Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common End, Colkirk

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 July 3.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. This argument essentially follows the same lines as the other AfD beneath this in the log. Existing is not sufficient for an article, and we have no policies or guidelines to support an exemption in the case of geographical entities Fritzpoll (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common End, Colkirk[edit]

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)[reply]

Keep looking at the air photograph, this is a group of about 5 houses with a church and a farm. Although it would be described as a hamlet near Colkirk, rather than a village in it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place in the Ordnance Survey. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Yes, indeed it does, as I said in the opening. Specifically, it has it on this OS map. However, it has it with no more significance than the nearby farms, and specifically with less significance than a village. ClickRick (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Comment: what's to merge? If there were something notable enough about Common End that was worth merging into Colkirk 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)[reply]
Redirect to Colkirk article and mention the place there. Delete (after seeing AfD below this one...) Yes it's a place; no it doesn't need it's own article unless there's something interesting or noteworthy about it because it's too small. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to whatever village it is in (which I do not know myself), per WP:R, given that this is another name for part of a notable area. Sebwite (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge perhaps to Colkirk: "village" articles often deal with the parish of which it is the principal place. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sebwite Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:15, 29 June 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.