Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weavers' cottage (Kleinschwarzenbach, Zum Weberhaus 10)

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. Sandstein 07:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weavers' cottage (Kleinschwarzenbach, Zum Weberhaus 10)

[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)

Originally Deleted under WP:G11, consensus at deletion review was to overturn the G11 and list here. This listing is a purely administrative action; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know my way around the German records, but this seems to be a listed building. In any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger to Kleinschwarzenbach and so we're wasting time talking about deletion. AfD is not cleanup and see also WP:IGNORINGATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to "Weberhaus Kleinschwarzenbach". I don't have any German either but a bit of searching suggests that the parenthetical phrase is an address (I assume because the article in dewiki had to be disambiguated from other Weberhausen). I think either WP:NBUILD (per @Andrew Davidson's note that it's a listed building) or WP:ITSACASTLE applies here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per the arguments of @Kusma and Hut 8.5 below. I defer to Kusma on the German sourcing. Seems like a Bavarian listed building isn't so notable after all. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a listed building, per WP:NBUILD. I edited the article to remove the promotional language and personal reflections, as per the deletion review discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently no grounds whatsoever are given for deletion, so this is inevitable. The original speedy seems from the review to have been on grounds of promotionalism, which seems silly. It would be nice to have a listed building reference, but one would imagine it is. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article cites its list number as D-4-75-136-35. Usually there's a centralized directory of these things, but I can't seem to find one. (Also unclear if it's internationally, nationally, or Bavaria-listed). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please don´t delete this article ! We are a german group of 5 people, who want to save a typical kind of thatched houses, which only exists in franconian forest in upper franconia. frankenkini (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above doesn't actually include any evidence the subject is notable. Although I'm not familiar with the German system, being a listed building doesn't necessarily mean anything at all. In the UK listed buildings are really quite common, according to listed building there are about half a million of them of them in England and Wales, comprising about 2% of all buildings. WP:NBUILD also doesn't say that listed buildings are notable as claimed, instead it says that buildings need to pass the general notability guideline to be notable. Hut 8.5 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, UK listing at the lowest level (Grade II) is not regarded as making a building notable, but rightly or wrongly the American national and state listing schemes, plus the Dutch Rijksmonument one ( 61,822 of those), have been so treated. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may or it may not, depending on the building. In general it's probably best to group individual houses together instead of having a separate article on every single Grade II-listed building in a street or village, but according to WP:GEOFEAT national heritage listing (at any level) does give a presumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I am not convinced that this is a notable building by itself, and couldn't find any particularly good sources. I guess it would make more sense to cover it together with the neighbouring houses listed in the List of listed buildings in Helmbrechts in, say, the Kleinschwarzenbach article. —Kusma (t·c) 20:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kusma: Thanks for finding this document! Am I right in reading this as a list of buildings designated as historic by Bavaria (and not, say, of buildings in Bavaria designated as historic by some other authority)? If so, would that designation be similar to those for other federal units listed here? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  AleatoryPonderings, the protection of monuments is a state matter in Germany, and yes, the list I linked to are all the sites in the town of Helmbrechts that are protected under the Bavarian law for the protection of monuments. I could find no categorisation (other than building/ensemble/archeological site), especially not one by quality or level of protection. There are 150k+ protected monuments in Bavaria alone. Apparently up to 1600 of these could be protected internationally via the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. I personally don't think that Bavarian listed buildings should be considered inherently notable. —Kusma (t·c) 21:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly, based on: paywalled article about the Kleinschwarzenbach weaver's house being filmed for a documentary [1] (here's a press release about the same thing [2]), and combining these two articles [3] [4] from the same publisher, each of which have some information (but not a lot) about this particular weaver's cottage. There's also a little blurb in what appears to be local coverage [5]. The about us page for the cottage doesn't contribute to notability but can be used as an WP:ABOUTSELF source [6]. There's just barely enough here to write a policy-compliant article. ^Lev!v^ich 21:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't get the point that a relevant article in German wiki suddenly isn't relevant in another language. -PeterBraun74 (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned before, the mere existence of an article in another language does not automatically guarantee that an article will not be deleted here; see Wikipedia:Translating German Wikipedia for comparison, the part at the bottom labeled content issues. Lectonar (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a heritage building per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2020 (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.