Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 Prince Street, Peterhead

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. Nomination happily withdrawn per new sources from Girth Summit (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 10:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16 Prince Street, Peterhead[edit]

[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)

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable as a Category B listed building per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOFEAT states "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Without WP:SIGCOV, GEOFEAT does not establish notability. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're ignoring the bit above which says Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable! The bit you quoted applies to buildings which do not meet that criterion, otherwise what would be the point of even saying it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because a presumption is not a guarantee of notability. If it's clearly notable, why don't you just provide multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources? // Timothy :: talk 10:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would normally presume that a Grade B listed building would be notable, but that is by no means certain in every case. I hope we can all agree that if there are no sources beyond "simple statistics" that the threshold isn't reached. The two related sources referencing the building's entry in the national register establish the Grade B status, but surely they contain nothing beyond simple statistics? One ref even has a note: "This site record was created to indicate a building which is, or was, listed but for which Canmore holds no supplementary information". --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even a brief description is more than "simple statistics", surely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The "brief description"[1][2] comprises the name, the location, the category, and the number on the register. What would "simple statistics" look like if not those? "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature ... in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability." --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because a presumption is not a guarantee of notability. Then please enlighten me as to why that criterion was even included in guideline in the first place. If it was superseded by the second criterion there would be no point in specifying that heritage buildings are presumed to be notable, would there. What you're basically saying is that you don't personally agree with the criterion so you think it should just be ignored. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:GEOFEAT never mentions "heritage buildings". The first bullet point deals with "Artificial geographical features" that have heritage status; the second deals with "Buildings" that have historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. There is an intersection between the two, but there would have been no point in having the second criterion if it were superseded by the the first, would there? Presumption is not a guarantee; WP:NGEO #Sources is very clear that "This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." In what way do the two mutually referential sources in the article do anything more than establish existence?
        Now stop personalising this. I have no dog in this fight and I didn't write the guidelines. Have a good think about who is actually stating personal opinion here and who is just quoting our guidance. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep In addition to the sources listed in the article, this building has an entry in Walker and Woodworth's volume "Aberdeenshire: North and Moray" (part of the Pevsner Architectural Guides series), and the Historic Environment Scotland listing's bibliography gives two further offline sources, and I'd be very surprised if there isn't a description of it in the relevant RIAS guide to the region, but I don't have any of these on my shelf. There's also an entry here with more description. To be honest, I'd be surprised if any Category B listed building failed GNG, but this one certainly doesn't - you just need to know where to look for the sources. I'll try to find some time later on to expand on this based on the sources that I do have access to. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I've added some description of the building based on my offline source; I don't doubt that this could be expanded further with access to the offline sources given in the bibliography at its listing documents, or if one were able to access a copy of the "Banff and Buchan" RIAS architectual guide by Charles McKean, which will certainly mention this. I'd be grateful if TimothyBlue would be willing review what I've added so far, and consider withdrawing this nom. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Girth Summit, Yes that reference shows it meets NBUILD for architectural significance. Yale University Press, it must have sources. Nomination happily withdrawn (I'd formerly change my vote but someone told me they don't like that, but consider this a Happy Keep vote, not a sad surrender :). // Timothy :: talk 09:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, per Girth Summit Seasider53 (talk) 09:40, 31 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.