Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wickham Common

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 redirect‎ to Wickham, Hampshire#Wickham and Knowle civil parish. Daniel (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wickham Common

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

Wickham Common (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)

This place is not a village, but instead is just a non-notable common. Source: I live here, but also Hampshire county council which describes this as "common land situated just off the Southwick Road".

Fails

WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge into Wickham. Surprising to see somewhere here so near to where I grew up! BrigadierG (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to the sign on the road just before it, the indicated location is actually in North Boarhunt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Wickham per BrigadierG-- Tumbuka Arch★★★ 13:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nom I'm happy to redirect to Wickham, Hampshire, but since the article has no references, hard to see what their is to merge per se - the photo I suppose? FOARP (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Wickham - as mentioned above there's not actually much to merge. WaggersTALK 11:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete In the first place, it isn't in Wickham, or any other town/village. In the second place, to be mergeable, it has to be true first, which is a big problem, because at the moment the only part of the article which might be true is the location, and there's really nothing that can be done with that datum in a merge as it stands. Indeed, right now that location takes one to an absolutely featureless spot in GMaps. Third, the article is completely lacking in sources, so I can't even say, "well, at least it's a name on an OS map", because there's not even that reference to go to. I really do not understand why people are so intent on saving this, when at the moment there is nothing to save. Can anyone say what it really is/was, or give any history for it? Can anyone even show that it is/was a real thing of any kind? Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wickham, Hampshire for now. Wickham Common appears to be marked as a settlement on Magicmap and as a common on older OS maps. There's scatterings of houses along the lanes surrounding the common but they don't amount to a village. Possibly a hamlet but no other facilities, so think this needs to pass the GNG and it doesn't look like doing so. Unfortunately, there is no parish heading or geography section in the target article which would be a more precise redirect. The common is mentioned here in Wickham parish (4th line down) [2]. Rupples (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wickham, Hampshire per Rupples above. If it's listed on OS maps it's worth having a redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose these redirect suggestions given that (a) the article on Wickham says nothing about this place, and (b) as I've already pointed out, it isn't in Wickham! Why in the heck is everyone so dead set on these misleading redirects??? Mangoe (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Baby Jesus cries and a fairy loses its wings every time an article is actually deleted rather than turned into a redirect. But for reals, I live here and I couldn't tell you where this is supposed to be. A redirect is still better than an article about a village that doesn't exist though, so I'll take that as a win. There has also been a tendency locally for new housing estates to be named "[Existing Village] Common" so maybe it will become a real place in the future? FOARP (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a new housing estate. It's an old common that's in the Victoria History under Wickham. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          There may be a housing estate there at some point (see also nearby Titchfield Common which now qualifies as a ward for local elections etc.) FOARP (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its on the OS but not as a settlement, that probably means it doesn't pass GEOLAND if its not an OS settlement but even if it was its debated if OS settlements qualify as legally recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It is both a settlement and a common on the online OS mapping [3] Rupples (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I see in the OS viewer is a name that disappears if I try to zoom in on the area, so I don't see how it can be cited to justify this assertion. Mangoe (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe From OS mapping Wickham Common is a settlement. Note the names in brown lettering tie in with settlements represented by hamlets/villages/towns etc elsewhere on the map, whereas the common (a geographical feature) is in green lettering, like woodland. I assure you that on the OS database, available for free download here [4] Wickham Common is a "populated place, hamlet". Took me awhile to find the correct CSV spreadsheet, but if you want to download and check it out, it's under SU40, row 72. Rupples (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but Wickham Common isn’t a settlement in real life, so this is your classic example example of why we shouldn’t take what these all-inclusive sources say at face value without any corroboration from any other source. FOARP (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Isn't a settlement in real life". Evidence points to the opposite. Royal Mail has postal addresses for Wickham Common with postcode PO17 5DN, which corroborates the OS. Rupples (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
…which is at a different location to Wickham Common, which shows again what the problem with saying “look, there must be a village there!” based on sources like these. FOARP (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a) No-one has claimed it's a village — it's a hamlet. b) Don't know what mapping you're looking at (Google maps at a guess, which is unreliable in this instance), but current OS mapping positioning of Wickham Common ties in with the Royal Mail addresses on and around Forest Lane. Further, Google Streetview clearly shows a number of residences. I do acknowlege it's not legally recognised by Winchester District Council under that name and so doesn't fulfil
WP:GEOLAND requirements for a separate article, but a redirect is appropriate and in line with policy, which by your previous comments you have accepted as an AtD. Rupples (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
"No-one has claimed it's a village" - the article states that. Forest Lane isn't on the common, and my source for that is I live here. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant no-one in this discussion has claimed it's a village. Rupples (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several things: first, when I'm looking at GMaps, I'm using the coordinates given in the article. Outside China, I've never seen the slightest unreliability in that: back in the days when I was doing lighthouse articles, using the coordinates from the Light List and plugging them into GMaps resulted in a dot directly on the lantern. My assumption is that the article coordinates came from the OS service, as is generally the case with geostubs. I don't know whether OS has the GNIS problem of showing the location of the map label, but in any case that only makes he matter worse if the accuracy is better.
Second, as far as WP notability is concerned, it matters not whether a place is termed a village or a hamlet.
Third, using the label color on an online service is just not going to cut it as an authority as far as I'm concerned. For one thing, I'm unaware of what the color is for a "common"; but also this is the classification problem that is at the heart of the unreliabilities in GNIS. No doubt the Brits did a better job than us rude colonials, but still, relying on that classification as the sole authority for the nature of a place is not good enough. Likewise, the postal services are about delivering mail, not establishing geography. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. I agree GMaps is usually accurate, but not 100%. GMaps is not 'original' mapping. I'd have thought the data originally derived from national mapping agencies, but don't know whether it utilises up-to-date OS data. It's part updated by trusted users (aka local guides) and then reviewed by Google prior to publishing changes. The co-ordinates in the article are likely based from GMaps. I've reviewed historic mapping and it's uncertain whether the OS are referring to the common or a settlement as there is just the single Wickham Common named, but it does look more likely to refer to the common. Google Maps and ESRi are using different co-ordinates for Wickham Common to the OS. Perhaps the OS have recently catagorised Wickham Common as a settlement and moved its mapped location?
2. Agree.
3. Yes, that's your prerogative. I base my assessment that Wickham Common is a settlement on the OS data & mapping, the housing, named road and Royal Mail addresses. Against this, it seems not to be legally recognised by Winchester District Council and there's no signage. So I'm not saying it's 100%, and it could depend on one's interpretation of what constitutes a settlement. I've taken the view it is, but if enough editors disagree then I'll happily concede. Rupples (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One further point. Wickham Common is named as the place of abode for people mentioned in local newspapers reports from at least 1889 onwards, per a British Newspaper Archive search. Rupples (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing to be merged, re-direct not necessary, especially since the Common is not mentioned in the proposed target page. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added a civil parish heading to Wickham so the redirect can now go to the more precise target of Wickham, Hampshire#Wickham and Knowle civil parish, where the common is now mentioned. Guess User:FOARP might not approve if I started a separate article for the parish with little to say:) Rupples (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes these things surprise one, especially if one looks for history and archaeology. Not in this case, however. The sum total of those in this case is a 1 sentence mention in the Victoria History ("Wickham Common, about 20 acres in extent, is a mile from the village on the Southwick Road.") and an aside about pottery finds in a report on an archaeological dig somewhere else. It's a common. It is, or was when the Victoria History was written, apparently a mile from the nearest village. It is documented under Wickham, Hampshire in the Victoria History, so the redirect seems perfectly in line with what the world has documented. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2023 (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/Wickham_Common&oldid=1183008297"