion on a compromise solution, which would be to merge this into a bigger article called Myatt's Fields Estate which would include all the coverage of the demolition of the north part of the estate. I think that there is enough coverage for it to be notable, especially in reference to it being an example of Hollamby's work, but I think that the assumption that this is 'just another estate' is resulting in people discounting its historical and architectural merit.Jwslubbock (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is a growing impetus towards the importance of these these estates - those by Neave Brown (awarded the RIBA gold medal last week) have been listed already, and those by Ted Hollamby, including Cressingham Gardens, are gaining notoriety. As the estates were designed anonymously under the council's authorship, realisation as to their importance in London's architectural history is only just coming to light. The website referenced as a "personal blog" is actually the web presence of a published book, Modernist Estates, by the interviewer Stefi Orazi - there are two other books in this series featuring estates from Europe and America, and the inclusion of Myatts Fields in this survey reinforces its nascent relevance. The inclusion of the Estate enables the otherwise disparate information about this estate to have a home for its aggregation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthlang (talk • contribs) 14:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- As I've continued to argue, this estate is an important example of Ted Hollamby's work, which is covered by a number of the references listed, which means that it is not just another estate. There are numerous other references relating to aspects of the design and history of the estate. However, I would be willing to compromise with the people who simply want to delete this article because they don't seem to think that social housing estates are noteworthy by changing the article into a wider article on Myatt's Fields Estate, which would also include the now demolished North part of the estate. Doing this would allow the article to use the many other good references to the North part of the estate, and I think that would remove the objection that there aren't enough references specifically about the South part. I would be interested to hear from the people who want this deleted whether they would be satisfied with this resolution. Jwslubbock (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ClemRutter, North America 1000 Ruthlang and Jwslubbock — OwenBlacker (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nb. I haven't contributed to this discussion; I only provided deletion sorting. North America1000 05:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion: While preventing this article from deletion is important, more important is to understand each others point of view. There are two guidelines to consider and one legal interpretation. If we can solve them here it will save a lot of future trouble.
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable.
Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis.
legally recognized places seems to be the keywords. A quick google on legally recognized mainly finds legally recognized marriage- in the UK all land has a legal status, and a legal owner. In France we look at the Cadastre. From the London perspective, that has been documented since 1215. (Maybe the article Unincorporated area is helpful in explaining legal differences, maybe not)
WP:GEOLAND goes on to give examples of locations that may be considered places without legal recognition which should be considered on a case by case basis. These are examples not policy, aren't they? Within the list is the technical term housing developments. To me, a builder buys a plot of land, and submits an application to build one to 50 houses on it, to the Local Planning Authority, if approved, foundations are dug and the housing development goes ahead. The recommendation is that housing developments are considered on a case-by-case. The examples do not include housing estates or housing schemes. Nor should they because housing estates are legal entities, in the main designed and built by the municipal authority with public money on publically owned land and were owned by the municipal authority. The population of such a settlement can run from a few hundred to almost 100,000. Contrast Myatt's Fields South Estate 324 with rural settlements such as Planken population in text 366.
  • WP:SIGCOVWP:GNG Is the fall back position, but again all housing estate will easily jump this low hurdle, if we were to take this on a case-by-case. Significant, reliable, indepentant, sources. Two sources will establish notability. Every year, details of the finances of the estate will appear in the housing revenue account, of the audited accounts of the local authority (some will be on line- some will be on paper in the authority archives The beauty of this source is that it is a legal document that has been signed off by independent auditors commissioned the full council. There is always a paper record of the planning appraisal made before the estate was built. Due to changes in local government powers the management of all estates has been tendered and awarded to a private company. This resulted in further appraisals and often significant press coverage, in local papers and the national building press. BDOnline (paywall to read- but searchable free). For notablity we only have to prove coverage, not to give detailed page references.
There is a lot to take on board there- but I have written it up to generate comments, then refine the text, and to gain a consensus which we can encapsulate in message template to be used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Social Housing in the United Kingdom.

