Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackslough Wood

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blackslough Wood

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

Blackslough Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Aaron's Hill, Somerset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No evidence that this is a hamlet, this indicates it is a forest. Other sources are maps like this or this which don't support the hamlet claims either (and certainly in the second case wouldn't be a reliable source anyway). This one at least has the name, but no indication that it is anything but a small forest. This and this unreliable source again does nothing to support the claims. Nothing better found online. And creator has a history of producing articles based on thin air (writing a whole article about a random name on a map or in a list). Fram (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For much the same reasons I have added Aaron's Hill, Somerset to this nomination. Same creator, located right next to Blackslough, and extremely confusing as written: "Aaron's hill is located in a very rural area and is appropriately located upon a hill which is elevated 231 metres above sea level but Aaron's Hill itself is elevated 218 metes above sea level and has 28 metres of prominence." Perhaps an article for this hill can be made, but WP:TNT, better to simply start from scratch then. Fram (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram "Aaron's hill is located in a very rural area and is appropriately located upon a hill which is elevated 231 metres above sea level but Aaron's Hill itself is elevated 218 metes above sea level and has 28 metres of prominence." Ok I admit that's bad wording I admit but as you stated that can be WP:TNTed why propose the article for deletion? It's a quick fix why not just do it? N1TH Music (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"TNT" is deletion. I see now that you claim that there are two things, a hill (true) and a hamlet, for which you provide an elevation and so on. Source for the hamlet's existence, elevation, ...? Maps which show a forest. Fram (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"TNT" is deletion. I thought TNT was rewrite but preserve the old revisions for public viewing. Anyway OS recognises the hamlet as a hamlet which I though was a source as it shows the text "Aaron's Hill" in the text reserved only for settlements and actually so is Blackslough wood. here Infact thats why I made the articles for these. Aaron's hill was the first term on that list of places in the UK list which I thought had been reviewed and trusted, while Blackslough wood appeared to be a settlement right next to it. Also this streetmap here lists it in Black text which means settlement. But then Blackslough wood is listed in Green test to dignify a wood. So all sources point to it to being a settlement Ordnance Survery, Streetmap even wikipedia itself. You could see it on the list at the very top with the exact coordinates and OS grid references, unlike Backslough Wood and at the time I was certain that was trustworthy but what do you know that's also where I found Abellio. N1TH Music (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram first of all I forgot to tag you in the message above please read that before you continue. I think I got more eveidence as This states what language the "people" of Aaron's hill talk in which implies it is or up until recently was populated N1TH Music (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure then, Blackslough wood is nothing more than a wood. Even though this shows that there is some sort of buildings or fencing of sorts at the very minimum. According to WP:Geoland, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." Blackslough Wood fits this criteria as there is some sort of detail concerning the paths and trails which run through the area, if you believe that therefore this is not enough information then the article can be expanded or also redirected to Wincanton or Aaron's Hill, Somerset. N1TH Music (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't find any evidence of a hamlet or similar, Geogeaph search doesn't return it as a settlement and searching images only returns pictures of the wood and the Google Maps source also says "Woods" after the title. The question is if the wood is notable but it doesn't seem like a hamlet exists by this name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Apparently a small forested area but no indication of notability or substance. Sources just synthesize information found on maps like what's in the vicinity. Reywas92Talk 14:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both I can't find no evidence at all that there is a hamlet at these locations. I don't understand the author's point about the OS using the text they reserve for settlements: here is the OS location they presented for Aaron's Hill, and here is the OS location for Ben Nevis, using the same text. There is no hamlet on top Ben Nevis. Google Earth shows nothing at Aaron's Hill or Blackslough Woods but trees and woodland tracks - no buildings of any kind. 'wikiedit.org' having a link for it means nothing whatsoever - that information is being scraped from a database somewhere by a machine, there's no reason to believe it is accurate in any way (or has ever even been looked at by a human until this discussion started). The photograph from geograph.co.uk shows... a woodland track, with a gate, and some waymarkers for walkers. Exactly the sort of thing you would expect to see in attractive bits of countryside - which is what these are, not settlements of any kind. Girth Summit (blether) 14:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and to address the GEOLAND argument - we need reliable sources giving the subjects significant coverage to make them notable, not just a map that shows they exist. Lots of hills and woods are undoubtedly notable - there is no shortage of sources discussing Ben Nevis or Sherwood Forest, there would be no question there, but not every little bump on the ground or clump of trees that makes it onto an OS map gets written about. If anyone finds some decent guidebooks of the area that actually describe the hill or the wood in detail, that would be a different matter. Girth Summit (blether) 14:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that notabiliy could be established for at least one of these places if better sources are found? N1TH Music (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability can be established for just about anything if good sources are found. