This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. 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.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
This article 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
Deleted the part about the Mountain Rescue team, if you clicked on the link provided you would see that it is just the website for group of a outdoor pursuits enthusiasts going by that name (28/4/2010)
I have contested the proposed deletion of this article by User:Jojalozzo for two reasons. First, while I created the article originally, that was way back in 2006 and was the only edit to it I have made until now, and there may have been more appropriate places to discuss this than my talk page (relevant WikiProjects, for instance). Second, this is one of a myriad of similar articles about suburban areas of towns and cities across the UK (and, indeed, around the world); many of these articles are in poor shape, so why pick on this one in particular?
Also, one shouldn't judge articles that were written in the early days of Wikipedia, when standards for referencing were considerably different from what they are now; in the "good old days", it was sufficient for content to be verifiable, i.e. if details could be independently verified (e.g. by looking at a map, or by visiting the area in question), then detailed citations were not regarded as necessary. "Local knowledge" was often deemed to be a good enough source. The condition of many "six-year-old" articles such as this one can be attributed to that. --RFBailey (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
