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. Considering opinion on this one is more or less split, and people seem willing to look for more sources and expand or perhaps merge the article into a new one with an expanded scope, I am closing this as no consensus for now. If the article is not expanded or merged there will of course be no prejudice against a new AfD. Since there seems to be a disagreement about how to interpret WP:NBUILDING, it might be a good idea to clarify the guideline. I note there is already a discussion underway on the talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derwent House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No apparent notability, only one reference, unavailable and not specific to this house. Maybe the house that Willet lived in has some notability, I see no reason that this one does. Kevin McE (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:NBUILDING due to its status as a listed building[1]. Lowercaserho (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a quite appalling miscitation of NBUILDING, which says nothing about listed buildings being notable by virtue of listing. "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." Nothing to indicate that there is anything of historic, social, economic or architectural importance, and no evidence of significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Kevin McE (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the first bullet point of the section which covers cultural and national heritage. I maintain that being a listed building fulfils that criteria. Lowercaserho (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really your contention that one house among many others of similar size on a suburban road constitutes a "Geographical Feature"? Kevin McE (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Lowercaserho (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And is it your contention that all the half million listed buildings in the UK are of national importance to the cultural heritage or history of that country and deserving of an article in Wikipedia? Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have always held that listed buildings do indeed meet the first criterion of WP:GEOFEAT. They have clearly been "assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level". Are you seriously arguing that they haven't? And this certainly looks to me like "verifiable information beyond simple statistics"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, U.K. Grade II listed buildings have long been assumed NOT notable; there are too many of them and little info is available for most of them. In U.S., individually-NRHP-listed buildings are assumed notable because of usual documentation and general equivalence to Grade I and Grade II*, but not all the numerous/too-many buildings included in historic districts, equivalent to Grade II. --Doncram (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no, not true. There is usually a fair amount of info on the Historic England listing, for starters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage, even the listing is rather brief. As opposed to Grade I and II* listings, which tend to indicate a building will satisfy WP:GNG, the lowest category of Grade II (representing 92.5% of listed buildings) does not. ----Pontificalibus 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBUILDING because it lacks WP:SIGCOV of its importance/value in any respect. Just being on a massive "vaguely special building" list as described above does not make it pass WP:NBUILDING. There are similar honors given to countless millions of buildings across the world, very few of which have/deserve Wikipedia articles. It's just a typical building on this street, nothing uniquely special. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep": Per User:Lowercaserho and WP:NBUILDING that does offer a presumption of notability. There are approximately 344,080 grade II buildings and churches are listed separately. I didn't look to see how many of those would be from 1899 (Victorian era). This building is listed by the Department of Culture Media and Sport in England which is certainly a national cultural listing. This prestige is higher than the NRHP listing because the protection status is by statute and a building cannot be altered without permission. In this case the fact of being in the Chislehurst Conservation Area gives additional protection. that even includes trees, so is double protected. WP:NBUILDING does not differentiate between the classes of listed buildings as presented above but states:

• 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 which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available, are presumed to be notable.
• 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.

Arguing a lack of notability because of a separation of protected status is ineffective and notability does not depend on the state of references in the article. I have not yet looked for sources as this listing is already working on day 7. I did see it appears to be a nursing home and not just a residence. Otr500 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about U.S. NRHP vs. U.K. listed buildings. Both are covered in databases, so listing status can be established. But U.S. NRHP's generally have extensive nomination document plus accompanying photos, now mostly available on-line and hard-copy for others can be obtained by request to National Park Service. So NRHPs meet the Wikipedia requirement for notability based on existence of sourcing. For a listed building, no documentation can be assumed, as far as I understand.

I !voted "Delete" below, for now, but I would rather not "win" this decision. Otr500, could you post a link to that nursing home mention or anything else? Maybe this can be saved by adding some sources for the existing statements in the article and/or for any new statements that can be added. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Listed building so clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have to side with those who support keeping this article. It meets WP:GEOFEAT. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, tentatively. In the past, Grade I and Grade II* but not lower Grade II listed buildings have usually held to be assumedly Wikipedia-notable, because sources can be expected to exist. But perhaps there may be sources, info that bring this one up to notable? More needs to be shown besides fact of listing.

What is the exact location of this house, i.e. coordinates? Can it be seen in Google Streetview or otherwise? A photo sometimes helps settle an AFD. This one is architect-designed, might be impressive or it may seem no more significant than its neighbors.

