Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingask Follies

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 to Fingask Castle. ....preferably without the flowery prose that looks suspiciously like it's been copied from promotional material, as stated "Part tutorial, part vacation, it is a synthesis of theatrical rigour, a plethora of the fecund and the frivolous, of song, poetry, satire, action and prose" for example.... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fingask Follies

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

Article was deleted via prod and restored at creator's request (WP:REFUND). My prod rationale was as follows: Appears to fail WP:N, as I'm unable to find substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources. Almost all of the listed references predate the inception of this event and therefore clearly cannot deal with it, and it's unclear (1) whether the few remaining ones include significant material on the topic and (2) what portions of the article, if any, they're cited to support. In addition, the article's tone suggests that it was copied directly from some sort of promotional material. Deor (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The long list of sources at the end included one solid paragraph in a Country Life article and apparently includes one or two other print references. The fact that only the Country Life one seems to be available online - reproduced on the castle site, but Google search for a hefty quote demonstrates the original article contains those words - doesn't render those sources invalid, but the creator or someone else who chooses to help should quote the offline references in inline refs. (And I cannot find that 2007 book, which does not mean it doesn't exist, but that the article needs full citations from it, and full bibliographic info.) Also the historical material needs to be cut out, and the historical sources too; some of them may be useful additions to the article on the castle. And the style needs to be un-peacocked. But neither the irrelevant historical material nor the style means the topic is unnotable, and it appears to have been covered enough in the press to make it notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Yngvadottir (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fingask Castle. Not enough evidence of third-party coverage to signify notability, but probably worth a mention in the article on the castle. --Deskford (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote the article and think itis a good one but have merged it with Fingask Castle as a precaution as that is better than nothing. I find the whole 'notable/not notable' thing on Wikipedia leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Preceding partly-signed comment added by Rodolph (talk · contribs)[reply]

~~Keep~~ the whole thing is now a complete mess. I'd merged them then Yngvadittir de-merged them now back to square one with the whole lot at risk again. Why does one f-ing bother?!Rodolph (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolph (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated !vote struck to avoid confusion. Deor (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2010 (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.