Talk:Banburyshire

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Banbury.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warwickshire Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.WarwickshireWikipedia:WikiProject WarwickshireTemplate:WikiProject WarwickshireWikiProject Warwickshire articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The entire paragraph about Cherwell Edge seems to be an advert for the golf club (and put in for that reason?). A separate Cherwell Edge entry containing just this has already been deleted. Speaking to a local they were not aware of the name being anything other than that of the golf club; there is no mention of the name in referenced material; it doesn't appear on an OS map. Saying that the area was cleared "many years ago" doesn't mean anything: how long is many years? The links to the golf club's own website and another site's page of its reviews are of dubious intent and unencyclopediaic, I think. Jake255 (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting it to History of Banbury. --Wipsenade (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.86.29.79.230 (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Proposed Deletion[edit]

"PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." - What makes you think this is the case? This must go through full AfD procedures with all parties who have contributed to it being involved S a g a C i t y (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]