Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reeves of Bath

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 10:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reeves of Bath

I don't think this orphan article meets the notability criteria. The editor who created it has not be active for a year. — Rod ^talk 20:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find three sources: [1], [2], [3], which convince me that this article is accurate/true. But I can't find any sources written specifically about it or anything that would enable us to expand it to more than a stub. I'd like to give some others the opportunity to find sources that maybe I can't find. I'd say Delete if we can't find any sources giving more significant coverage. Cazort (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's nothing wrong with stubs, especially when you've found the references to back it all up. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is (or better, was) a company of stonemasons/grave stone-cutters in the Bath, UK area. Prima facie, there's nothing wrong with an article on a defunct company, but I'd like to see some explanation of why their work is worth an article: were they the biggest grave-stone maker at the time (at least in Bath), or cut grave stones for the famous, or had a style that has been studied? -- llywrch (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They're a prominent mason (where they purely monumental? I thought they did other decorative details too) during the Regency period of Bath's architectural heights. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any sources for these comments? Simply asserting that they were prominent is not grounds to keep the page. The sources I found above (which were the ONLY sources I was able to find) simply mention these masons...which establishes their existence but not exactly their notability. I would like to keep but I really think we need to find more sources before we can justify a keep. Cazort (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, or I would have posted them. For physical evidence, get over to the Museum of Bath at Work. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Books search shows that the subject created many notable monuments. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2009 (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.