Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halsway Manor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[edit] Halsway Manor

The result was Snowball Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW, near to unanimous.  RGTraynor  15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Halsway Manor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Extremely non-notable, and being a folk centre is not significant. Fails to assert notability. Kironide (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment the article does not appear to be about a folk centre but a several hundred year old manor which currently houses a folk centre. Guest9999 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
True; however, the manor itself has no true historical significance. Kironide (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Notability and significance are not the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mentioned in Domesday Book, Heritage listed, part of building goes back to 15th century. That all looks notable to me. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per Bduke. X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above and extensive mentions. Its use may not be notable but the Manor House itself is TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, definitely a notable building/grounds. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep To be Heritage listed, it would need pass stricter guidelines than Wikipedia. Its current usage as a folk center has no bearing on its notability. It could be abandoned and still be notable. --Oakshade (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep:Any building of that age and design is notable amd always has the possibility of being improved. Giano (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep:As the creator of this article I would argue the grade II* listed building status shows recognition by independent & reliable sources (ie English Heritage).— Rod talk 07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep:Notable by virtue of its age and architecture.Derek Andrews (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think any Grade I and Grade II* listed building can be assumed to be notable without any need for additional evidence. Grade II listed buildings are maybe more of a borderline case, but since this is Grade II*, I'd say it's a keeper. Klausness (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Either one of mentioned in Domesday Book or Heritage listed would be enough to pass WP:N. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Clearly notable enough for inclusion.--Berig (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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.