Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foul End

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foul End

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not cite any notable sources and uses the stats and articles for instead both nearby Kingsbury and Hurley. It would be best either deleted and mentioned under Kingsbury or Hurley. Also no real notable schools churches amenities history anything about this place... DragonofBatley (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the stats for Hurley and Wood End. Its controversial if all settlements are notable or not, I haven't found anything like coverage in Vision of Britain or the Domesday Book etc that would probably strongly indicate its notable but if it isn't notable it can be merged to Kingsbury, Warwickshire its parish as standard so it doesn't need to be deleted completely. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some coverage in RS. Survey of English place names, which comes directly from The Place Names of Warwickshire. I'd say this was borderline WP:SIGCOV. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Boynamedsue, I think and OS settlement which has coverage on its name origin etc meets our inclusion criteria though perhaps only barely. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though only borderline. I think it is reasonable to keep, as there are only two reliable sources (OS and the etymology stuff), but it is a settlement in an English-speaking country which will very likely be of interest to some of our readers at some point. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete We need something better than maps for this. The name shows up all the way back to the first series Ordinance Survey maps, but what they show is a few buildings at the same location as the current farm on the spot, indistinguishable from numerous other sprinkles of names and dots which are more obviously farms and estates. Over in the USA we've had numerous problems with names on maps being interpreted as town/villages/etc. when further investigation showed they could be almost anything (see WP:GNIS for a list of examples); given that this situation parallels those almost exactly, I think we need other sources which talk about the place. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well aren't the Survey of English Place-Names enough? A lot more than just maps. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at both sources and neither says what the spot was; also, it appears they are referring to a different spot anyway. Mangoe (talk) 04:35, 26 May 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.