Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Hotel, Halton

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 speedy keep. per WP:SNOW (unanimous agreement among all commenters and established editors except nominator). Mgm|^(talk) 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Hotel, Halton[edit]

It's a very nice building, but it is "just another grade 2 listed building", and as such not exceptional. I own one that is also unexceptional. It's obviously verifiable. One can go and see it!, but I cannot spot notability as a building. That leads me to believe that this is an advert for the pub. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not an advert for a pub, but an article to satisfy the requirements for Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire becoming a featured list; the assessors expect all the buildings, at least those down to Grade II*, to have at least a stub. And it has a history, as a previous courthouse and prison, which, in addition to its Grade II* listing, makes it notable. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think the FA assessors' expectations should dictate whether this should have its own article or not. I think we have to go by notability and assertions of notability. Surely not all of the Grade 2 listed buildings in England merit an article unless they are inherently notable for some major reason other than the whims of the conservation officers? That is one of the reasons I have put this article up for consensus to be established. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rather than being selected on a whim, all listed buildings are protected for one of the following reasons:

If it has particular architectural interest: buildings which are nationally important for the interest of their architectural design, decoration and craftsmanship; also important examples of particular building types and techniques.
Historic reasons: this includes buildings which illustrate important aspects of the nation's social, economic, cultural or military history.
Close historical association with nationally important buildings or events.

Plus, there is a difference between grades II and II*, with Grade II* being more important. Nev1 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though I can see only one news article (2007 related to a health issue and closure by the council) it appears to have attracted some interest in various books as seen via google. Unfortunately the text is not often available but enough seem to not be simpy directories. I suspect that there is sufficient material in reliable sources to write a quality article - Peripitus (Talk) 13:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Grade 2 building but a Grade II* - that is a higher grade than Grade II. Grade II* includes "particularly significant buildings of more than local interest"; does that definition not confirm notability? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a historic building that is part of a major archaeological site (Halton Castle). As a grade II* building it has been officially recognised as a structure of national importance. English Heritage think the building is sufficiently notable to merit its own page, and I think it passes the bar for inclusion in our encyclopaedia.Soph (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Soph's argument. To consider this article an advert for the pub is ridiculous. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, source and expand per above (All the Good arguments are going fast.) Had no idea ere now what a "Grade II*" building was, but Listed_building#England_and_Wales says, "particularly significant buildings of more than local interest." So this sounds like what would be a National Register of Historic Places building in the US. As such, that would make it notable. I'm 5,000+ miles away, having a rough time on sourcing. Dloh cierekim 15:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This building does seem to have a significant history. I suspect there are more historic buildings in the UK than in the US, and more in Runcorn than sleepy, li'l ole Largo. Dloh cierekim 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's just clarify here: the historic buildings system of England & Wales, administered by English Heritage, currently has three gradings, grade I > grade II* > grade II. A Grade II* listing (as this building has) represents "particularly significant buildings of more than local interest". There are only 18,000 grade II* listings in England & Wales (and many of these are actually in the grounds of grade-I-listed buildings). I don't see any reason why we should not have a separate article on all of these, especially those that aren't located within the grounds of grade-I-listed buildings. (Whether or not grade II listing is sufficient notability for our purposes is, I believe, arguable, but that is not the case in this instance.) In the case of the building now known as Castle Hotel, Halton, there is additionally a long history as a courthouse, which is discussed in the history of Halton by Starkey, as referenced in the article. To characterise the article as "an advert for the pub" is simply inaccurate. I have found with similar articles I've created that it's important to watch the article to make sure that inappropriate advertising material doesn't get added, but that's no reason to pre-emptively delete the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grade II* is for "particularly important buildings of more than special interest" according to English Heritage, confirming the building's notability. Nev1 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment it's not so simple: if the building is part of the larger Castle Halton, then, probably, it should be merged to an already existing section in Halton Castle ? NVO (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a listed building on a national list is a basic definition of something being notable. We may have more or less to day, or we may have more or less concern with promotional material, butt here should always be an article for every one of them. when there's an authoritative public definition of notability for a subject, we should use it. or perhaps we assorted amateurs know better than the relevant professionals?DGG (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Dloh cierekim 23:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Grade II* building. significant. Should be kept. travb (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, source and expand, giving more detail of its use as a court house - for what court, for example. The sources needed will be those used for the Halton Castle article. The alternative might be to merge with that article, but that is probably inappropriate since it "replaced" the castle gatehouse, rather than being a rebuild of it. I do not know the area, and so cannot deal with this myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I agree with the arguments above about this article being about a notable building worthy of its own article. I am a bit surprised that the article had only been created 5 minutes before this AfD was slapped onto it, although I know this can be done, I would have thought it advisable only when the created page was clearly not going to "make the grade" (as I have done myself in the past.) However, in this case, A Grade II* listed building would obviously not fall into that category. To think it is merely an advertising pitch given the creator's established editing history and successes in DYK, GAs and an FA, I think it was a poor show to place the AfD so quickly, and perhaps even a failure in WP:AGF. I think it should be swiftly closed as Keep. DDStretch (talk) 00:48, 11 January 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.