Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common End, Fulmodeston

: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 delete. Very weak arguments for retention amounting to an WP:ITEXISTS argument. The five pillars argument fails to emphasis the word "incorporating" in the quotation, which is not a term meaning that Wikipedia should have all of everything. Lacking a policy argument, the consensus here is to delete - a merge would be, as several commentators indicate, pointless as there is nothing to merge from this article Fritzpoll (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Common End, Fulmodeston]]=

:{{la|Common End, Fulmodeston}} ([{{fullurl:Common End, Fulmodeston|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common End, Fulmodeston}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The place to which this article relates is not a village, as the article asserts, but a small place within a village. It is not shown on many online mapping services, and only appears on Ordnance Survey maps at the same significance as farms and woods or common land. It has no specific notability in its own right because of any events or notable people. ClickRick (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; article is trivially short, no references, no evidence of notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fulmodeston. This looks likely to be a deserted village, possibly the original location of Fulmodeston, judging by the landscape and ruined church. There isn't anything to merge at the moment, but the redirect will allow a section to be created when information is found and ultimately to become a full article if it ever warrants it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the Ordnance Survey has it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: I said at the outset that it appeared on [http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm?mapAction=gaz&gazName=g&gazString=TF9947230533 the OS map]. My point is that "Common End" is written in the same size text—i.e. is written with the same significance—as woodland or a farm, and smaller than the writing for a village. ClickRick (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: How does deleting this adhere to Wikipedia's Five Pillars, particularly the first: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (emphasis mine). If the OS gazetteer has this and WP determines not to have it that decision seems to be at odds with the first pillar - perhaps WP doesn't want to be what it says it is. Sad, really. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I hear your argument. But at that level of "settlement" I'm unconvinced that OS maps provide the detail required to determine if it's a placename in actual use. Does anyone know this place as Common End? Is that name used in any way in day to day useage? Is it even used on postal addresses? Knowing the way the OS uses place names I'd argue that this isn't necessarily so - it's entirely possible that the place name marked on the map is referring to an individual dwelling for example, such as Lower Clipstone, about 2km south-west of Common End. I think I'd want to see some other use of the name to suggest notability. Sorry - I get your general point entirely. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete This appears to have no hope of expansion. Unless this locality has a distinct culture/history from a containing entity, we don't need a separate article. Mention it as part of a list in the parish article. --Polaron | Talk 03:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak merge, only because it would be impractical for Wikipedia to have an article on every cluster of houses outside of another settlement. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: what's to merge? If there were something notable enough about Common End that was worth merging into Fulmodeston I'd not have raised the AfD discussion. As it is, all we have is "there's a place that's named on one map". ClickRick (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and mention the place name in the main article. Unless something important happened there then it's too small already. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge - though there is little to merge - with the village whose parish it is in - presumably Fulmodeston. My guess is that Common End is or was a squatter settlement on the edge of a common, hecne no more than a hamlet - but I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge (redirect) as appropriate. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.