465:. The directive to assume good faith means to not assume that someone is editing out of malice, or with a biased agenda. I have made no such accusations against you. You can be confused and still making confused statements in good faith. And yes, you have contradicted yourself, it's up here for anyone to see. You directed me to "Please go to Google and search" but now you say "Nobody asked for you to dig for anything" I assume you don't realize you have contradicted yourself, so I'm still assuming good faith on your part. I also assume there is no malice in your lack of understanding that it is the burden of people like you who want to keep the article to "please go to Google and search," not the burden of people like me who think the article is not notable. You seem to be making an issue out of my use of all caps in places, I simply find it faster on talk pages to use all caps instead of bold letters for emphasis.
447:. Actually, anyone can search Google to see the results returned. This isn't demanding anyone to dig anything up, just demonstrating how I found the references. And how does being dead 16 years lessen anything? Again, I believe notability for the neighborhood has been established because it has received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This is my opinion. I don't plan to respond further. I will respect the admins decision.
235:
keeping the article recognized that the section VIII itself was not notable, and their comments were actually “Keep/Rewrite” with the belief that rewriting the article to expand it would establish its notability. There was not adequate discussion on the notability of (and how could there be for an as-yet unwritten article) on
Nottingham Forest as a whole.
415:
find something, yet you didn't demonstrate at that time, you didn't provide anything, you only directed me to do a Google search. As for the New Yorker article, I don't know how to stress this enough - a PASSING REFERENCE to the neighborhood he grew up in does not in any way whatsover consitute SIGNIGICANT coverage.
216:
I would like to nominate this article for deletion. I know it was nominated in
February 2009 and the result was “keep”, but there are reasons I believe a new AfD is in order, which I will discuss now: The article in February 2009 focused only on a subsection of Nottingham Forest (Section VIII), and
419:
defines significant coverage as "means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The New Yorker article you provided is over 5,000 words long, and all it says about
Nottingham Forest is “When I was about eleven, it dawned on me that I didn’t like where I was,” he said, speaking of the
414:
Assumptions of good faith have nothing whatsoever to do with this. You said to me "Please go to Google and search" but now you say "Nobody asked for you to dig for anything" so you are contradicting youself. NOW you try to change your story by saying that you were demonstrating how easy it was to
378:
to support the notability of the neighborhood when the editors of the article failed to provide it as they have. That burden is on those who wrote the article, and those who want to keep the article. And again, though I am a fan of Hicks, it's not like the guy is Eddie Murphy or another household
676:
which doesn't give a clear keep or delete recommendation for such places, I'm leaning keep (weakly) for now. I'm a little concerned by the lack of non-Bill Hicks secondary sources, though. The
Chronicle link in the article is broken, and doing a search on the Chron website only gives real estate
629:
First, I love Bill Hicks, but just because someone of some notoriety is from somewhere doesn't make that place notable as well. If it were, everyone from
Philadelphia would be notable because the US Constitution is notable and it was drafted there. But that's not how WP works, so, can we please
440:
Remember, comment on the article not the editor. "You are confused" was targeted at me, not the article. This is not assuming good faith on your part. And now I'm CONTRADICTING myself (I threw in all caps just to demonstrate your style) and I'm "changing my story"? Huh? Again for you, please see
254:
3. "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple
234:
K Now, before going on to make the case for deleting the current article, I would like to try to anticipate possible discussion of the previous “keep” !vote. This was not an unqualified decision to keep after determining that the article was in fact notable. Several of the comments in favor of
250:
2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for
495:
Is it possible to merge the neighborhood in another article? Simply because it was the childhood home of a comedian does not give it notability on its own, but perhaps should be mentioned either in that comedians article and, if possible, somewhere else under the
Houston articles.
284:
5. ^ Houston Police
Department - Westside Patrol Division page Nottingham Forest is just one of many subdivisions listed as being patroled by the Westside Patrol. Having a particular police precinct be responsible for partrolling your neighborhood does not establish encyclopedic
634:" Second, if the consensus from the first nomination boils down to "Keep because it can be re-written to meet WP standards," and after a sold effing year it hasn't been re-written to meet WP standards, well, then delete the damned thing. Sh*t or get off the pot, as is said.
424:"? Come on. Furthermore, all of your new sources seem to be Bill Hicks biographies with passing mention of where he lived. Your support for notability hinges solely on it having once been the neighborhood of a comic of relatively minor reknown who has been dead for 16 years.
271:
1. ^ Nottingham Forest at
Houston Association of Relators website: Merely provides price data for people interested in buying houses in the neighborhood, provided by relators interested in selling houses in that neighborhood. This makes it commercial and does not establish
325:. There are many sources that mention the neighborhood in reference to the comedian. I've added a few. I think this establishes notability for the neighborhood. Many of the Chronicle references you claim are no longer valid could probably be found in the archives. Thanks,
229:
3. I would posit that since the Feb 2009 AfD nominated an article on
Nottingham Forest, Section VIII, but the article I am nominating for deletion in September 2010 is on the whole of Nottingham Forest, it is a different article, so technically this is a new AfD, not a
225:
2. Any discussion of the notability of the unwritten article would be difficult as it would be muddled by the discussion of the then-current article, as well as the difficulty of really analyzing the notability of an article with had not yet been written;
397:. The neighborhood has received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Nobody asked for you to dig for anything, I simply demonstrated how easy it was to find the sources that establish notability (i.e. New Yorker Magazine
720:
not independently notable, I have two cousins that live in that neighborhood and they always refer to it as "west memorial." I am forced to conclude if they refer to it as such then its not notable if people who live there dont refer to it as such.
