Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fir Hill Manor

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. J04n(talk page) 01:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fir Hill Manor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:BLP1E. The whole page seems to be based on a BBC documentary that was picked up by other newspapers. Notability is not established. Yoninah (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep bearing in mind the Manor is not a living person so WP:BLP1E is a non-starter ;) Neither is there any original journalism, the article simply records the events that were widely published. The manor and its estate have been the subject of a BBC documentary in 1994, then became an issue again when an heir tried to publicly track down the landlord, then again a nationally publicised issue in 2012 when the prospective landlord died and the High Court resolved the inheritance. Admittedly (being a member of WikiProject Architecture) it's not the sort of article I particularly like (I prefer articles about the actual architecture of old manors), but this doesn't alter the fact this estate has been a subject in the media for a considerable period of time. After coming across this article at WP:DYK I rewrote and reorganised the article and I think it is suitable to remain. Sionk (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Invalid deletion rationale. Clearly a notable house.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has been discussed at length by a number of reliable independent sources, which are cited. Notability is established. What got those sources interested in the subject is irrelevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established with multiple references (one dates to 1907). --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Perhaps not well-written, but an inheritacne that went unclaied for so long and of such a size is probably notable. I have left a comment on the talk page about some of the content, which may not be quite accurate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom (outside of the nonsensical WP:BLP1E contention. Nom states that there was a BBC documentary about this topic as well as several news outlets giving coverage.--Oakshade (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2013 (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.