Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oughtonhead Nature Reserve

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 Oughtonhead Common. ✗plicit 02:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oughtonhead Nature Reserve

[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)

Doesn't seem to be a notable nature reserve. I can't find anything much that would meet the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is well sourced and notable as a Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust site. I successfully nominated HMWT as a featured list and it was Today's featured list on September 23, 2016. No concerns were raised about the articles on any of the sites in the FL review. FLs should preferably have articles about each item in the list, and it would be odd - and unhelpful for readers - if Outonhead was the only HMWT site which did not have an article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is the WP:GNG. If there are third party reliable sources that cover the topic, then let's see them. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source is HMWT. Wildlife Trust sites have always been accepted by FL reviewers as reliable third party sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the trust nor the local authority (which it seems own the land) are independent sources. Even if they were, we need more than that. JMWt (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well since HMWT are managing the site, the local authority is not, so it has an arm's length of independence: I'd think it a perfectly valid source. Other sources include the RSPB, which calls it "the “jewel in the crown” of our region’s nature reserves." North Herts Ramblers Group gives it brief coverage, not enough for notability. The RSPB's former International Director Alistair Gammell has written in detail how the reserve was an SSSI but has been damaged by water extraction. The extraction remains a current issue, as documented in the Hertfordshire Mercury (local paper). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not well sourced, it only has two references. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked OS maps and found Oughtonhead Common Nature Reserve OS Grid Ref: TL 16860 30275, Longitude: 0°18'3"W, Latitude: 51°57'31"N. Is this the same place? If so it meets WP:GEOLAND as a named place, and searches on the full name appear to show plenty more references, sufficient to demonstrate WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a populated place. Which WP:GEOLAND criteria do you think applies? JMWt (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Named natural features. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no assumption of notability there. It says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist."

This one isn't. Very slight information exists beyond the statistics and coordinates and that which does is sources from the manager (the trust) and the owner (the local authority), neither of which are independent. JMWt (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not say I thought that meant it should be an article. The problem with WP:GEOLAND is people too often assume that meeting the definition of "presumed notability" means that notability for an article is established. It is not, because as the guidelines state, sometimes the feature is better described in a parent article, as there may not be sufficient information for an article of the feature in its own right. That is why I said it meets GEOLAND but also said I thought that the sources, if it refers to the common, demonstrate meeting GNG for an article. Another problem with GEOLAND, and one that we are stuck with, is that Wikipedia is a gazetteer. It is both encyclopaedia and gazetteer, and although the guidelines say it is not indiscriminate, it is usually the case that named features on national mapping like OS maps will be deemed notable. However, what matters is the sources, and as you did not clarify that yes, this article does refer to Oughtonhead Common Nature Reserve, I have since established that fact for myself and done some more reading. There is certainly sufficient information out there to establish an article for Oughtonhead Common, and I have since found that such a stub article exists. Oughtonhead Common Nature Reserve is then established on the common in 1982, and I have found it does get mention in a few books, but in my opinion the nature reserve is not sufficiently significant to have an article separate from the common article. Everything about the nature reserve could be placed in a section on the Oughtonhead Common article, to the benefit of both. My considered view is therefore that a merge would most benefit the project. I will place that !vote on a new line. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oughtonhead Common. The two are co-extensive, and the nature reserve is the key feature of the common. Oughtonhead Common is the common name (er... pardon the pun!), but this should be a section of that article, and the redirect could then point to the section. My further consideration of this is above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- This article is a stub & only has 2 references, those references do not show notability. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD it is not the state of the article that matters, but whether sources exist that establish notability. Sources don't have to be in the article, they just have to exist. Chiswick Chap has cited four additional sources, so they should also be considered. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we have 6 sources then. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Oughtonhead Common as an AtD if, as seems likely, notability for this Wildlife Trust reserve cannot be established. Rupples (talk) 04:10, 23 May 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.