North Country, Cornwall (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted in 2015 because it was apparently a housing estate without official recognition as a hamlet, village, or town however it is an OS settlement[1] and is even an ONS BUA with its own population data. I'm not sure if being an ONS BUA makes it a legally recognized place per WP:GEOLAND but IMO is is probably at least strong evidence it is. It was later created as a redirect to Redruth its parish but should probably be a separate article. I suggest at least the edit history should be restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a "built up area" with a population of less than 1,000. I know of nothing geologically or historically significant about it. What is there to write?—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Nomination misrepresents the AfD. Topic failed GNG. It couldn’t have been closed any other way. If the reasons for deletion have not been overcome, and you want to try anyway, then use draftspace. You may request a WP:REFUND to draftspace to get started. If you want to get serious, read advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not restore history behind the redirect. I am considering RfD-ing the redirect due to the term not being mentioned at the target. Keep the history intact, either behind the deleted article, or in draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is another DRV request where it is not entirely clear what the appellant is requesting or what the issue is. Are they saying that the closer should have kept the article, or that the editors in the AFD should have given different answers, or that they want the deleted article restored to mainspace, or that they want the deleted article restored to draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Nothing because it isn't clear what the appellant is requesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's pretty clear that he wants to turn the redirect into an article with the edit history restored underneath.—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can’t see any evidence that this would be a good idea. He should be sent to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore edit history which seems like a reasonable request, although having actually seen it I don't think it's going to be much use to the OP. The deleted article was two sentences long, apart from a generic citation to "Google Maps" all of the references are talking about a Methodist chapel in that location rather than the housing estate. I'm not convinced that the subject meets GEOLAND, which says that "census tracts are usually not considered notable", but a sparsely attended AfD from 2015 shouldn't get in the way of another creation. Hut 8.5 09:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The term is not mentioned at the target, and so the redirect should be deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Deleting an otherwise harmless redirect with an edit history which someone thinks would be potentially useful strikes me as counterproductive. Hut 8.5 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not a census tract, it is a named population centre. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You said that you think it passes GEOLAND because the ONS lists it. I think that's a similar situation to what we would have with census tracts - merely being used by an official body for statistical purposes isn't enough to constitute legal recognition. Hut 8.5 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It may pass GEOLAND if being a census settlement makes it "legally recognized". It is not similar to a census tract, a census tract is generally a random area of land as opposed to a named settlement. An example of a census tract is E00095472 with a population of 335 compared with 773 for North Country. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore edit history I agree with Hut's analysis. Hobit (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore edit history as explained. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore edit history per above. There's a chance this would be deleted again at AfD but there's a reasonable chance it could survive, and even though there's not much there to restore, this could easily be adopted again. (I will note that there are signs at the entrance of North Country informing you that's where you are per Google Street View, which I'd take - while obviously not conclusive - as a good sign for GEOLAND.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This should not even be a redirect, there is no information on North Country at the target page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well yes that would be something for RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the AfD in question was for deletion, not redirection, I think that's a determination that can be made while we're here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Take no action. The entirety of the deleted article was: "North Country is a village in Cornwall, England." Crouch, Swale is wasting the community's time by requesting deletion review to restore something as trivial, and I consider this disruptive conduct. Sandstein 07:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the article's history under the redirect. Even though the article history contains trivial content as described by Sandstein, the DRV request was reasonable since non-admins like the DRV nominator do not have access to the deleted history so are unable to see what it contained. I support restoring the article history so that it is available to non-admins.

  When there is an alternative to deletion, I always support keeping the article's history accessible to non-admins if there are no BLP violations or copyright violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. The article may contain useful content for a merge or useful sources. The article may have unreliable sources that cannot be cited. But the unreliable sources may have information that helps editors find reliable sources that can be used. Without having to ask an admin to restore to draft, a non-admin who is interested in recreating the article with better sourcing and content can immediately view the prior state of the article to see if anything can be reused.

  North Country, Cornwall currently is a redirect to Redruth, which does not mention North County, Cornwall. This would result in deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion if not addressed. I still support restoration as this concern is surmountable. If it would be undue weight to mention North County, Cornwall, in Redruth, another option is to retarget the redirect to List of United Kingdom locations: Ni-North G, where it is already mentioned.

  Cunard (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Reagrding undue weight its normal to redirect (and mention) other settlements in a parish if they are considered not notable, see Kersey Tye>Kersey, Suffolk for example. In this case it could perhaps be mentioned further down if not in the lead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]