Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manor Hotel, Mundesley

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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manor Hotel, Mundesley[edit]

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

No credible notability claims, no significant source coverage. Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to turn up anything but passing mentions. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I found the article had been blanked (out of process) except the AFD tag, and have reverted that, so that we can see what was there. Blanking an article that you di not like is not acceptable. The culpit User:Stavros1 claims to have retiured from WP, which another user (on his talk page laments). The architect has a short article, which suggests that his buildings are notable, but as we only have a very short stub of an article, it is difficult to tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listing by Nicolas Pevsner is not a strong claim to notability and no other evidence is offred. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable architectural feature of Mundelsey, and its restaurant seems to have good coverage too. Has coverage in reliable sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [[5], [6], [7], [8]♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least three books WP:RS mentioned in the article that note this. Dr. Blofeld indicates there's more out there, and I am sure it will be put into the article in due course. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"advertisement". Country Life. Vol. 137. Country Life, Limited. 1965. p. 95. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Pevsner, Sir Nikolaus; Wilson, Bill (2002). Norfolk 2: North-West and South. Yale University Press. p. 149. ISBN 978-0-300-09657-6. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Westley, P.C. (1951). The Spectator. Vol. 186. pp. 672, 736, 850. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Dunford, Martin; Lee, Phil (2012). The Rough Guide to Norfolk and Suffolk. Rough Guides, Limited. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Hotels and Restaurants of Britain. Vol. 58–59. 1986. pp. 289, 332. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Yearbook. Royal Automobile Club (Great Britain). 1916. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
Brereton, Peter (June 1, 1982). Through Britain on country roads. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
AA Hotel Guide. Retrieved April 9, 2013.
7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please differentiate between passing mentions and significant independent coverage. For instance, the link you provide to the Royal Automobile Club listings are just that - the name appears on a listing of hundreds. That is not significant coverage. Overwhelming the discussion with non-significant coverage links does not help to reach consensus on if there is actually significant reliable source coverage which is required for notability, as opposed to counting the number of passing mentions that are turned up with a quick search. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to bet that if you looked through the local archives of newspapers in Norfolk you'd find detailed full articles about this hotel. This picks up 44 newspaper articles (but I don't have a subscription to access), and I doubt any of those are even local Norfolk newspapers.

Here's some articles I found from the Norwich Evening News which constitute substantial coverage., but as I say, the wealth of material will be offline in their archives:

[9], [10], [11]

♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- for its architectural significance as being one of the oldest buildings in that particular part of Norfolk. Who is it benefiting by deleting significant Grade II listed buildings off of WP? -- Cassianto ^Talk 20:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it is quite relevant to read over WP:ORGDEPTH where it states, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability...Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as....the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories...routine restaurant reviews...passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization...The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Based upon those notability criteria the bulk of the sources you have provided are not considered in depth coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Adding content such as, "She said "One of their most popular attractions is the Sunday carvery, which is £8.95 for one course. There is a choice of three meats, which always includes beef, plus Yorkshire puddings, gravy and an array of vegetables which you can pile as high as you like." She also noted its vegetarian dishes such as local goats’ cheese and sundried tomato tart and said that the restaurant's vegetables were "almost too numerous to recount"." really does not sound or appear encyclopedic, and does not seem to be in the spirit of reporting on notable organizations. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no experience of hotel and restaurant writing. It is a quote from a food critic describing what she thought was the most notable aspects of dining there. Perfectly acceptable, we embrace reviews like this for restaurants. Th quote was probably best breaking up part in prose part in quote which I've now done, but plastering silly tags over it arguing that the article is too overly detailed and then having the audacity to warn me about it by templating me, really is not doing you any favours. This article doesn't stand a chance of being deleted, trust me. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable architectural feature of Mundesley.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To summarize what we have so far, the primary claim to notability is that it is an architectural feature of the town it is located in and that it was designed by John Bond Pearce. There is no cited reference to support the claim of it being a unique architectural feature. The cited reference saying it was designed by John Bond Pearce does not mention such a fact - although even if it did notability is not inherited. The other claims for notability include that its restaurant specializes in fish dishes such as Cromer Crab and local Sea Bass, and that the restaurant has a Sunday carvery, which has a choice of three meats and a lot of vegetables. Of these it seems being an architectural feature is the best chance of establishing notability, so if anyone can provide significant reliable source coverage which establishes that without adding WP:SYNTH or WP:OR I would be happy to switch to keep, if not, then it seems like delete still. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes GNG on a number of points. - SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can find no evidence whatsoever that this is a listed building, despite the claims above. If English Heritage do not consider it notable enough to list then I'm not sure why we should. And "one of the oldest buildings in that particular part of Norfolk"? A building dating from 1900? Please! This is England, not America! Mundesley has a Grade II listed brick kiln a century older than the hotel! I'm not expressing a preference to keep or delete, as I don't generally like deleting articles on historic buildings that some may consider significant, but let's try to avoid making bogus claims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Listing[edit]

This may help Please see Page 21 of [12] of this PDF Character Appraisal and Management Proposals, Section 6.3: Key unlisted buildings This Document states :- It is proposed that the following buildings be considered for inclusion on a ‘local list’ which should be formally adopted by the Council in accordance with Local Development Framework policy. Manor Hotel, Beach Road– by J B Pearce late 1890s, apparently developed from an earlier manor house. Commissioned by Bullards Brewery.

Locally listed buildings are not generally considered to be notable. After all, English Heritage lists many thousands of buildings on its national list (and we don't automatically consider Grade II listed buildings - i.e. the majority - to be notable even on that list). If they don't consider it notable enough for a national listing then its notability is borderline at the very best. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 15 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.