Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axborough

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 delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axborough

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I can find no indication that "Axborough" exists. The OS mapping 1:25k has an "Axborough Wood", but not a settlement called "Axborough". The article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005. (I came across it while working on the Unsourced Backlog project, where I'm going through the intersection of Unsourced and Category:Mountains and hills of the United Kingdom.) PamD 22:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. PamD 22:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further WP:BEFORE: Victoria County History of Worcestershire has nothing except the single sentence, under Wolverley parish, "Axborough Wood on the east is a plantation made since the Inclosure Act in 1775." Genuki has nothing. Vision of Britain is offline today. PamD 00:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's Axborough Wood (listed by Ordnance Survey as a wood not a settlement), Axborough Lane, Axborough Edge, Axborough Farm, Axborough Lodge in Wolverley and Cookley parish but no settlement called "Axborough" even though its been marked as a hamlet on OSM (doesn't seem right). No presumed notability under WP:NPLACE. This article is about Axborough Hill for which I've been unable to find any reference outside of Wikipedia mirrors etc (perhaps it was a local informal name?); the article may be misleading so unless other evidence turns up, have to recommend its deletion. Rupples (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted there doesn't seem to be much evidence the hamlets exists even though its clear the featured named exist. There is however information on the history of the name of the farm which may make it qualify as notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This further muddles things. The red dot on the map places the farm?/the hill? in a different location to the other Axborough-named features and links a farm (presumably that's what the 'Fm' stands for) to a hill of a different name. I've now found "Great Axborough", an arable field near to Wolverley in a 1796 auction notice. Various reports in connection with foxhunting do mention the name Axborough on its own, but don't specify anything further. Rupples (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK I see the map is north west of Cookley not south east where the other features are. Possibly it could be related namely the name was used for a large area years ago but otherwise its concerning so probably doesn't qualify as notable. I was about to !vote delete until I did a Google search and found the far source. It probably should be deleted but I'm not completely sure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article started out claiming that this was a village, in 2005. It's amusing that the real village there is Lea Castle Village which didn't exist when this article was written; and apparently it was a hospital before that.
There was a quite extensive Axborough Wood in the 18th century, per ISBN 9780851152769 page 122, next to what in the 9th century was Wulfweardig (Wolverley) Lea. That same book confirms on page 124 that Axbourough Hill gave its name to the Farm and the Wood, and they are both where this article claims them to be, and has the important sentence when talking about the Wolverley boundary at Axborough Hill that "The adjacent land was open common waste until 1778.". I'm sure that the "spurious" charter of A.D. 866 by Burgred to Worcester monastery laid out in Della Hooke's book has a happy place in the Wolverley article if Crouch, Swale or someone feels like pushing that article back 2 centuries using this new source.
But as for this article: All this is in a study of land charters from pre-Norman Conquest times. No village. Ever. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uncle G. Okoslavia (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2024 (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.