Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyver

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 keep. I see a consensus here to Keep this article. Any discussion of turning this page into a Redirect can occur on the article talk page. I don't see the advantage of having a newly created Draft article on the same subject so perhaps that should be tagged for speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wyver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable small nature reserve. Article has no references and has been tagged as such for a decade. Searches just find tourist guides and so on which only indicate that the reserve exists but don't give any detail of its history or anything to indicate it's more notable than any other small area of land used for conservation purposes. Neiltonks (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reserve is fairly well known, at least in a Derbyshire context (Derbyshire Wildlife Trust page calls it "one of the Trust's most important wetland reserves"). There are articles for Cheshire Wildlife Trust reserves of similar notability (e.g. Warburton's Wood Nature Reserve). References doubtless exist for Wyver Lane (notably official DWT page); better to improve the referencing than delete. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• comment it seems to me that the best solution for all of the Trust's holdings would be a list with relelvant data and a summary within its article. That said, the curent content of the article is entirely OR and isn't mergeable as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be notable per WP:GEOFEAT but it isn't an SSSI so I'm not sure it qualifies as "protected status". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wyver isn't just the reserve, it's a wider locality too, much of the area to the west of the Derwent river. Formally recognised as a place name by ONS and OS, other local features use it as a prefix (lane, farm, wood), the farm in particular dating back to at least the 14th century, and later associated to the nearby mills. Could expand by adding non-reserve detail and as mentioned add some refs. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can those wanting to Keep this article locate a few reliable sources that can be used to establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the area is completely within the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site.

Several listed buildings are in Wyver including the aforementioned farm - Listed buildings in Belper - links and sources of those are within.

The lane has a historic connection to the owners of the Belper mills https://her.derbyshire.gov.uk/Monument/MDR15538

Local quarries existed - https://her.derbyshire.gov.uk/Monument/MDR13561 https://her.derbyshire.gov.uk/Monument/MDR13562 The Equalizer (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above keep arguments. Libcub (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Derbyshire Wildlife Trust. Outside of the official website, I can't find any significant coverage online. The sources provided by the Equalizer relate only to surrounding features, not to the reserve which is the subject of the article. Possibly sources do exist in local libraries and such, hence I suggest redirecting rather than deleting, to preserve the content. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The content might be predominantly for the reserve, but the title of the article isn't reserve specific.

  Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did a pretty exhaustive search for sources to use in this article and couldn’t find anything substantial enough to merit having an article for it. Therefore it doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Serratra (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. A user only contributing 55 edits, account created in 2021 yet first used in 2023? WP:SLEEPER is not encouraged. Already editors are questioning some of those edits on your talk page? Also an account created as on your talk page note to review articles for deletion? Only? No article improvements or contributions? Feels like a sock puppet account, which is discouraged too as WP:SOCK. I think editors should be aware of these when considering your comment. The Equalizer (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:The Equalizer, it was just another sock. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Thought as much, how shady, they even cleared their talk page after I mentioned it, presumably to delete evidence. Thanks for confirming. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty positive so I created Draft:Wyver if anyone wants to help bring it up to the required standard alongside me... I've already begun.

Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 13:52, 8 February 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.