Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Rapeland Wood

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 and delete. This was not a successful WP:BUNDLE. However, as no one seems to be making any kind of argument for notability for Barn Coppice and Holming Wood with any policy or guideline based argument there does seem to be consensus to delete those two articles. As there were policy and guideline based reasons offered for keeping Upper Rapeland Wood and Graylands Corpse I find that there's no consensus here with no prejudice to a renomination where their notability (or not) can be discussed individually. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Rapeland Wood

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable cluster of trees. No sources to support WP:GNG, not the subject of any coverage. User used to creating hoax pages.

I'm also nominating the following similar related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Graylands Copse. The moated site associated with this location is a scheduled monument [1]. SpinningSpark 01:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upper Rapeland Wood (note that is spelled "Rapelands" in some sources). The iron workings mentioned in the article seem to be of some interest to archeology, there is non-trivial discussion in this article from the Proceedings of the Geologist's Association. Even the "Dismal Castle" seems to have some local notability. SpinningSpark 02:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. For example, a house doesn't meet the notability criteria for inclusion here just because a celebrity lives inside it. Similarly, an archeological site, even if notable, doesn't inherently confer notability on the small cluster of trees that happen to surround it. Largoplazo (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misapplication of NOTINHERITED. A physical place is notable (or not) for the things that are at that place and what people write about them. SpinningSpark 11:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A just gave an example of a physical place (a house) that is not notable just because a notable person lives inside it so, no, a place is not notable by virtue of what is at that place. (If by "physical place" you mean something other than a house, I could just as easily have said "the 1400 block of XYZ Drive" or "the Foo-Bar tract" or some other such cartographical detail.) You mention places are notable for things people write about them. Yes, about them, not about things that are in them. Largoplazo (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so the article is renamed to "Iron workings (Upper Rapeland Wood)", and lets hope nothing else wikinotable has occurred there or else we could end up with half a dozen articles on the one location. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure these should be covered by the same deletion discussion. To clarify the nominator's comment, these were all created by the same user who, in addition, at around the same time, created two other articles that have been deleted as hoaxes, and created a third such article in the past. Still, they're four different subjects and their respective potentials for notability are mutually unrelated. (Further clarification: I had PRODded all four of these articles.) Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was a bad idea to bundle the nominations. But smearing the creator is not helpful towards deciding whether the articles should be kept. For the avoidance of all doubt, these are definitely not hoaxes and mentioning that was irrelevant at best. SpinningSpark 11:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was relevant to rebut any sense one might get that the fact that someone took the time to write the articles suggests some significance on the part of their subjects. That's normally a reasonable presumption, so this was an alert to the situation here, that that presumption isn't warranted. Largoplazo (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Since the nominator pasted here the rationale I'd given for my PROD nominations, well, that's my rationale here as well. Largoplazo (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so "redirects" to relevant hamlets/villages weren't considered? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be appropriate—if they are at least significant enough that for their existence to be raised in the articles on those hamlets villages. Otherwise the redirects would lead to no relevant information. I would be surprised if someone added to my locality's article information on every cluster of trees, every green patch with benches or children's recreation equipment, every residential street, or any other feature that might be designated on a map but that nobody outside of their respective neighborhoods would ever have heard of or have had any reason to. Largoplazo (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If these articles are deleted, I will quit Wikipedia I have visited these locations in person, and carried out research for WikiProject Sussex to create these locations. I have a good track record of creating geographical articles about this area north of Horsham. All references are there, and no one had any problem with these articles until I created a couple of Polynesian hoax articles out of boredom and then someone slapped deleted templates out of spite. My woodland and hamlet articles are beautifully written and researched. --Polegåarden (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Threats and grievances and praise for the quality of one's own work don't address the matter at issue: my contention (that I cited in my PROD nomination and reiterated by the AFD nominator) that the articles' topics don't appear to meet the notability criteria for inclusion. (b) Of course after I realized you were a repeat hoax article creator, I looked to see what else you'd done, to find out whether you'd contributed false information elsewhere. These articles were not a hoax—but the topics didn't seem clearly notable. So I researched them as I do any time I'm concerned that a topic fails WP:N, and it seemed to me that they did fail. So I nominated them for PROD. Your attribution of my action to spite is a violation of the requirement to assume good faith when there's no evidence to the contrary. (c) Even if any spite on my part had been involved (it wasn't), it doesn't alter the notability or lack thereof of the topics, which you haven't addressed. (d) As you can see, I'm not the AFD nominator. So I'm not the only one who found the articles questionable. Largoplazo (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am struggling to see or find notability of any of these questionable articles. "Upper Rapeland Wood" sits on a hill and is listed as having "a mixed mature woodland", so is a strand of trees. The "Holming Wood" article is about a "Woodland Or Forest" (according to the source) that shows it exists but does not advance notability. That article states of Rapeland Wood "an area of mixed ancient woodland" but this was not corroborated. "Barn Coppice" has vague sources, some pits (minepits), and possibly some "hedgerows" (heritage assets) as noted from a "desk based" (non-intrusive) assessment. It does not appear to be listed as a particularly notable place of interest. The source states "An alleged moat at Bush Lane, probably a stream diversion of 18th century date". The quarry, castle, and moat ("Moated site 200m west of Graylands Copse" [scheduled monument]) may be of interest but what exactly does that have to do with "Graylands Copse"? I do not know if there is any suitable redirect to any "hamlets/villages" but the nom seems to be accurate with "Non-notable cluster of trees". -- Otr500 (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all I'm surprised they are even nominated. There is plenty of history to fill to fill these articles up. The place where they are located are choked with history. Upper Rapeland Wood is mentioned as a doing iron working, lime and iron mining. They are likely to mentioned in the Domesday book. All power to these articles. There is stuff on notable walks. More than enough to define notability. scope_creep^Talk 19:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You declared them five times to be notable without supplying a speck of evidence that they are. Largoplazo (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like these trains are getting awfully close, but let's give it another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the user used to create hoax pages is disappointing, and it is reasonable to inspect their other work as a result of such a revelation. However, the past actions of the user should not be brought up in this deletion discussion. It is not relevant to the quality/notability/verifiability of the topics; let them stand on their own merits. That being said, I believe the articles should be kept until a concerted effort is made to find better sources. Even if a quick Google search does not bring up much, historical sources may exist in print which indicate the notability of these places. On this front, the article I find most likely to not fulfill notability guidelines is Holming Wood, but I still think that effort should be made. At the very least, Template:Notability should be added to these articles. Mysteryman blue 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that this is an occasion for making that effort. I mean, I'll be perfectly happy if someone presents evidence here that these are notable. It isn't as though I have any prejudice against these places. I'm just surprised how much of this discussion involves believing they're notable. I mean, I have friends who have clusters of woods behind their houses, woods that cover about the same area as the ones discussed in these articles. By default, I assume they aren't notable. Largoplazo (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Face value reading of the article doesn't reveal anything notable there: some iron mining, a castle once on the border, a minor building. While I don't doubt that the area might have provided some inspiring natural beauty to hikers, Wikipedia is not a trail guide. Blue Riband► 02:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:GEOLAND, which looks like unpopulated places need WP:GNG to pass. While the article has lots of photos from someone who likes walking there, there is no indication of any notability. I note the keep !votes do not provide any indication of notability other than to assert there could be. That's insufficient. Ifnord (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2020 (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.