ClemRutter (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the work you've done to look at this from a policy point of view, ClemRutter. I think these kinds of considerations are important for subjects where a historical lack of interest in the worth of a particular subject creates a situation where there are few prominent references available. This is really important when it comes to topics that are poorly covered by Wikipedia because of a dearth of available sources - biographies of notable women, indigenous and minority cultures with minimal written records, and people who have little access to information technology with which to create easily citable references. I think that it's important to consider social housing developments in this context, because they often house poorer, working class and minority ethnic communities, and therefore have received historically less interest in their importance than other types of settlement or construction. I think that we should be very careful about dismissing such places as inherently non-notable unless something of significant national importance has happened there, especially when many of these settlements are currently under threat of being demolished in the next decade to make way for expensive houses for metropolitan elites. Establishing the notability of settlements including housing estates is an important issue for the many other potential articles which could be created on housing estates which currently have no Wikipedia page, and perhaps this discussion could be linked to in Wikipedia:WikiProject Social Housing in the United Kingdom? Jwslubbock (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Synnior22 has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a WP:MILL housing estate with some coverage about a dispute over maintenance. I don't think it meet WP:GEOLAND, and it isn't close to being encyclopedic in any other way. There might be a larger topic it could be merged to, but I don't see any that exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but do not agree with you interpretation and it needs to be challenged. To quote from WP:GEOLAND from Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features).
  • "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."- this is a pass- therefore presumed NOTABLE.
Looking down to
  • "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."
As a development of Ted Hollamby this is a estate of historic architectural importance- we are short on online references, but paper records will abound and available in the London reference libraries, and in places such as the AA and RIBA libraries. A editor living in London needs to visit one of them.
You quote WP:MILL which is an essay, that has a distinctly US tone and again and the authors opinion is that a Housing development is Run-of-the-mill. I looked for notable reference on Housing development, the article is tagged article, I cleaned up the two references given . Housing development makes it very clear that Housing development (US) and a publically funded Housing estate(UK) are not the same. I am disturbed that this posting confuses the Housing estate with a 'run of the mill housing development'
From Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features):Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Here we have at least 3 notable features Hollamby- woodframed construction in public housing and the LCC/Lambeth transitiion. Plenty to fulfil the notability.
Thanks for the intervention, it will help to form precedence.ClemRutter (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of the first two points you cite from WP:GEOLAND, the first is not relevant as this is not a "populated, legally recognized place". That phrase refers to settlements such as villages, hamlets, parishes, wards etc. A housing estate within a city is not a legally recognised place any more than a single house is. The second point is however driectly relevant and what this discussion should focus on.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a problem with "Populated, legally recognized (sic) places" do you have a accepted UK definition- in my limited library and online I cannot find a UK definition. When contracts were written by the Environmental Services department of the local authority on which I sat, the name of an estate was used to define the area, I have difficulty in defining the limits a hamlet in the UK context, though we broadly know what it means. (This ties in with a discussion we are having at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Lead- description of settlement). I think also that your understanding of the legal status of the planning committee differs from mine. As a member of the planning we were constantly lectured by the City Solicitor about our role and the need to demonstrate independence, if the application for planning permission was made from another department of the council, members who sat on the controlling committee had to find a substitute and depending on the issue, definitely not vote, probably not speak and often leave the room. Defending a decision at judicial review would have blown the council budget. To my mind, for those reasons, the members appraisal in a planning document is independent, the application document from a direct works department on submission would not be, but would be when it was published and archived. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: consensus doesn't exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 04:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The question is whether there is discussion in detail about this estate in reliable, third-party sources. This coverage shouldn't just be about run-of-the-mill issues such as maintenance disputes but should be about the estate itself. The reasons for this are given at WP:WHYN - we need this in order to be able to write a balanced article. So even if this estate is considered to be of importance for whatever reasons, unless we can find this sources, we shouldn't have an article about it, for the reasons listed at WP:WHYN.

  • The source Modernist Estates is a website that is marketing properties on the estate. It is clearly not an independent source, and therefore neither is the booked detailed on the website.
