Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Station, Boston

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. There was no consensus between keeping, merging, or redirecting. There was limited discussion of GEOLAND, with some editors claiming this to be a legally recognised place and others calling it a political space that doesn't meet GEOLAND. Assuming there was a consensus against keep, there was no consensus amongst the various merge and redirect targets. This close is without prejudice to starting a proposed merge discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Station, Boston

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is an electoral ward of just 2,700 people with a town of 45,000 people. All that the article really says is "the ward exists". It does not prove its notability and it is for that complete lack of notability that I am nominating it for deletion. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not deleted, Redirect to Borough of Boston#Elections, which has a list of the wards and a link leading to Boston Borough Council elections and thence to pages such as 2023 Boston Borough Council election which give the detailed election results for the ward (2023 Boston Borough Council election#Station etc). And add to disambiguation page at Station#Places: if it has any encyclopedic value, it merits a dab page entry. PamD 14:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: On further consideration, as it isn't a place it probably shouldn't have comma disambiguation, so it should be renamed as Station (Boston ward) if it survives either as a page or as a redirect. (Or should that be "(Boston, Lincolnshire, ward)"? Should all these places being disambiguated as ", Boston" actually be disambiguated as ", Boston, Lincolnshire"?) PamD 15:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Redirect and/or merge to Boston, Lincolnshire as an alternative to deletion. It looks like the Politics section at least mentions the Station ward. – The Grid (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge to Boston, Lincolnshire#Borough Council wards or redirect to Borough of Boston#Elections per above. I would prefer the merging option. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 14:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place. Not opposed to merging/redirecting. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A ward is not a legally recognised place, it is a political division which is not covered in GEOLAND. Therefore should meet GNG which this doesn't. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wards in the UK are legally recognised places. They are created by Acts of Parliament/Statutory Instruments and written into the statute book, you genuinely could not ask for more legal recognition. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge wards are political structures not places (unless the ward covers a legally recognised place) so do not meet GEOLAND. Merge to Boston.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have strong feelings about whether or not to delete this, just throwing another option into the discussion: you could merge/redirect to List of electoral wards in Lincolnshire. There's generally a limited and standard amount of encyclopaedic information that you can say about a ward, which makes them well suited to just using a table. Some of the other "List of electoral wards" articles - e.g. List of electoral wards in Bristol and List of electoral wards in Dorset give examples of how you could use tables to cover the main information (population, location, etc) about all Lincolnshire wards in one list article. Joe D (t) 13:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a consensus against keep, but no clear consensus for where the article should be redirected/merged to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have 3 or 4 different Merge/Redirection target articles suggested and we need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The other electoral wards lists link to separate articles for the wards - Bristol and Dorset are unitary authorities, but Boston is a district, and there is a similar amount of information available for district wards (unlike town council wards such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleaford, Newark-on-Trent). Peter James (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2024 (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.