Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barwick, Devon


 * 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 Iddesleigh. The consensus is very clear here that there should not be a separate article, although a few have suggested merging. I am calling this a redirect after looking at the Iddesleigh article and noting that Barwick is covered in the "Listed Buildings" section. Since it is referenced to a paper source, that should address some of the sourcing concerns in this AFD; otherwise I would have agreed that merging based on editors' speculations of what Barwick was would have been a poor idea. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Barwick, Devon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can find no sources to suggest this is a village. Although it is on Ordnance Survey maps as "Barwick" and at greater scale as "North Barwick", "South Barwick" and "East Barwick", these appear to be collections of farm buildings rather than settlements of more than two houses, and an 1809 Ordnance Survey map has "Barwick Farms" at this location. If there is any evidence this is a hamlet it should be kept, but I couldn't find anything referring to this as a settlement. Pontificalibus (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Neutral per WP:NPLACE "Villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source", such as these OS Map extracts here, here and here. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my nomination? I am contending that it is not a village, despite it's appearance on certain maps. Named farms also appear on such maps, and they are not generally kept in the absence of any other source.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did read your nomination and cited a policy and three reliable sources as to why it should be kept. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your argument applies to villages. Just because there is a name on a map doesn't mean it's a village. Where is "Barwick" on this higher resolution map? Following your logic we would include the adjacent "Lane End Cottage" as a village.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the source you linked to, you can see "Barwick" if you zoom out one level. At the zoom you provided, it is split into "North Barwick", "East Barwick" and "South Barwick". I'm afraid I don't understand your concerns. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that every name on those three maps you linked to refers to a village. That is not the case - individual farm houses are also shown. For example one of your sources shows "Bullhead" to the south-east, whereas this other source you gave has that as "Bullhead Farm". So I don't believe your sources are sufficient to show that "Barwick" is a village.--Pontificalibus  (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOLAND, though only a supplimentary essay, states "Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if their population is very low". Your argument that only places sufficiently populated to qualify as villages in some source are notable contradicts this. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So you agree it's not a village? In any case I did not say that only places sufficiently populated to qualify as villages are notable - in my nomination I said that if there were any evidence this was a hamlet, the article should be kept. However we haven't found such evidence. The map sources you gave don't distinguish between hamlets and farm houses, and I really don't think a farm house is a "populated, legally-recognized place". If we find one reliable source showing Barwick is a populated, legally-recognized place, I will withdraw the nomination. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete - I'm going to stick my neck out and say a-questionable-sentence-does-not-a-useful-article-make. This mention of a dead vicar suggests there may once have been an ecclesiastical parish - maybe one of the farms had a private chapel? This listing and this one suggests the buildings with the name Barwick may be actually in another parish/village. Until we have something concrete to go on, the sentence is misleading. Sionk (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to definite 'Delete' because it is clear from the discussion there's no hard proof Barwick every was a recognised place, therefore merging speculation into Iddesleigh would be wrong. Sionk (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral <Strike>Weak</Strike> Delete. <Strike>This is a very borderline case</Strike> (not very borderline any more, now a clear case for deletion). Google Maps and Google Street View both confirm the existence of buildings in this location, at least one of which seems to be a residential building, but the existence of buildings does not make a village. Cartographers (in the UK at least) often label a private farm in the same way that they label a village if no other villages are nearby. WP:GEOLAND is only someone's opinion, and would not have been written with this kind of case in mind. WP:NPLACE is only a statement of likely outcomes, and does not mention a case in which village status is in doubt. In all likelihood, I would imagine that all of the buildings in that location are owned by the same person, in which case it can only be classed as a private residence and not a village. As a private residence it is definitely not notable. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note I have now established that Barwick is not an officially recognised settlement. Certain businesses in rural settlements with a population of under 3,000 are eligible for a tax relief scheme called Rural Rate Relief. Barwick does not feature on a list of such settlements in the West Devon Borough Council area. They've just redesigned their website and I can't seem to link to the list or Google's cache of it, but you can view the cached file by searching Google for "APPENDIX A DEFINED RURAL SETTLEMENTS west devon" and using the QuickView function.--<strong style="color:#555555;">Pontificalibus (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * M. W. Tisdall God's beasts: identify and understand animals in church carvings : 1998 Page 278 index Barwick, Devon p194,p255 = the wrong Barwick, Somerset ? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I removed that reference from the article because, as you rightly point out, it's more likely to refer to Barwick, Somerset. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The issue at stake here is Verifiability, which trumps all notability guidelines, and there seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether Barwick, Devon exists as a public settlement. Barwick, Somerset clearly does exist as a public settlement, and although user In ictu oculi has provided a reference, even he seems unsure as to whether the reference is valid. User Pontificalibus has done extensive research and concluded that Barwick, Devon does not exist as a public settlement. I believe that as Verifiability is seriously in question, and as the article clearly doesn't contain anything of value, we should err on the side of caution and delete the article. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think nobody is questioning verifiability, unless you're claiming the Ordnance Survey is wrong or put it in as a copyright trap? Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the discussion so far? Nobody is questioning that buildings exist in that location, but everybody apart from you is questioning whether it is a public settlement or simply a private residence / farm. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But you just stated "Verifiability is in question", which to me implies you don't believe anything exists there at all. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   10:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete' Barwick in Devon appears to be the address of two farms in Iddesleigh, not a settlement in its own right.J3Mrs (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So why not merge / redirect to Iddesleigh? Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why merge an address? Wikipedia isn't a list of addresses is it? J3Mrs (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's only your personal opinion that it's an address. Others may have a different view. It looks very confusing exactly what it is. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   16:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be confused, I'm not. J3Mrs (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge what exactly? Iddesleigh may be the nearest real settlement, but its article doesn't need a list of all nearby residences. Should the article about my home town also note that my house resides there? &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If a government affiliated organisation decided on multiple occasions your house deserved to be mention on commercially published material, sure, why not? I'm going to guess it probably doesn't though. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   10:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Streets are invariably mentioned on numerous maps and local government documents, but most are not regarded as being sufficiently notable for inclusion. A group of farm buildings is no different in that respect.--<strong style="color:#555555;">Pontificalibus (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the church carvings ref in the index that book must be a reference to the wrong Barwick. But all the same, Barwick Cross features in census records, apprenticeships at Lower Barwick, and it is 2km out of Iddesleigh and appears to have a dozen or so scattered houses, in which people are living. If it's deleted then it should be merged. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added the Barwick Madam and a listed building. This set of 4 hamlets is halfway between Iddesleigh and the much bigger Winkleigh so it isn't an immediate/automatic merge into Iddesleigh. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the references you added along with your changes, and they don't appear to check out. "Barwick Madam" is only a listed building and as such isn't notable. I can find no reference to the existence of "Barwick Cross" in any reliable source, including the "Ride The Ruby County" reference you added. The only reference I could find to a War Horse route on that website doesn't mention Barwick Cross. The route I found is "Ruby Cycle route 3; circular route from Hatherleigh, through Exbourne, Monkokehampton and Iddesleigh." here. Also the visual inspection doesn't match your description of Barwick Cross; "4 hamlets"? " a dozen or so scattered houses, in which people are living"? There are quite clearly two private farms there. There might possibly have been a hamlet once but I've seen nothing to verify that. As a result I'm going to remove the references to Barwick Cross. The verifiable information, which I have left in there, is relating to the listed building. But listed buildings are not inherently notable. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Iddesleigh - listed as Barwick Farm, Iddesleigh (with the unhibited Little Barwick Farm also listed) in the 1901 Census so unlikely to ever have been a hamlet. The 1891 Census has  Barwick Cottage, Ash Lane, Iddesleigh, Barwick Farm, Ash Lane, Iddesleigh and North Barwick which is empty. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Iddesleigh -- I suspect that what we are dealing with here is a deserted medieval village, in this case not wholly deserted. The appropriate course is to include it in an artilce on the parish.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Iddesleigh (probably retaining a redirect), per the very sensible, if not clearly-presented guidance in WP:UKCITIES – that small settlements without clear notability of their own should be mentioned in the article of the smallest notable area in which they lie, the parish of Iddesleigh, in this case. Maybe every parish should have a section 'Other settlements in the parish'? —S MALL  JIM   17:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet again I will ask: Merge what? There is no settlement here, just a private farm house, and the Iddesleigh article doesn't need a mention of all of the nearby private residences. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Gorgan almighty. Unless we have proof (rather than speculation) that Barwick is/was a recognised place, there's nothing to merge. Sionk (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your dissent - I'm agreeing that we shouldn't have an article, which is what AfD is about. But are there not two listed buildings here? Was there not a shire horse stud farm here? These appear to be well-enough verified, and while certainly insufficient for a standalone article, that's just the sort of stuff that would nicely fit in the parent article, which is capable of considerable expansion. I can also confirm that the place has existed since at least 1440, when it was known as Berewyke—(Gover, Mawer & Stenton. The Place-Names of Devon. 1931, p. 94). For the record I am not suggesting that every outlying farmhouse should be included in a parish article.  —S MALL  JIM   20:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well obviously I have no objection to you adding content to the Iddesleigh article. You're free to do so right away, without waiting for the conclusion of this AfD. My only concern is that such information is not suitable for inclusion in that article, and would most likely be removed by other editors who are unaware of this AfD (but not by me). Also I'm very uneasy of AfDs ending in a Merge result, as that effectively creates a mandate for such information to be added to another article, and often results in the AfD'd article continuing to exist for an indeterminate period of time. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just what I've spent the afternoon doing. Please feel free to help improve it further. if you can - I still need to add the toponymy. —S MALL  JIM   17:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge is a possible outcome of the AfD process. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - seems like valid content has been merged. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Iddesleigh; while it seems that Barwick has not been a "village" as such for at least for the past hundred years, mentioning it as a place of interest is legitimate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:09, 12 March 2013 (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.