- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 09:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Dinmore Hill Woods ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to be notable. It's a forest. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- I note that we have overlapping articles about Dinmore Hill and Queen's Wood Country Park. There would seem to be some potential for merging. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested. Bearian ( talk) 19:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Text seems to be copied from source cited. It looks like the Open Government Licence may apply, but if it does then this should be mentioned somewhere on the article or its talk page if kept. Peter James ( talk) 22:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The article failed to mention that it is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). (I have just revised the article to say so, and put it into the relevant category, etc.) Yes, it is a forest, and apparently a notable one. It is an item listed within List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hereford and Worcester. This list with many red-links and some stub articles is not as well-developed as, say, Featured List List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire, which has well-developed articles about each of its SSSI's already. There must exist significant sources/studies about this forest to make it an SSSI, so I believe best outcome here is "Keep". But if not keep, then merging/redirecting to the list-article would be far superior to outright deletion, enabling re-creation without loss of edit history. -- do ncr am 23:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as notable as a SSI as detailed above, expand the article rather than delete Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Thereshould be more sources to be found . DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, nice find doncram, as an SSSI it meets the conditions of
WP:GEOFEAT:
Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned ... protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable.
Agree the sourcing needs improvement. I'm going to tag the article as such and do some quick cleanup while I'm there. Antepenultimate ( talk) 00:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it looks to trend toward keep, it's not an artificial feature as per the mention of WP:NGEO; relisting just in case. slakr\ talk / 03:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 03:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: While it looks to trend toward keep, it's not an artificial feature as per the mention of WP:NGEO; relisting just in case. slakr\ talk / 03:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 03:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
-
Slakr, in response to your relisting comment, it may be poorly-worded in the
WP:GEOFEAT section of
WP:NGEO, but I'm basing my interpretation of the section by the page's own 'nutshell' summary, which states
Places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) ... with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable.
In this case, the feature could be considered 'artificial' in the sense that the borders of an SSSI, and other protected areas, are determined by people, as opposed to a 'natural feature' such as an island or river where nature has set the boundaries. However it is not a 'populated place' so the legal recognition clauses from WP:GEOLAND do not apply. Basically, legally established protected areas fall through the cracks at NGEO, though the nutshell summary suggests otherwise. It may be worth bringing this up at WP:NGEO. Antepenultimate ( talk) 14:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
-
Slakr, in response to your relisting comment, it may be poorly-worded in the
WP:GEOFEAT section of
WP:NGEO, but I'm basing my interpretation of the section by the page's own 'nutshell' summary, which states
- Keep -- the bar is rather low for GEO notability and it's meet here with the SSSI designation. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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.