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 no consensus. or merge, No consensus rather then keep because the view does be that this should be redirected or merged but not where. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common End, Derbyshire[edit]

Common End, Derbyshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The place is named on a map but WP:ITEXISTS is not enough to meet WP's criteria for inclusion. Common End is not a village in its own right, it does not have separate census data, I could not find it in the Domesday Book. If there were a single line that met WP's notability I would already have merged it into the article about whichever town or village it is in (though I cannot even find out what that would be), but without even one line to add to such an article a redirect would fail the principle of least astonishment test, so even merge is unacceptable. ClickRick (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. ClickRick (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find any significant coverage from GNews, GScholar or GBooks. Mentioned in some gazeteers and censuses in GBooks but seems to be only in passing, and referring to it as a "locality". OS Map on Multimap shows it to be between Holmewood, Stainsby and Astwith but considerably smaller than any of them – looks to be only about half a dozen buildings, so at most a hamlet rather than a village. --Qwfp (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's a shame that the gbooks you link to either don't have previews or else don't conclusively show that it is the name of a settlement as opposed to the name of a vague area. ClickRick (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. That this place exists is easily verifiable, but given that there seems to be nothing else verifiable about it I cannot see it ever becoming anything more than this. Given that there are at least two Common Ends in Norfolk (articles recently deleted) and one in Cumbria (article no larger than this one) in addition to this one in Derbyshire, what I propose is merging this, the Cumbira ones and the information from the now-deleted Norfolk ones, to Common End. That page should be a note that there are several very small settlements in England with this name, then list them with their coordinates and links to nearby settlement(s). This way we keep the information and it allows expansion at a later date if more information is ever found. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is intriguing as an idea. What would be the basis of such an article, though? If there were a 3rd party source which listed them and discussed either them or the name which they share then I would unreservedly agree. ClickRick (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the maps, gazetters and censuses Qwfp mentions are enough to verify the existence, and as consensus is clear that all verifiably real places are notable that should be sufficient. The article would effectively be a list of places with the name "Common End", and so we don't really need third party discussion or even linkage between them. If anything can be found about the name "Common End" then yes we should absolutely include that (I've not looked, but wouldn't be surprised if something exists) but it isn't necessary. The contents of the list would be the location (description including nearby places and parish, local authority, co-ordinates [all empirically verifiable]) and anything else verifiable we can say about them. Think of it as a combination list/disambig if that helps. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The existence of the places has not been questioned. However, I do have to take issue with your assertion that "consensus is clear that all verifiably real places are notable". There have been essays written on the subject, such as WP:Notability (Geographic locations) (by Sebwite) and WP:Notability (geography) (by Rividian), but they are just essays and I see a distinct lack of consensus, with one having been nominated for deletion and the other having a talk page which is too long to take in all in one go. There is no question of notability for civil parishes and anything larger, but for smaller places it's much less clear. WP:AFDP#Places helps to a degree (all four of the places called Common End would come under the heading of "Smaller suburbs" in that context), as does the second paragraph of WP:UKCITIES, but they still require something to be said about the place rather than simply listing it and saying where it is. ClickRick (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I agree that consensus for subdivisions, suburbs, etc that have no distinct identity from the settlement they are part of is that they should be merged or deleted. However that is not what we are dealing with here - these are distinct settlements, as evidenced by your nomination statement that a merge or redirect to any one of the surrounding places is not appropriate. As far as I can see there is no essay, guideline or policy that deals with these very small independent populated places that verifiably exist, but about which nothing more can currently be said, so there is no point citing them (the essays, etc). My solution allows Wikipedia to have the complete geographic coverage by having one article about these places instead of four short sub-stubs. In essence it is the same in spirit as the merge of subdivisions to the larger spirit - i.e. we merge articles about areas we can say little or nothing about to a suitable article. In this case the suitable target article is Common End rather than the article about a different place. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I fail to see how you managed to draw the inference that this is a "distinct" place from what I said. An isolated place, yes, but that is far from the same thing. As to what else you say, you appear to be arguing in circles: first you asserted that there is a consensus which says that the place would be notable merely because it is "verifiably real", an assertion which I refuted by citing the lack of consensus in the essays and the lack of a guideline on the topic we discuss here, but then you turned around and said that there was no point in citing them because they fail to deal with that same subject. As to merging into a larger article, I simply invite anyone to offer even one sentence which can be added to that article which meets WP's criteria for inclusion. ClickRick (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia doesn't have criteria for inclusion, it has criteria for things that should not be included (WP:CSD) and guidelines for what should be. Everything else is included or deleted based on consensus at discussions such as this one. Regarding "I fail to see how you managed to draw the inference that this is a "distinct" place from what I said.", you stated that you cannot find what village it is part of - this is because it is not part of any village, it is a small isolated settlement not a district, suburb, subdivision, neighbourhood or other area - reliable sources such as the ordnance survey map clearly mark it as distinct from the surrounding settlements. My suggestion for a single article is to be a list of places with this name and co-ordinates, and any more information can be found and added. I am proposing this as a compromise between the "all real inhabited places are automatically notable" and "there is not enough information for an article" positions. Why are you so insistent that this be deleted? Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep real place, referenced to the Ordnance Survey - and where do we say that it needs to be in the Domesday Book to be notable? