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 merge to Earl Shilton. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Shilton in the pre-modern age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Excessive detail. Mostly local in nature. No notability, nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Earl Shilton - it's about a small town, of course it's local in nature. --Michig (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Earl Shilton. If it is decided that this article is too long for a merge, could we start an article on the history of Earl Shilton and insert the information there? Vorbee (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The main article for this place is over 56K and tagged as {{too long}} with {{too many sections}} and so merger would make matters worse. The topic is notable and good sources are provided. The nomination is absurd and false and so should be speedily closed. Andrew D. (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the article on Earl Shilton, which also needs to be seriously edited. Both these articles lack an encyclopedic tone, and ramble with little evidence of sourcing and no consideration of notability guidelines or what encyclopedic articles are supposed to cover. There is no reason an article on a place of 10,000 people should be so long and rambling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as History of Earl Shilton, possibly pruned. The fact that the village has a local history published by a mainstream publisher like Pan means that this is an exceptional case, where a separate article is justified. This looks like a significant case study. It needs to be pruned: details of the expenses incurred by Leicester Corporation on entertainment are too detailed, though the total expenditure might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. Agree with John Pack Lambert about the main article. Srnec (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge There seems to be a perfectly respectable article in there struggling to get out. We should help it do so rather than smother it at birth. I agree with Andrew Davidson re sources and notability and Peterkingiron re pruning. I have put this (pruning) on my 'to do' list, along with the main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A change of name to History of Earl Shilton also seems sensible, moving over the historial information from Earl Shilton. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy for this to kept and worked on if it helps this to be closed - a possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. This is clearly not going to end with deletion - I don't really think it needed to be relisted. --Michig (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to History of Earl Shilton. It needs cleanup and condensing, but even after that, my guess is that it'll be too long to be merged into the main Earl Shilton article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per John Pack Lambert. Tacyarg (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above--IndyNotes (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above.And the target needs a nuclear cleanup.Winged Blades^Godric 12:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. John Pack Lambert and I have already excised over a third of it. I will cut more later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2018 (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.