Ansley Common: I propose either a deletion of the article or it be merged as it has no real notability apart from on an OS map.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 15:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] leaning delete From a US perspective this looks like a neighborhood, not a village unto itself.  As a rule standards for neighborhoods are high and they need to be notable in their own right.  At this point this place doesn't meet that.  Mangoe ( talk ) 00:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I initially thought Mangoe may have been right, but actually this appears not to be the case.  It has a council-erected nameboard , which simple neighbourhoods of other towns or villages do not have in the UK.  This indicates recognition as a separate settlement and it is therefore notable per WP:GEOLAND .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete The source mentioned above It has a council-erected nameboard , is the strongest source for this subject and I trust Necrothesp did a complete BEFORE.  Fails GNG and GEOLAND.  // Timothy :: talk 03:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My point is that this means it passes WP:GEOLAND !  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I know and I agree its the strongest source for the subject which is why I !v Delete. // Timothy :: talk 10:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] But if it passes WP:GEOLAND it is notable! It doesn't need any further coverage. -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] according to WP:GEOLAND!  "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, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." - so in this case, Ansley Common is far from notable and would as said be best covered in Nuneaton as a suburb.  DragonofBatley ( talk ) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ansley, Warwickshire .  I don't see the council sign as being sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND .  Ansley Common appears on Ordnance Survey mapping in the early 20th century as mining cottages associated with the nearby Ansley Hall Colliery.  Current mapping shows it to be conjoined to Nuneaton in a ribbon development.  However, it's officially in North Warwickshire Borough and part of Ansley civil parish as can be seen on the map download here.  [11] Rupples ( talk ) 22:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies.  The map shows it's in the North Warwickshire ward of Arley and Whitacre, which covers Ansley.  Rupples ( talk ) 22:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here's a link to Ansley Parish Council website which includes Ansley Common.  [12] Rupples ( talk ) 22:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ansley, Warwickshire per above.  Mentions the subject already.  No sources for an standalone article, this is an unneeded CFORK.  // Timothy :: talk 22:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Ansley, Warwickshire because it is a suitable target where Ansley Common is mentioned.  The source cited in the article is not enough to establish notability.  InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs ) 10:29, 21 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect