Deletion of Devon hedge

Comment: this has adequate references and the term and its use are well known. There is no problem expanding on a part of a wider topic in a stand-alone article, particularly where providing detail in the main article might be seen as giving undue |weight. '''''&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:weight)

Comment: The proposer's reason for wanting this deleted was apparently that the then current article contained no more than the section in the parent article. However, it's well established that the present state of an article is no indicator of whether it should exist or not – the real criterion is whether the topic is sufficiently |notable, and nominators are supposed to do some research to check this before raising an AfD. Notability was surely satisfied by the time I'd added another source and removed the prod, but Chiswick Chap then gilded the lily (thanks!), and I've gone on to Rhodium#Ornamental_uses|rhodium plate it by adding another.I think that Jolly Janner's point about the problem lying with an undue emphasis in Hedge is a good one, though I haven't researched how many other named hedge types there are. We do need to ensure that this article talks about the specific Devon hedge type and not just ordinary hedges in Devon ("Devon's hedges"), of which there are also many kilometres. &nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)