- 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 merge to Sisland. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sisland Carr ( | 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)
Whilst Sisland Carr is undoubtedly pretty, it is hardly notable for an article, I propose it be deleted, and its content be added to the Sisland Article, something I'm more than happy to do. Erik Sergeant ( talk) 10:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. Erik Sergeant ( talk) 10:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep it seems to be a nature reserve but there doesn't appear to be much coverage outside the Woodland Trust.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could we therefore merge it, seeing as there's likely to only ever be one citation, depends, what do you think...?
Erik Sergeant (
talk)
15:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps to
Sisland. Being designated a nature reserve may make it inherently notable per
WP:GEOFEAT. If it was an SSSI then probably but I'm not sure being a "nature reserve" is the same thing as many places are referred to as such and in this case may not have much coverage outside of the Woodland Trust which is arguably a primary source for its status as a nature reserve. Given it may not be inherently notable and the only source is arguably primary I'd question if
WP:GNG is passed so a merge probably makes sense but I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Aye, I'd say it falls under the first line of the third section of WP:NOPAGE (although whether that entirely helps my argument...), and although there aren't many examples of problematic permastubs on WP:PERMA, I would say Sisland Carr falls under that too. Also, I'd personally rather see an improvement of, and addition to, Sisland rather than one more stub lying around, but my opinion doesn't really count against WP:N. Erik Sergeant ( talk) 11:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps to
Sisland. Being designated a nature reserve may make it inherently notable per
WP:GEOFEAT. If it was an SSSI then probably but I'm not sure being a "nature reserve" is the same thing as many places are referred to as such and in this case may not have much coverage outside of the Woodland Trust which is arguably a primary source for its status as a nature reserve. Given it may not be inherently notable and the only source is arguably primary I'd question if
WP:GNG is passed so a merge probably makes sense but I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could we therefore merge it, seeing as there's likely to only ever be one citation, depends, what do you think...?
Erik Sergeant (
talk)
15:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Sisland, maybe under Geography or as a separate section, leaving Sisland Carr as a redirect.
- Unless the nature reserve has attracted attention outside of its owner/manager, The Woodland Trust, e.g. for a fact such as it's got the only "species of X in England" or some such, it doesn't pass muster as a separate article under GNG. I haven't found independent sources that give significant indepth coverage.
- The Woodland Trust's management plan [1] doesn't reveal anything of particular significance about the site. Perhaps the nearest is its importance for locally rare moths and its recording as a site for noctule bats. However, the document states that sensitive species information about the site is not included in this version of the plan.
- The Trust gives its location as "Sisland Carr, Chedgrave" presumably because Chedgrave is more well known than Sisland. However, Ordnance Survey historical and current mapping shows the woodland to be within Sisland civil parish. The access track is from Sisland (access from the Chedgrave side is gated and marked as private on Google Street View) so I think it's preferable to merge content to Sisland.
Rupples (
talk)
19:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Aye, you can't get through from Chedgrave, and if it's of any significance, there is a sewage processing plant near it, (I think it processes, it does something to sewage, I know that much...) not sure it matters, but I thought I should mention it anyway? Erik Sergeant ( talk) 09:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Found a paragraph in Reader's Digest book [2]. Rupples ( talk) 20:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to
Sisland. From
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. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
- Harmless article but it would do just as well in the Sisland article with a redirect for now. —DIYeditor ( talk) 22:39, 28 January 2023 (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.
- 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 merge to Sisland. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sisland Carr ( | 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)
Whilst Sisland Carr is undoubtedly pretty, it is hardly notable for an article, I propose it be deleted, and its content be added to the Sisland Article, something I'm more than happy to do. Erik Sergeant ( talk) 10:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. Erik Sergeant ( talk) 10:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Weak keep it seems to be a nature reserve but there doesn't appear to be much coverage outside the Woodland Trust.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could we therefore merge it, seeing as there's likely to only ever be one citation, depends, what do you think...?
Erik Sergeant (
talk)
15:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps to
Sisland. Being designated a nature reserve may make it inherently notable per
WP:GEOFEAT. If it was an SSSI then probably but I'm not sure being a "nature reserve" is the same thing as many places are referred to as such and in this case may not have much coverage outside of the Woodland Trust which is arguably a primary source for its status as a nature reserve. Given it may not be inherently notable and the only source is arguably primary I'd question if
WP:GNG is passed so a merge probably makes sense but I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Aye, I'd say it falls under the first line of the third section of WP:NOPAGE (although whether that entirely helps my argument...), and although there aren't many examples of problematic permastubs on WP:PERMA, I would say Sisland Carr falls under that too. Also, I'd personally rather see an improvement of, and addition to, Sisland rather than one more stub lying around, but my opinion doesn't really count against WP:N. Erik Sergeant ( talk) 11:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps to
Sisland. Being designated a nature reserve may make it inherently notable per
WP:GEOFEAT. If it was an SSSI then probably but I'm not sure being a "nature reserve" is the same thing as many places are referred to as such and in this case may not have much coverage outside of the Woodland Trust which is arguably a primary source for its status as a nature reserve. Given it may not be inherently notable and the only source is arguably primary I'd question if
WP:GNG is passed so a merge probably makes sense but I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could we therefore merge it, seeing as there's likely to only ever be one citation, depends, what do you think...?
Erik Sergeant (
talk)
15:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to Sisland, maybe under Geography or as a separate section, leaving Sisland Carr as a redirect.
- Unless the nature reserve has attracted attention outside of its owner/manager, The Woodland Trust, e.g. for a fact such as it's got the only "species of X in England" or some such, it doesn't pass muster as a separate article under GNG. I haven't found independent sources that give significant indepth coverage.
- The Woodland Trust's management plan [1] doesn't reveal anything of particular significance about the site. Perhaps the nearest is its importance for locally rare moths and its recording as a site for noctule bats. However, the document states that sensitive species information about the site is not included in this version of the plan.
- The Trust gives its location as "Sisland Carr, Chedgrave" presumably because Chedgrave is more well known than Sisland. However, Ordnance Survey historical and current mapping shows the woodland to be within Sisland civil parish. The access track is from Sisland (access from the Chedgrave side is gated and marked as private on Google Street View) so I think it's preferable to merge content to Sisland.
Rupples (
talk)
19:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Aye, you can't get through from Chedgrave, and if it's of any significance, there is a sewage processing plant near it, (I think it processes, it does something to sewage, I know that much...) not sure it matters, but I thought I should mention it anyway? Erik Sergeant ( talk) 09:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - Found a paragraph in Reader's Digest book [2]. Rupples ( talk) 20:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Merge to
Sisland. From
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. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
- Harmless article but it would do just as well in the Sisland article with a redirect for now. —DIYeditor ( talk) 22:39, 28 January 2023 (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.