  • @Jwslubbock I note you have added the source "Lambeth Architecture, 1965-99", however this is not available online. Could you let us know the depth of coverage about this estate in that book?
  • The source ""Myatts Fields South Phases IVa, V and VI. Lambeth Council. 1974. pp. LBL/BDD/1/92/3."" is a planning document published by the council and is therefore not an independent source suitable for establishing notability.
  • The English Heritage report "HOUSING IN LAMBETH 1965–80 AND ITS NATIONAL CONTEXT - A THEMATIC STUDY" does not discuss this estate in detail.
  • None of the other sources currently listed discuss the estate in detail.

The article doesn't therefore contain sufficient sources to meet WP:N. The contention is that there will invariably be such sources, because this estate is of historic significance, but that these sources are not accessible via Google. I tried a more thorough search via a legal deposit library, and while this search returned some results for Myatt's Field North, nothing was found on Myatt's Field South. This search includes books, newspapers, and publications such as The Estates Gazette, Progress in Planning and Construction News. If there are articles discussing the estate in detail languishing in hardcopy in local libraries then the question is - what are they and who are they published by? In the absence of such sources we can't write a balanced article that details the historic significance of this estate. I would suggest that the article is therefore deleted, but if multiple suitable sources come to light, an editor can ask an admin to restore the deleted article to draftspace where those sources can be added to establish notability before the article is restored. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always love it when we are right, and supposedly reliable sources are wrong. Run the search again : with exact match "myatts field south" omitting the apostrophe!ClemRutter (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources are those which are wrong? No one has yet revealed any independent reliable sources that discuss this subject in detail. I did run the search again without the apostrophe as you suggested, yielding two results neither of which represent significant coverage in reliable sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can't look at the results- I am the wrong side of the pay wall, but we are not looking for significant independant coverage in every reference at this stage- just that a reference exist. It is tricky to sort out WP:policies from WP: guidelines and project POVs and interpretations. (my text)

  • I think you are being too dismissive of the views of Ruth Lang,(link) published on the Modernist blog- which is highly regarded. She obviously is big in architectural history and the London scene.
All we have to do here is prove that there is sufficient out there to build up notable article not to deliver a ready made GA. At this stage we are looking for proof the estate exists and there are some references to it, and that really will be sufficient to get it up to a B. If this were my baby, I would want to get into a Lambeth reference library or the RIBA library and to investigate Ted Hollamby further, and the wood frame construction that was used. Someone should also start looking at Myatt's Field North and see if there is an easy article there, but looking at the Modernist site it appears we have a major tome coming out on Sidney Cook (architect). ClemRutter (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one has mentioned WP:GA, we just need to satisfy WP:GNG. Ted Hollamby, Myatt's Field North, and the construction technique may all be notable, but unless we can find find sufficient in-depth sources discussing Myatt's Fields South Estate per WP:WHYN, then we don't have enough for this article. I don't want to bludgeon this discussion by going around in circles so I will end my input here and leave others to judge the arguments.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I thinks we should keep this article first for generally meeting some points of WP:GNG. (And it's not hard rule to meet all). Second, Wikipedia documents history for posterity, this article at least has substantial historical claims which are well sourced. This article may not have the wide WP:SIGCOV that will convince everybody here to easily change their !vote due to the inherent nature of the subject. And this is clearly reflected in WP:GEOLAND guideline, it is very relaxed compared to other criteria, because everything is assessed on their on merit and nature, that's why we have tens of specific guidelines and general ones, so that by weighing against varying criteria we come to reasonable conclusion of whether to include or exclude.  — Ammarpad (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This estate has significant architectural history, as well as importance that comes from the population size that has lived there, comparable to many smaller towns in WP:GEOLAND. We should cover urban communities too, particularly those that are publicly organized. There is significant coverage on its own for this, in my opinion, though I could also see someone merging up to Myatt's Fields estates to cover the North Estate too.--Pharos (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with above.Leutha (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2017 (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/Myatt%27s_Fields_South_Estate&oldid=1077958961"