Talk:Sink estate

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sink estate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

When exactly did Gospel Oak constitute a "no go" area???

I have edited this article. I lived on what might be termed a "sink estate" in the 1960s and 1970s, and these deprived city areas certainly pre-dated Thatcherism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidsandie (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

non-UK equiv pls!

so what does it equate to? i was thinking "tenement", but google reveals a few sites saying sink estates are "much worse". as a yank, i'm not quite sure how -- tenement is already the bottom of the barrel.

there's also "projects" but i think that's just "council housing", no? bit worse image in the US than the UK, but still well above tenement. tenement is a "project" in horrid shape...which sounds like the relationship between sink estate and council housing, no? 209.172.25.170 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my comments below. It's not an official term, and it's a vague term. Meerta (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This article is appalling. The section on "crime" opens oddly, as if mid-paragraph, and then openly quotes an organisation "sympathetic to David Cameron" (whatever that means) to support its opening statement.

It has grammatical errors, and isn't very coherent.

Looking at the what the last section tells us about the origin of the term is quite illuminating.

I propose Wikipedia drop this article. "Sink estate" appears to be a journalistic term. If all it means is "deprived estate in a UK town or city", it doesn't require a separate article, just a dictionary entry. The causes and characteristics of deprivation in towns and cities are barely done justice by this article, while I suspect elsewhere on Wikipedia, certainly on the internet, there is a lot of good material, considering it is such a well researched subject.

In brief, the partisan or at least imprecise terminology is liable to obscure the subject, therefore it is better to delete the article and cover the subject in a different way, if it is not coverered already. Meerta (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As great deal of research has been done doesn't the article need improvement? If Meerta is sure material exists elsewhere on the internet perhaps Meerta can gives links to some web pages that could improve the article. That would be constructive.

I moved the David Cameron material into the middle of a paragraph away from the top. I paraphrased the quote and added more from the short section of The Times article that isn't behind a pay wall. I hope that deals with a bit of the problem. Nuggets of Knowledge (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years on, I attempted to get this article deleted again but it was vetoed because of the discussion in 2016. The article was, in my view, irresponsible. It included a long section at the end that named council estates in the country as "sink estates", without any reference for any of them. Much of the article was stigmatising language without any reference. Of the references that were in, I checked them all and two of them didn't mention sink estates at all. I feared that an article such as this would always be targeted by prejudiced people and that it would be better off deleted. As this was vetoed, I have tried to improve the article, but I fear that it will get targeted again soon. Epa101 (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this page is crap. Just delete it and maybe add a paragraph about the term to the 'social housing in UK' page.WisDom-UK (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]