Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achnaluachrach, Sutherland

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 and userfy to User:MadScot/Achnaluachrach, Sutherland. Sandstein 10:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achnaluachrach, Sutherland

Delete. Fails notability Ben Mac Dui 18:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Ben Mac Dui 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can get a fairly good idea of what's here from Geograph. A farm? An abandoned, or nearly so, settlement is one thing, but a lone farm is something else. Delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a town is notable, but a settlement with no buildings and looks like farmland is not notable.
Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I've found one reference to "a family living around" Achnaluachrach in the 1841 census (haven't found the actual census data yet) which would tend to suggest this may have been rather more than just a farm at one point. The fact that it has a settlement-like name, rather than just a farm name, is suggestive of rather more settlement at one time. Is settlement notability perpetual, or must it be maintained to the present to be considered adequate? MadScot (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If notability is permanent, any past settlement is notable, as long as we can confirm that it really existed. And
  notability isn't temporary. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - More info this site contains what it says (and I trust) are transcribed versions of various historical records. The 1809 Rogart Parish Militia List has 5 male residents of the place - a James Douglas (tenant), George Mackay (tenant), John Murray (tenant), Peter Murray )labourer) and Henry Sutherland (tenant). With the exception of the two Murrays, this appears to indicate four family units (I doubt any single males would be tenants, they'd more likely be labourers, you couldn't work a tenant farm alone). The 1812 Statuite Labour List appears to spell the place "Achinluachrach" (also being translated as "rushy field" so I'm pretty sure its a transliteration issue from the Gaelic) and as such we get a James Douglas and George Mackay which fits. Also we get Alex, Colin, John and Peter Murray and Henry Sutherland again. The 1824 Militia List again uses the article spelling, now with John Mackay (tailor) and John Sutherland (labourer). There's a lot of emigration in the 1830s, so it looks like there was a degree of depopulation then. The list of emigrants doesn't give matching origins, but there are some common names who may be some of the former residents. Looks to me like this was a small village of perhaps 4 or 5 tenant farms in the early 19th century, but emigration reduced the place shortly thereafter. Certainly it was more than just a farm back then. If notability doesn't disappear, then it's a keep I guess. And a saddening one, given my heritage. MadScot (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The question is not size or current existence but notability. Skara Brae is a deserted village but its notability is not in question. The above is interesting research, but the fact the five, ten or a hundred people once lived there isn't a reason for an article. Ben MacDui 08:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question: wouldn't a parish militia have listed ALL male residents, as possible recruits? Hence is there any way to know if this was one farm with one owner and 4 live-in farm hands?Yobmod (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the above information still does not demonstrate notability. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment there does seem to be a fair bit of precedent that settlements, even abandoned ones, are notable. While there doesn't seem to be an agreed policy (as far as I can tell WP:NGL is under discussion) if we are keeping abandoned villages in Azerbaijan as in this case then this seems similar. I don't like using something close to WP:OSE, but in the absence of agreed policy precedent at AfD is all we have. MadScot (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The azerbaijan village really exists and has real people living there, presumable a wealth of data about exists, but unfortunately there are no wikipedians with access to it. It is not comparable to this case.

comment Thats not how I read the AfD. It appears the village "disappeared between 1961 and 1977" according to an editor who found a print source. Additionally, the close statement says "We now agree that the fact that there once was an inhabited village of that name is verifiable," so although the article is written in present tense I'm not convinced it currently exists. Even if it still does exist, the keep wasn't on the basis of current existence, IMO. Its a shame there's no agreed policy on settlement notability. MadScot (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't consider 5 (confirmed) people living over a large area to be a settlement. More people fit in one tent, which would make every square foot of Europe a settlment of some sort. Permanent camping sites don't get articles either, even if 100 people live there. What is the use of this article if no other information can be found? It would remain a one line stub of no interest to anyone. No information = non-notable by definition.Yobmod (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Why do you conclude "a large area". And we have 5+ males identified, which means a larger full population (assuming most were a head of household). And while a hamlet sized grouping inside a major city is just an apartment building and non-notable, that same number of people as the only habitation for miles is a bit more significant, no? MadScot (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I'm not convinced by what I see that this was really a settlement; as Yobmod said, it might be a family with four hired hands, or a family with an older son and three hired hands. Anyway, it's not the only settlement for miles — look at the Google map linked at the top of this discussion, and you'll see that there's a West Langwell only a fraction of a mile to the southeast. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 1809 Militia list explicitly says 'Tenant' not Labourer for four family names - Douglas, Mackay, Murray and Sutherland. A tenant is NOT a hired hand. MadScot (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I'd overlooked that. I'm still inclined toward delete, as I'd like to see some other source than simply lists of names and their occupations — especially as I can't access the lists. Do I have to have a subscription to the website to view the lists, or did I simply not find them when I went looking a little while ago? Perhaps Two Mile Prairie, Missouri would be a better analogy for this case than Əngəlan? The difference between 2MP and Ach... is that we've got multiple sources for 2MP that explain what it is/was (for example, see the U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: GNIS entry) as well as other sources, but here I don't see anything that says explicitly that it is/was a settlement. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no subscription. They're in one of the sidebars. I'll try to see if there's a direct link. As to other mentions, I agree, it'd be nice. But I suspect they'd again be in paper records, so it'll be a struggle to track them down, especially in the context of the AfD timescale. MadScot (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here we go:

1809 Rogart Militia List

1812 Parish of Rogart - Statute Labour List

1824 Rogart Militia List - last two include National Archives of Scotland reference #

MadScot (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordnance Survey Looks like it does exist in the Ordnance Survey database of British Places. Go to the OS website and enter "Achnaluachrach" as a placename search and it identifies this location. That's equivalent to the US equivalent GNIS database, no? MadScot (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link to the results page - the site's a bit finicky: Achnaluachrach MadScot (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately this database is responsible for numerous deletion discussions. In this regard it is an extremely unreliable source. For those that still exist see for example

Achnahanaid etc. etc. It would be very helpful if editors would attempt to confirm notability rather than just creating stubs from this lazy databse that just picks names off a map. Ben Mac Dui 07:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The difference from the GNIS is that this doesn't specify what the place is: you can see, for example, that U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Porterville, Texas was a "Populated Place", but I don't see anything at all on the OS page that you've given (thanks for direct links; I couldn't get there from the main OS website for some reason) to say that Ach... is/was a community. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Without prejudging the outcome of the AfD, can I request that if the result is 'delete' that the page be userfied to me? While I have no real connection to the place, I'm intrigued to see if there's more info to be dug out. As possibly an example of a small highland village reduced to a single farm as a consequence of 'clearance' by the estate, I'd like to see if more could be found. I think if such can be established (and there are records showing that the Sutherland estate paid passage for a number of families in the right time frame) then as part of a significant historical event in the Highlands maybe that would be a justification for resurrection. MadScot (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt, your request is (1) reasonable, and (2) no reason for anyone to prejudge the outcome. Forgive me if you already know this, but articles deleted at AFD may be reposted if they are expanded or otherwise fixed to resolve the issues that led to their being deleted, so your idea is quite fine. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2008 (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.