Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save Historic Newmarket

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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Save Historic Newmarket

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

Non-notable protest group - fails WP:GNG as the only reliable sources given mention the group in passing only. Contested Prod. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 7 gnews hits consisting of comments made in the media rather than coverage about the organisation. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article clearly doesn't fail WP:GNG

For a start, it's the first organisation ever to win a judicial review against Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/606.html

The organisation has been reported far and wide across the UK (example below):

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/racing-fans-win-newmarket-battle-15126232.html

They're also the first organisation to successfully campaign against a major planning application after Regional Spatial Strategies were abolished.

It's looks like a pretty broad group, and is being cited as a model for a lot of LDF and RSS-focused groups.

And it gets a lot of media coverage, here are just a few articles:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/racing-fans-win-newmarket-battle-15126232.html [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horseracing/8341960/Housing-turf-war-divides-Newmarket-the-home-of-horse-racing.html http://www.newmarketjournal.co.uk/news/local/hatchfield_farm_housing_plan_decision_deferred_1_551155 http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article6916182.ece

--Mardyten (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — Mardyten (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - none of those articles seem to have much in the way of detail on this particular protest group, mostly just brief mentions. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I think that the mentions in the sources provided qualify to more than just brief or passing (I mean, that they are somehow significant mentions), I agree with Ilikeeatingwaffles that they don't provide much detail, particularly they don't specify how or why was the organization formed, so I was left to assume that it was created as a response to the development action. The article itself relies too much on a description of the events, with little to none description of the organization other than to remark its key role in the protest. As of now I would go for a weak delete, but I'll wait until I can search for possible extra sources tonight - frankieMR (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization meets notability easily, and even with the organization being all around a single event, such event has definitely garnered a lot of attention. The article as it stands fails WP:POV (and a couple of words) - [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] - frankieMR (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this should be merged into Newmarket, Suffolk?--Pink Bull 17:12, 31 May 2011 (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.