Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodburn, Midlothian

:{{la|Woodburn, Midlothian}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Woodburn, Midlothian}})

We have never settled whether a mere neighborhood in a town distinguished only by a postoffice and a postcode is individually notable. I do not think so. FWIW, the population of it and the 5 neighbouring postcodes all together are less than 96--the UK Census does not break it down further. [http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/browser/profile.jsp?profile=Population&mainLevel=Postcode&mainText=EH22+2AT&mainTextExplicitMatch=false&compLevel=CountryProfile&compArea=Scotland&compText=&compTextExplicitMatch=null] DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a community/neigbhorhood and is even a postal code. It's mildly helpful to have even just a stub article, like this one is, to keep helpful structure in place, such as mention of this location within Woodburn disambiguation page. It would be deleted from dab page if article is deleted i think. Some readers will look for this place, and find nothing. Serve the readers; it does no harm; etc. Or, develop the article more. --Doncram (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• merge and redirect to Dalkeith as it's just an estate. Post offices get named after settlements, estates and roads, so are not a guide to the status of a place. Postcodes are allocated on the basis of the amount of mail received, so while some postcodes cover several streets or isolated farms, some large office buildings have more than one (the DVLA building in Swansea has at least three, for example). Almost every building in the country that receives post (and many that don't) has a postcode, and so it's not all an indicator of anything. There is a library and a school named "Woodburn", but there are countless of these named after estates up and down the country, so that tells us nothing either. The most convincing evidence though is that I've looked at almost all the relevant mapping services listed on the geohacks page, and not one of them labels "Woodburn". Thryduulf (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Only source in the article (Google Maps) doesn't even name the area as Woodburn. Google news search suggests some local papers loosely refer to the "Woodburn area", but I can only see that being worth a mention in the Dalkeith article. At a push, the entry on the disambiguation page could be changed to "Woorburn, an area of Dalkeith", but I won't lose much sleep if that doesn't happen. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

::Search Google maps. "Woodburn, Dalkeith, Midlothian, United Kingdom" pops up as search option for me now, anyhow, and points to a center point location on Woodburn Avenue. This is not the same as Google identifying an area, but the location is findable using Google Maps and other services. That said i wouldn't mind this being redirected to Dalkeith and having Woodburn disambiguation page entry updated as Chris Neville-Smith suggests. --Doncram (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete but mention in Dalkeith article. If it's not even significant enough to be mapped, there's probably not much that can be uniquely said about it. Fix disambiguation page per Chris Neville-Smith above. --Polaron | Talk 14:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - It does seem to be consistently referred to as a distinct area by secondary sources [http://www.google.com/search?q=Woodburn,+Midlothian&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=mGU2TfP3E4SWsgP-hrnkAQ&ved=0CA8QpwUoBQ]. --Oakshade (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Most of those hits are irrelevant (e.g. one is about a retired US Colonel Woodburn whose family came from somewhere unspecified in Midlothian), but of the ones that aren't the only one on the first three pages about the only two that aren't just a passing mention are a very-local newspaper article about the opening of a skatepark, and an estate agent telling me I can buy a house from them there. Even the ones that are passing mentions universally describe it as an area of Dalkeith. We don't have articles for every area of every town and city - unless they individually meet the WP:GNG we mention them on the article about the settlement they are an area of. From everything I've seen about Woodburn, pretty much all we can encyclopaedically say about it is that it is an area of Dalkeith with a school, post office, library and skatepark - very far from meeting the GNG. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete/redirect/merge (any are fine with me). I accept the premise that notability standards, elastic as they are, should be a little looser for geographical places. But I can't support loosening them so much as to allow an article on such an ill-defined geographical area that reliable sources tell us so little about. I'm ok with the merge suggestion but there's so little content to be merged over, we may as well just write a new sentence or two in the Dalkeith article, which isn't really a merge.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2011 (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.