There is a different(?) Derwent House in Bromley on St. Georges Rd. which sold in 2019 per this. However This is google maps view of difference between Camden Park Rd. and St. Georges Rd.; they appear not to intersect. --Doncram (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the one in the middle of the screen, between Bonchester Close and the house with the swimming pool. No Street View, unfortunately, but it looks pretty large and impressive. Note that most of the houses on the street are not listed. Only Derwent House and its large neighbour to the left, Bonchester, in the immediate vicinity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So if i am interpreting that correctly it is at 51°24′38″N 0°03′41″E / 51.410571°N 0.061435°E / 51.410571; 0.061435 (Derwent House), which for some reason brings up term "Wimple Nook" when "what's here" is checked (right-click on loacation in Google maps. From the satellite view, it is looks like a complex-roofed building, not more significant than neighbors up and down the road. Why is this one listed but not others? Bonchester is a dismbiguation page; there is no Wikipedia coverage of Bonchester Close AFAICT. --Doncram (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am generally "inclusionist", but don't see justification here to Keep, yet. There is no link to this from any list of Grade II listed buildings in Bromley, or wherever; I think no one is creating such lists even, much less individual articles. --Doncram (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Grade II listed buildings in England is almost empty. It would be okay as an alternative to deletion to redirect this to a list in which it is covered, but there is no such list. --Doncram (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it's listed because Historic England staff, who are experts in their field, think it's worthy of listing! Bonchester is also listed. The fact it doesn't have a WP page yet is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It appears that almost the entire article is unsourced, and could therefore be stripped down to "The Derwent House on Camden Park Road in Chislehurst, Bromley, is a Grade II listed building built in 1899, and was designed by Ernest Newton. A large property on which it was later built was bought in 1890 by William Willet. it has a tiled roof." The two sources in the article having links only establish Grade II listing and architect. The 1890 The Builder source, unlinked, apparently only establishes purchase date (i infer this from reference placement in article and fact that it is dated 9 years before building's construction). All the rest is unsourced embroidery, AFAICT, and is mostly not about the house itself. It is not even established that Willet was its builder, or that it is Arts and Crafts in style, or that there was any later addition (maybe true, but not supported). Does not establish significance/notability for Wikipedia, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 16:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The substantial detail in the article was added in 2009 by an I.P. editor without sourcing. I tend to believe the info, do expect the person was informed and correct, but there is no sourcing given. --Doncram (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Preposterous to assume that hundreds of thousands of buildings are automatically notable for a low-level listing - "2% of English building stock" is an absurdly broad set of places to supposedly deserve an article without challenge. Any supposed "presumption" of notability operates under the expectation that substantive independent sources can be found, but if they cannot, then the place is not in fact notable after all. Furthermore, NGEO discusses artificial geographic features and buildings separately - this is obviously the latter and would "require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability," which it does not have, so the keep votes merely asserting this guideline fail to clarify that it passes it. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have found a passing mention on [2], but that is it. Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. WP:GEOFEAT says: "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." Therefore, the presumed notability arguments above are invalid. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like others above, you seem to be conveniently ignoring: "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." Listing meets these criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am in agreement with what Masem has said regarding "artificial geographical features" on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#UK Grade II Listed buildings. And also with Reywas92 and the Grade II-"cultural or national heritage" bit, period. We disagree, and that is it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • And read what I wrote there too. But whether we disagree about notability or not, you cannot possibly say that a listed building of any grade does not fall into the category of being "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage". That would be ludicrous. What do you think listing means? Also, WP:GEOFEAT has always been held to include buildings of all sorts at AfD. Always! You can't start deciding you don't like that interpretation when consensus is clearly that that is the interpretation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You didn't read me when I mentioned the Masem's comment about the "Artificial geographical feature", so yes I don't think it falls there as such. Because if it was, as a building would contradict the other part of WP:GEOFEAT... "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." I think there is a line between the two. You say "always been held", okay. But where is that in the guideline? And how do we avoid contradictions like I mentioned above? I think we need to have a RFC that will add things (or not) like these there or do some clarification of the guideline. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it doesn't contradict it at all. It's saying even if a building is not listed as cultural heritage then it may be notable for other reasons. If that's a contradiction, then surely so is the third bullet point to what Masem is claiming! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Sorry I got tied up. The map coordinates you listed are correct but Google map does contain errors so I am not sure why it shows "Wimple Nook". I categorically reject assertions that a "presumption of notability" is somehow equated to "automatic notability".

