Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Thatch, Suffolk

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Thatch, Suffolk[edit]

Little Thatch, Suffolk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable building - fails WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this isn't even the only Grade II listed place in Suffolk called Little Thatch [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk • contribs)
  • Delete According to English Heritage there are close on 450,000 GradeII listed buildings in the UK. To look at adding 450,000 extra three to four lined articles on Wikipedia for these buildings is a bit extravagant. Although EH considers they are deemed worthy of preservation there is no chance of the owner getting any financial help or a grant to pay for any work being done and it is up to owners to pay for it, as per any private house in the UK. That tends to indicate a sufficient lack of notability! Richard Harvey (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is all to do with whether there is sufficient published material documenting the subject at hand to support a real standalone non-advertisement non-directory-listing enyclopaedia article. It is nothing at all to do with who owns, likes, lives in, or pays for the upkeep of the subject. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The owner of a grade II listed property can apply to have the property removed from the listing, altered or demolished. Add to that any building over 30 years of age can be added to register as a grade II listed building[3] neither of these make Grade II a significant indicator of notability as to be considered the minimum requirement. In this case the sole source for the building is the listing, yes that enough to base a mention in the article on Round Maple as its a point of interest but WP:NOTABILITY requires significant coverage in multiple reliable source independent of the subject. This building lacks both the "multiple" and "significant" components there is no reason for a separate article to cover what can be easily and effectively covered in the hamlet's article. Gnangarra 12:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritstarzzz (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment Topics about houses/buildings like this are known to pop up on en.WP now and then, in hopes of upping property resale values in a given area[citation needed]Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No citation needed, WP:COI will tell you what you need to know. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps I got the wrong link. You said "..in hopes of upping property reales values in a given area". I'd like to see some evidence of that if possible... Your link just seemed to link back to here.... And the original editor of this article is clearly not trying to sell a house. Please help me out here.... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either the topic will be taken as notable, or not. It doesn't much matter why such articles are created and the GF of the editor isn't a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, I just wanted to see examples of the things you said "are known to pop up". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That could take time I don't have. Whatever reason was behind the article's creation, it shouldn't sway the outcome of this AfD at all, which is why I marked the comment as neutral. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. If you do chance upon these examples, please would you let me know? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do see them flitter by now and then. Yes, I'll try to let you know. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is there significant secondary coverage of this building? No. Being listed is an indication that it may be notable, but we have to consider the coverage. For example Broomhill Pool, Ipswich is clearly notable. And yes, the number of listed buildings is important in considering how relevant listed building status is to notability. I do not consider it reasonable to assume that there is going to be significant coverage of 418,000 grade II listed buildings. It is more reasonable to think that there might be coverage of the 18,000 grade II* listed buildings, and grade I buildings I don't think anyone would argue aren't automatically notable.

    I would also urge people to consider the potential detrimental affect of having articles on peoples private property. Whilst there is information freely available about these properties, it is not on an open platform where anyone could vandalise it. When someone does a database dump of all 418,000 properties are those advising keep going to volunteer to watchlist them all? Quantpole (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It appears impossible to expand this article as the building receives no coverage other than the Grade II listing. It it not sufficiently notable to require a separate article.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a reliable source, which is enough to write a well-written stub. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly the same source you posted yesterday. Give it a rest. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but it's still meaningful and can be used to write a good stub. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 16:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But where are the multiple sources required to establish notability? The details in the source you give merely show that it is a fairly well preserved old house, of which there are hundreds in Babergh alone. There's probably over 100 Grade II buildings in both Long Melford and Lavenham, and to have articles on each and every one would be madness. It is so obviously not a notable subject. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source is simply a reiteration of the English Heritage listing. For purposes of notability it does not count as a separate source to the listing. So the question is "Does being Grade II listed by English Heritage make a place notable, even if there are no other sources". Some people further up think it does. Others, including myself, think not. Quantpole (talk) 17:00, 15 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Little_Thatch,_Suffolk&oldid=1138029584"