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do I say that that's the only place it needs to be? I was merely showing examples of instances where places can be referenced in order to be notable. Is it for me to enumerate all the places is could be or is for you to find a reference to the place and offer it? I believe it's the latter. We have already established that its mere existence as a real place is insufficient on its own to warrant a WP article (see WP:ITEXISTS), so what other notability could we come up with? I've tried and failed, but you're not offering anything. ClickRick (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. This article exists, I believe, because its on a list of places in England/Derbyshire. The question I ask is why anyone would want it. Well (speaking from Derbyshire) there are only two marginal reasons. 1. someone found it on Ordnance Survey and want to know more 2. Someone found it in the list and want to find out more. Now in both cases the answer is (cos I looked) that there is very little to know. That is what the article says....! there is very little. There is a farm there and for some long forgotten reason its on Ordnance Survey. The only solution is keep (if in line with policy) or better still merge with the parish which I believe is Ault Hucknall. I don't believe deletion achieves much... but I can see that some may want to delete something and this is a very marginal case. (and merge is still an option). Victuallers (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary, it is keeping or merging which serves nothing. There is nothing to say about the place beyond "it appears on a map". If the article, such as it is, is deleted and then someone finds something notable to say about it then it can soon enough be recreated, but keeping what is currently there cannot be considered an option, and if there is not even a single sentence to add to any other article about it then merge cannot be considered an option either. ClickRick (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any relevant information (of which there is precious little) to the place of which it is administratively part, if that can be identified; if not, delete. There's no inherent notability to a half-dozen houses that happen to have a collective name on one map. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please volunteer even a single sentence which can sensibly be added to the article of the parish, such that a redirect would make sense. ClickRick (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to its parish, allegedly Ault Hucknall. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please volunteer even a single sentence which can sensibly be added to the article of the parish, such that a redirect would make sense. ClickRick (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, you should explain why you think that having sentences transferred is a pre-requisite for redirection, given that Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for? implies no such requirement. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "First"? I already did, in the opening nomination statement. WP:R#PLA says, and I quote: "We follow the "principle of least astonishment" — after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?". Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place." This can only be done if there is a sentence in the target article which explains the connection. —ClickRick (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe that the parish is a good merge target, but if others think it is, then it is easy to construct a sentence along the lines of "The parish contains the small settlement of Common End, located between the villages of X, Y and Z in the north|south|east|west|centre|etc of the parish." What is your next objection? Thryduulf (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I shall AGF about your question and re-read it as "Would that be acceptable?" My reply will be yes once someone can show reliably sourced, verifiable evidence that the place is actually a settlement and not merely the name of an area, as would appear to be the case with Hardstoft Common (a mile SSW from Common End, according to the OS map) which shows no evidence of houses. My concern is that we would otherwise fall into the trap of original research and ascribe to the place a status which it should not have. We already know that the article was created with such original research, in that it was called a village, though this has since been corrected. ClickRick (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is this a settlement? has it ever been inhabited? has someone checked earlier maps? or the VCH? If nothing more can be found it should be merged with a redirect, so anyone coming here will at least know whatever little is known. . I favor keeping all inhabited places or places with a distinct geographic identity, but this seems to be neither, at least based on current information. DGG (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a settlement that is currently inhabited which is shown on the modern OS map and the 1844 OS map. Thryduulf (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What about individual isolated farms? These are inhabited places that in the UK are marked and named on Ordnance Survey maps and many have a verifiable existence going back several hundred years. Are you arguing for having an article or redirect for these? If not, we have to draw the line somewhere. Qwfp (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worse than that, though. The creator of this article has defended it here with the defence that "it's a real place named on the OS map". Looking at the Streetmap version of this particular place, it is certainly named, and there are also certainly farms named, which is your point, but there's also Stainsby Common. However, there are no buildings indicated on the map which would be associated with either Stainsby Common or Common End, and yet the article's creator's view would be that both are somehow notable simply by dint of being named on this map. I strongly disagree with that view, and believe that a higher bar of notability is required, one which would perhaps allow for all places which were "census units" but which would exclude places, such as Common End, about which there is nothing of encyclopaedic value to say. ClickRick (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If being a census unit were the inclusion criteria, nearly all village and hamlet articles would be deleted; that is not the community's position, however, so the extreme position you advocate is contrary to consensus to delete material from the encyclopedia. One thing WP is supposed to be is a gazetteer. The OS's gazetteer has it, but soon we won't. So much for our five pillars. That's what's worse. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:5#1: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". (My italics). Qwfp (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Information: postcode.royalmail.com reveals that the postal address of properties in Out Lane, the road through Common End (including Holme Farm shown on the OS 1:25000 map and Lane End Farm shown in the photo File:Out Lane 605403 b3106350.jpg in the current article), is "Out Lane, Stainsby Common, Heath, CHESTERFIELD, S44 5RL". So the postal address doesn't include "Common End". Not entirely sure if this is relevant, but having found it out… Qwfp (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You succeeded in that search where I failed, then. One of the other places called Common End turned out to be nothing more than the name of a road. ClickRick (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2009 (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.