I am in a state of shock concerning this whole thing. This is not because of "Delete" !votes, because there apparently have some justification, but because:

• This building and others, (apparently lowly listed as only a standard grade II) is nationally listed and does carry protection under the law.
• The area (all Chislehurst) and building, listed under "location" as "68 DERWENT HOUSE CAMDEN PARK ROAD CHISLEHURST BR7 5HF", clearly identifies the building just before Bonchester Close). My reasoning and initial assessment was that these are supported by Historic Environment Law, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and a supplement in 2014, and the National Planning Policy Framework giving the statutory duty of special regard to listed buildings. Regardless if there is 20 buildings and areas or a half million "it would seem" that there would be primary sourcing (at the least) leading up to such classification as well as secondary regional or even local sources. I have found nothing yet even in the local Bromeley Times.
• A concern of the lack of easily found sources, apparently shared by others is perplexing, making this difficult considering most of these were grand estates with architectural significance from particular eras and with national listing.

I am still looking, considering the historical aspect of the subject and such significance as the provided protection under national laws, it seems there "should be sourcing somewhere and maybe it just hasn't been found". Wikipedia is not, however, a crystal ball and there needs to be sourcing.

The link for the [nursing home] does not provide any usable substance. I found the subject name referenced as being in the book [Discover Chislehurst and its Environs] (2007 by Darrell Spurgeon) but do not have access for examination. I have found historical drawings that I think is the building but need to be able to confirm this.

No street view!. This is a gated community so private. If one goes to Google street view using "CTRL+ mouse drag" the uniqueness of the architecture can be viewed in 360 degrees. This is especially appealing considering the design is from 1899. Most of the buildings in this area are grand and unique. Please note!: All of the buildings are considered important and protected by the conservation status of the area. Many of these buildings are individually listed but not all of them.

None of this really matters if there is not an editor in that area that wishes to take interest in this, or one with better resources. I was looking for copies of the newsletters Cockpit, the Chislehurst Report, and the Chislehurst Resident that might provide some connection but have not located anything yet. I did see the 1992 study Chislehurst Conservation Area but content on the subject is just a repeat of previous material and does not cover any historical aspects.

All of the above aside I am at a lose as to where the sources are found. Otr500 (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Wimple Nook" is a valid alternative name and sources might be found searching on that term? This list of Council taxes omits "68 Camden Park Road" and includes "Wimple Nook" instead. But my searching is overwhelmed by hits on "nook" reader device. --Doncram (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also browsing found me mention in this of de Quincey family \, that "“Aunt Alice” is likely to have been Alice Maud De Quincey Hayward, Richard’s married older sister who lived at Derwent House, Camden Park Road." and in this a mention of a 1912 wedding including a son of "Mrs. Heyward, of Derwent House, Chislehurst". --Doncram (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merge / redirect to an article on Chiselhurst Conservation Area (was a redlink)? Akin to an article covering a NRHP-listed historic district in U.S., in which brief treatments of various buildings are included, often in a table.. The source that User:Otr500 provided is substantial and gives wide context about arts and crafts and more, including specifically on page 30 that "Derwent, No. 68 by Newton, was built in 1899; it is two storey plus attics with red brick ground floor and tile hanging above. The tiled roof is hipped on the left and half hipped on the right. There are 2 gabled, tile hung dormers. On the right is a modern brick 2-storey addition." Which corroborates previously unsourced stuff in the article since 2009. --Doncram (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this interactive map of conservation areas and listed buildings in Bromley allows zoom in to see Derwent and all the others within big Chislehurst area.--Doncram (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found information on other places while looking that has more sources. I would support this. Otr500 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by that study, I am not sure this house would even merit a mention in an article on Chiselhurst Conservation Area. We simply have a description of a house made of bricks and tiles. As to the area itself, there are 45 conservation areas in Bromley alone, so I am not sure an article on this particular one is warranted. The lengthy Chislehurst Society Area Study, while full of intresting information, should not be considered an independent source for the purposes of demonstrating notability - the society exists to promote the interests of residents in preserving the area, regardless of its particular historical signficance when viewed in a wider context. The Chiselhurst article has room for expansion, and I'd contend anything worth mentioning about the conservation area should be included there instead. ----Pontificalibus 06:23, 20 June 2019 (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.