246:
1. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source
86:
258:
4. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases,
185:
517:
There is a "Memorial Area, Houston" article that I think it would fit into nicely, and that did come up in discussion around the time of the first afd, but with the idea of expanding the article, that was not fully
288:
6. ^ RAP news stories at
Westchester.org: Is a website for a civic association that serves and is made up of residents of Nottingham Forest, Section VIII, so it is neither a Secondary Source, nor Independent of the
341:
I did do my best to search the Chronicle archives for them, and I welcome you to try. Though I'm a big fan of Bill Hicks, I agree with Xanderliptak and Location that it doesn't make the neighborhood notable.
221:
1. On deciding to expand the article, the discussion pretty much wound down, so there was not adequate discussion on whether or not the as-yet unwritten expanded article itself would qualify as notable;
81:
179:
145:
140:
299:
Therefore, the article fails to establish the notability of Nottingham Forest; it has not received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject.
356:
I believe notability for the neighborhood has been established because it has received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject, please see
113:
108:
117:
563:
420:
subdivision where he lived, which was called Nottingham Forest." 30 words out of 5,000, are you trying to tell me this "source address the subject directly
292:
7. ^ a b Tropical Storm Allison Recovery Project (TSARP) floodplain and elevation map: Being on a floodplain map does not establish encyclopedic notability
100:
48:. Though the nominator makes a plausible case for deletion and the keep !votes weren't the strongest I've seen, there's enough here to demonstrate that
379:
name, he's not THAT well known a comic, and even if he were, that wouldn't automatically confer notability on the little subdivision he grew up in.
730:
711:
686:
660:
643:
618:
578:
553:
527:
510:
474:
456:
433:
409:
388:
369:
351:
334:
312:
65:
303:, so housing subdivisions that have not achieved notability through specific circumstances are not generally notable, and are not encyclopedic.
200:
167:
255:
publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
630:
start making everyone who signs up to edit WP get that tattoed on the inside of their eyelids maybe? Or maybe something more catchy "
374:
You are confused; as the person nominating the article for deletion, I am under no burden to start digging around the Internet for
726:
673:
611:
398:
295:
8. ^ Official map of Spring Branch Independent School District: Being served by a school district does not establish notability.
217:
the “keep” !vote was really a decision to expand the article to include all of Nottingham Forest. This is significant because:
104:
17:
651:
Referenced article about a neigborhood of a major city. It would be great if every major city had a few dozen such articles.
161:
669:
536:
157:
722:
238:
Now, I will move onto my reasons for why the current article on the Nottingham Forest Subdivision is not notable. The
52:
from the previous AFD. (and yes, this is the same subject so this is a "renomination") Also, I was unconvinced by the
207:
56:
argument. The issue of redirecting or merging is an editorial decision and can continue on the article's talk page.
96:
71:
744:
36:
743:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
707:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
360:. Please go to Google and search: Bill Hicks Nottingham Forest. I don't think anyone can deny this coverage.
278:
3. ^ Houston Chronicle HomeFront: this is a broken link, it gets a 404 error on Houston Chronicle’s website.
541:
498:
275:
2. ^ a b "Houston Freeways" (PDF, 2003) — Interstate 10 West. : Does not mention Nottingham Forest at all.
173:
61:
639:
635:
606:
523:
470:
429:
384:
347:
308:
703:
699:
656:
193:
695:
549:
53:
682:
574:
504:
452:
405:
365:
330:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
589:
300:
57:
601:
519:
466:
425:
380:
343:
304:
544:, I do not believe that Hicks being from a neighborhood makes the neighborhood notable.
652:
357:
668:
I note that a commenter in the previous AfD pointed out that Nottingham Forest has a
545:
462:
461:
I commented on your arguments for keeping the article, not on you. Again, you misuse
443:
416:
394:
264:
239:
49:
678:
570:
448:
401:
361:
326:
134:
281:
4. ^ The Houston Chronicle: Another unretrievable article from Houston Chronicle.
540:. Information that is verifiable and notable can be mentioned there. Similar to
322:
694:
It is well established that places are notable. The rest just seems to be
592:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
87:
Articles for deletion/Nottingham Forest, Houston (2nd nomination)
737:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
263:
The sources for the article, followed by my reasons they fail
130:
126:
122:
321:- The neighborhood was the childhood home of comedian
192:
597:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
747:). No further edits should be made to this page.
