Talk:Mitcham Common

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Importance criteria

Does this article lack information on the importance of the subject matter?

An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true: - There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).

Most people in the London Borough of Merton , and to a lesser extent Greater London are intrested in Mitcham Common. It also recives 340,000 hits on google. Laurenceandrews 08:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.

Mitcham Common is an expansion of the article Mitcham, which is an established subject. It is not very detailed at present, but is is longer than a stub and more content can easily be added. Laurenceandrews 08:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.

If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being: of insufficient importance, fame or relevance, or currently small or a stub, or obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.) Note that notwithstanding these criteria, other Wikipedia deletion policy may still apply to an article.

For what it's worth Laurence, I heartily agree with you. Mucky Duck 08:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigl as a source

User:Dudley Miles has replaced material that had been removed using the justification that "This is cited to GIGL, London's official environmental record centre" I can find no evidence that there is anything official about gigl. I have found no Government involvement. To the contrary this reference http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/47-per-cent-of-london-is-green-space-is-it-time-for-our-capital-to-become-a-national-park-9756470.html says it is " Greenspace Information for Greater London, a group that keeps environmental records" ie an independent group. Gigl's own site says it has commercial operations. http://www.gigl.org.uk/about-gigl/working-with-us/customers/. IMHO the greatest care should be exercised in using gigl as a source, if it used at allSovalValtos (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Gigl is clearly a Community Interest Company, and only a self named "official environmental record centre" 12:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the article on Greenspace Information for Greater London. Details of London Sites of Nature Conservation Interest were available on the Mayor of London's Wildweb web site until it was taken down in December 2010. No details were available for over a year and I kept chasing the Mayor's office. In mid-2012 I was told that the information had been transferred to GIGL, which is an NGO which is now the online source. See [1] on its connection with the National Biodiversity Network and funding by DEFRA. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mitcham Common. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]