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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devon hedge

[edit]

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

Bulk of article, and all pertinent information is already included in the parent article Hedge#Hedge types. Not enough here for a standalone article. I prodded and was going to create a redirect afterwards, but the prod was removed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, should this not be tagged with a merge request rather than deletion tag? I'm not an expert on the procedure. Anyway, this article satisfies the notability requirement by number of sources available. I do not think it should be merged to the hedge article, because it will give undue weight about this type of hedge (same goes for Cornwall hedge too). Hedges exist wordwide and we have two section dedicated to Cornwall and Devon. The problem here lies not with this article, but at hedge. Jolly Ω Janner 10:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added three more book references, which alone would meet the GNG, if the refs already in the article weren't enough on their own. Devon hedges are distinctive, and I've added a cited quote to that effect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. The proposer's reason for wanting this deleted was apparently that the then current article contained no more than the section in the parent article. However, it's well established that the present state of an article is no indicator of whether it should exist or not – the real criterion is whether the topic is sufficiently notable, and nominators are supposed to do some research to check this before raising an AfD. Notability was surely satisfied by the time I'd added another source and removed the prod, but Chiswick Chap then gilded the lily (thanks!), and I've gone on to rhodium plate it by adding another.
I think that Jolly Janner's point about the problem lying with an undue emphasis in Hedge is a good one, though I haven't researched how many other named hedge types there are. We do need to ensure that this article talks about the specific Devon hedge type and not just ordinary hedges in Devon ("Devon's hedges"), of which there are also many kilometres. —SMALL JIM 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this has adequate references and the term and its use are well known. There is no problem expanding on a part of a wider topic in a stand-alone article, particularly where providing detail in the main article might be seen as giving undue weight. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:19, 17 December 2015 (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.