Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowden, 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   no consensus. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Crowden, Devon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Question for the nominator Did you attempt to check and see if the existence could be confirmed? If you did not, please see WP:BEFORE, if you did and discovered its existence, this is notable as a populated area, if you did and could not find any sources confirming its existence, why didn't you say so? Ryan Vesey 04:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. In accordance with WP:GEOLAND, such settlements, even though very small, are almost always kept when verifiable. This one is labeled on the relevant Ordnance Survey map, listed here, and so forth, so I think it's sufficiently verifiable. Compare the other articles listed in Category:Hamlets in Devon. Deor (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:UKCITIES which (sensibly although not very clearly) recommends that small settlements without clear notability of their own should be covered in the article of the smallest notable area in which they lie, which in this case is the parish of Northlew. The recent AfD for Barwick, Devon is a similar case: a few things were found out about that settlement (it has two listed buildings for example), so merge and redirect was considered appropriate. However the only information about Crowden that I've found is (1) a couple of passing mentions of a "Crowden Mills" in 19th-century magazines (via Google Books), and (2) in Gover, Mawer & Stenton: The Place-Names of Devon (1931) p. 155 which just confirms that the place has existed since at least 1330, when it was known as Crowedon - this is nothing unusual for England: it is one minor place-name of the 25 that the book lists in this parish. So despite this being an apparent "drive-by" nomination, I think it's uncovered an article that is of no benefit to the encyclopedia. —S MALL  JIM   22:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * REdirect to Northlew -- I note (from Google maps) that Northlew has a Crowden Road, which suggests that Crowden is a genuine place (as Smalljim implies). However, it is probably too small to merit having its own article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Northlew per Peterkingiron. The civil parish is generally the best unit for an article.--Charles (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't doubt that it is a genuine place and if there was any substance to the article then I would support its retention. "x is a place in y" is not an article and as such having a redlink on the Northlew page in case anyone would like to write an article would more than suffice. I don't believe that WP:GEOLAND was ever intended as a carte blanche to generate hundreds of content-less stubs, merely to protect genuine articles written about places that aren't as obviously notable as towns or cities. da nn o _ u k  23:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep real place (is in the ordnance survey) should be kept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verified settlements, however small, are generally kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some time a go a huge number of articles were auto-created based on a download of the US census.  Ever since those articles have been defended with a WP:GEOLAND argument, regardless of the content.  As far as I know, no genuine US settlement article has ever been deleted.  I am not sure that I entirely agree with this principle personally, but it is clear-cut and if we are applying it to the US, it should be applied to the rest of the world as well.  Besides, a settlement that can be traced back to 1330 is a notable fact.  Peterkingiron may be right that this is not unusual for England, but is still an interesting and notable fact.  I note that estate agent sites respond to requests for Crowden, Devon  and if for no other reason, that alone is cause for our readers to want to look it up.  Spinning  Spark  01:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know if this is any use but the Curia Regis rolls of Henry III (1250) lists cases of people from Croweden (the spelling given in the Devon placenames reference for 1330) and if nothing else pushes its foundation back another century.  I am no good with Latin, but one case (number 649) seems to be about Margery, wife of Hugh of Croweden claiming a third of two shillings rent owed by Peter the Taylor, and a dispute over ownership of some stables.  Case number 117 brought by Sybil of Croweden is against Warin of Bassingburn.  Spinning  Spark  11:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since those are Cambridgeshire cases, I think the "Croweden" or "Craweden" referred to is Croydon, Cambridgeshire, which is very close to "Bassingburn". Deor (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How do you know those are Cambridgeshire cases? Both were from sessions held in Canterbury, a good distance from both locations.  According to Google maps Cambridge is 107 miles (actually a good deal further as I doubt the Dartford tunnel had been constructed at that time) and Crowden is 264 miles.  Spinning  Spark  16:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ca(u)ntebr' is Cambridgeshire (from Cantabrigia, the Latin name of Cambridge), not Canterbury. Note that all the italicized place designations at the heads of case reports are shires, not towns. (See also the index entry at "Croydon", p. 364, col. 2, referring the reader to case 649, which you cited above.) Deor (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did say I'm no good with Latin.  Spinning Spark  18:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems to be a more substantial settlement than Barwick, Devon, based on a look around with Google Street View, with a verifiable history as a village (see above). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep, it's a real place of verifiable existence. It seems that there is also additional material that can be written about it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 14 April 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.