82:Articles for deletion/Nottingham Forest, Houston
206:
8:
672:as a populated place. Given that, and the
564:list of Texas-related deletion discussions
558:
718:Redirect to List of Houston neighborhoods
562:: This debate has been included in the
400:, plus others provided in the article)
79:
7:
78:
677:results, which isn't encouraging.
24:
393:No, not confused at all, please
632:Notability, it's not inherited.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
579:19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
554:15:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
528:19:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
511:06:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
475:15:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
457:17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
434:15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
410:21:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
389:15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
376:significant, reliable coverage
370:21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
352:19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
335:03:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
313:18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
537:List of Houston neighborhoods
240:General Notability Guidelines
674:Notability (geography) essay
301:Knowledge is not a directory
731:13:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
723:The Resident Anthropologist
712:14:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
687:15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
661:04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
644:03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
619:01:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
66:14:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
764:
97:Nottingham Forest, Houston
72:Nottingham Forest, Houston
740:Please do not modify it.
50:consensus hasn't changed
32:Please do not modify it.
77:AfDs for this article:
44:The result was
621:
581:
567:
755:
742:
698:contrary to our
617:
614:
609:
604:
596:
594:
568:
509:
507:
502:
211:
210:
196:
148:
138:
120:
34:
763:
762:
758:
757:
756:
754:
753:
752:
751:
745:deletion review
738:
612:
607:
602:
598:
587:
542:WP:NOTINHERITED
505:
499:
497:
153:
144:
111:
95:
92:
75:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
761:
759:
750:
749:
715:
714:
704:Colonel Warden
700:editing policy
689:
663:
646:
623:
622:
595:
584:
583:
582:
556:
531:
530:
514:
513:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
338:
337:
297:
296:
293:
290:
286:
282:
279:
276:
273:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
232:
231:
227:
223:
214:
213:
150:
146:AfD statistics
91:
90:
89:
84:
76:
74:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
760:
748:
746:
741:
735:
734:
733:
732:
728:
724:
719:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
690:
688:
684:
680:
675:
671:
667:
664:
662:
658:
654:
650:
647:
645:
641:
637:
633:
628:
625:
624:
620:
616:
615:
610:
605:
593:
591:
586:
585:
580:
576:
572:
565:
561:
557:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
533:
532:
529:
525:
521:
516:
515:
512:
508:
503:
501:
494:
493:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
423:
418:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
392:
391:
390:
386:
382:
377:
373:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:
353:
349:
345:
340:
339:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
316:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
294:
291:
287:
283:
280:
277:
274:
270:
269:
268:
266:
257:
253:
249:
245:
244:
243:
241:
236:
230:renomination.
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
209:
205:
202:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
159:
156:
155:Find sources:
151:
147:
142:
136:
132:
128:
124:
119:
115:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
93:
88:
85:
83:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
739:
736:
717:
716:
691:
665:
648:
631:
626:
599:
588:
559:
535:Redirect to
534:
506:XANDERLIPTAK
500:
442:
421:
375:
318:
298:
262:
237:
233:
215:
203:
197:
189:
182:
176:
170:
164:
154:
45:
43:
31:
28:
696:WP:NOEFFORT
251:notability.
180:free images
58:Ron Ritzman
54:WP:NOEFFORT
670:GNIS entry
636:Mtiffany71
520:Mmyers1976
467:Mmyers1976
426:Mmyers1976
381:Mmyers1976
344:Mmyers1976
323:Bill Hicks
305:Mmyers1976
285:notabilit.
272:notability
666:Weak keep
653:Cullen328
571:• Gene93k
518:explored.
422:in detail
247:material.
590:Relisted
546:Location
289:Subject.
141:View log
679:28bytes
449:Postoak
402:Postoak
362:Postoak
358:WP:NRVE
327:Postoak
186:WPÂ refs
174:scholar
114:protect
109:history
627:Delete
463:WP:AGF
444:WP:AGF
417:WP:GNG
395:WP:AFG
265:WP:GNG
158:Google
118:delete
608:COMMS
603:Ć’ETCH
267:are:
242:are:
201:JSTOR
162:books
135:views
127:watch
123:links
16:<
727:talk
708:talk
692:Keep
683:talk
657:talk
649:Keep
640:talk
575:talk
560:Note
550:talk
524:talk
471:talk
453:talk
430:talk
406:talk
385:talk
366:talk
348:talk
331:talk
319:Keep
309:talk
259:etc.
194:FENS
168:news
131:logs
105:talk
101:edit
62:talk
46:keep
569:--
226:and
222:and
208:TWL
143:•
139:– (
729:)
710:)
702:.
685:)
659:)
642:)
577:)
566:.
552:)
526:)
473:)
455:)
432:)
408:)
387:)
368:)
350:)
333:)
311:)
188:)
133:|
129:|
125:|
121:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
64:)
725:(
706:(
681:(
655:(
638:(
613:/
600:/
573:(
548:(
522:(
469:(
451:(
428:(
404:(
383:(
364:(
346:(
329:(
307:(
212:)
204:·
198:·
190:·
183:·
177:·
171:·
165:·
160:(
152:(
149:)
137:)
99:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.