Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bedford Street, Crewe

From 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 Delete. Let me know if any content needs to be retrieved for GFDL. ---J.S (T/C) 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bedford Street, Crewe

Bedford Street, Crewe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This street is not particularly notable, and it has few links, as has been noted, and no verified sources. Some discussion on the talk page suggested merging this entry with that of Crewe, which I have now done. I propose it is now deleted.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails to verify any notability with any reliable sources at all. NeoFreak 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. meshach 03:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Unremarkable street. MER-C 04:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per the GFDL. As the nom noted, content has been merged; therefore, the page history must be preserved. Actually the content could probably be unmerged, given the lack of sources; but as long as it remains in the Crewe article, this must not be deleted. -- Visviva 14:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Visviva. Redirects from completed merges need to be kept to preserve the history for GFDL purposes. Oldelpaso 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect needs to be kept--Sandy Scott 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


As the nominator and the person who merged this entry with the Crewe entry, I have now unmerged it. Consequently, this entry may be deleted without any need to preseve the page history. I consider this street to be not noteworthy, nor in need of being mentoned in the Crewe entry until some verified citations are made as to its claim to be notable.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Entirely unencyclopedic. WMMartin 15:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
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.