Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorking Tye


 * 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 and redirect to Assington. (non-admin closure) &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Dorking Tye

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cannot find a single mention of it in anything except 'Dorking Tye House' and is not listed on OS maps. Would normally merge with civil parish it falls within but, as the location cannot be established, it's best deleted. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 23:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On closer inspection it is the work of the infamous sockpuppet Crouch, Swale. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 23:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge + redirect to Assington - it's a small hamlet but a hamlet, and I think place locales are usually notable, aren't they? "This parish includes the hamlets of Rose Green, Dorking Tye and a number of fertile farmsteads."    —Мандичка YO 😜 07:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well done for finding that source! I agree, just could not find any reliable references pointing it to Assington myself. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 16:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly think you could just boldly merge it to Assington. I can't see any compelling argument to keep it. Based on the map, it appears to be only a few houses. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   13:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge in to Assington - Can't find anything notability-wise but seems better to merge than delete. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Question - is an English hamlet "legally recognized" under WP:GEOLAND #1 ? If not, merge to Assington. Kraxler (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not from the UK, but I think it depends on potential content. A hamlet of 30 houses/buildings could support its own article since England has so many historic buildings and records. A hamlet that was mentioned in the Domesday book would be notable for example. This hamlet seems to have withered away to about four structures, based upon my Google Maps snooping, and was never prominent enough to be noted much. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The question is a rather technical one. Under WP:GEOLAND any "legally recognized" inhabitated place has a legal wiki-right to have it's own article. I think a hamlet is a "de facto" place, while "legally recognized" places in England begin at town or city level but I don't live in England either, so I wouldn't know. Kraxler (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not sure if hamlets are legally recognized. Hamlet (place) says they have no "legal definition" but I'm not sure about the recognition part. I would guess as far as WP is concrened, they are equivalent to neighborhoods, and would need to meet GNG. I know I've seen good articles on hamlets though, so I'm guessing GNG applies. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've already merged the relevant info. There doesn't seem to be any support or argument to keep this article. I'm just going to boldly redirect it. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * New close as a redirect -- There is no legal definition of or status for a hamlet in England. In some areas there are townships, but they are not necesarily notable.  The result of Wikimandia's merger is that e now just have a redirect.  that is the appropriate outcome.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2015 (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.