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was clearly a place where people lived. I don't understand why people are citing contemporary maps and photographs to support the absence of a hamlet. Notability is not temporary, so historical sources need to be consulted. Old OS maps clearly show buildings around that location (e.g. [1]), and a search of census records and historical newspapers (e.g. via [2]) reveals numerous mentions of people "from Blackslough" or "of Blackslough" (also Black Slough). In its Friday 15 July 1898 edition the Somerset Standard even announces that a postal service to Blackslough from South Brenham will commence. It's then an easy step to search Victoria County History and discover that "Blackslough" refers to a gamekeeper's lodge, which was the residue of the Four Towers Estate. Plenty here for an article on this area if someone is keen to write it, but maybe starting over and a title change is warranted: ([3], [4]). ----Pontificalibus 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So saying maybe the article could be renamed Blackslough and instead of being referred to as a Hamlet or Forest should be a lost settlement. Like Muscott? N1TH Music (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm saying if you want to write about this area you either need to demonstrate that "Blackslough" satisfies WP:GEOLAND, or else you need to demonstrate that it, or some other area incorporating it, satisfies WP:GNG. Brewham certainly does, so perhaps a merge to there is warranted. Four Towers Estate might also satisfy GNG.----Pontificalibus 11:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding information about these hamlets to the local parish they are a part of or the local postcode area. Or is Brewham the local parish? N1TH Music (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:ATD a,d WP:GEOLAND ("information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it") to Brewham per [5]. Perhaps everyone arguing for delete above ought to reconsider why a merge is not appropriate.----Pontificalibus 11:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Blackslough Wood is a Hamlet and Farmstead near Wincanton in Somerset in the west of England. Blackslough wood is located on the incline up towards Aaron's Hill and is elevated 176 metres above sea level. Blackslough wood consists of a few small buildings on a gravel path surrounded by woods. Blackslough wood is also located at the mouth of a small brook" has nothing I see as useful to merge, and none of the sources was worth merging either. The intro has now been changed to say it's a wood, which is at least one error less, but still hardly merge-material. Worse, the article claims that it is in Charlton Musgrove, not in Brewham, so why should we merge it there? Fram (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well it's nearby and it beats deletion. And Pontificalibus showed that there is some sort of notability to the 2 places as there used to be homes there. I understand your concerns over location but Brewham could have a new section added which could add information about all the nearby settlements which weren't notable enough to warrant their own article. There are many solutions which wouldn't enforce the complete deletion of those 2 pages and I agree with the reasoning above but I understand I am not very knowledgeable in this subject. N1TH Music (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: Well, the Brewham article currently contains no information about the geography of the parish. Simply adding the fact that it contains Blackslough Wood to the east would be a start, although there's plenty more content that could be added based on the sources I have linked.----Pontificalibus 07:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that it is in Brewham, or in Charlton Musgrove, or in both, or in others. It is a wood, it stretches across quite a bit of land, and has no clear boundaries from good sources. So it seems to me that, unless you have good sources for it (not just maps), merging it to either parish or to other articles is just a very poor decision. Fram (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This local government source listing sites of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance places it in Brewham, but it's true that it does extend across the parish and also county boundary, as detailed in this RS published by the parish council. The fact it spans multiple parishes is connected to its history as being partly ex-parochial, as detailed here. None of this precludes it being mentioned in the most appropriate area article and a redirect from this title being made. The fact a topic might be mentioned in more than one article does not prevent a merge being made. Likewise, disagreement on the most appropriate merge target should not lead to deletion.----Pontificalibus 06:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very WP:UNDUE to me, merging a poor article because one or two sources mention it in passing. If no one else thought it worthy of even some sentences of attention, then we shouldn't be the first to do so. Fram (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram Well somebody could add information to Brewham or Charlton Munsgrove if we discussed exactly what to do. Also the settlement of Blackslough is in one location only. The wood is large not the former farm house. N1TH Music (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the mythical "settlement", also known as one house or farm. Yes, let's catalogue every farm the world ever had. ~There is nothing in the Blackslough article worth merging. If people want to write something about Blackslough in another article, with actual sources which discuss Blackslough (and not just mention it or show it on a map), then they can do so if warranted. As we don't have any such source in the article that is up for AfD, there is no reason to keep it or merge it. Fram (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Pontificalihus stated that there were many old maps sand sources shiwing that there were infant inhabited buildings there. There must be so sources. Also according to WP:Geoland, of you can find sources to back the existence of a populated or formerly populated place, then it is notable enough. So if sources are found we could catalog every farm in the country. But realistically there aren't may sources for most of those places and it’d be a waste of time. But an article has already been created, if better sources are found it’s work keeping or redirecting and I think he’s found a few sources. N1TH Music (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND is about "Populated, legally recognized places", not about any named building or group of buildings. Fram (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know but it’s also about abandoned settlements if enough information and sources can be found. I agree that there most likely ins’t enough information on Blackslough for a standalone article but I am confident there is enough for a section in Brewham. N1TH Music (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, the "enough sources" to even verify (never mind say something useful) that an abandoned settlement called Blackslough existed in the parish of Brewham in the first place. Fram (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Brewham, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 27. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both existing as a map label isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. I'd support a merge if there was sufficient sourced content to add to Brewham other than mentioning that these labels exist and are nearby Brewham. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:07, 8 July 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blackslough_Wood&oldid=1097141285"