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. John254 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article fails WP:N, as it does not assert why it is significant, and references aren't exactly references, they seem more like unverifiable claims. <3 bunny 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up. I'm going to remove the nomination, but I realise it would also be ideal for it to be moved to its real name, so I'm going to suggest a pagemove as well. <3 bunny 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No need to wait for the end of the AfD, as far as I'm concerned. Besides, it's looking like a WP:SNOWBALL. Pburka (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. With that cleared up, I don't think there is a need for the nomination anymore. <3 bunny 04:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Sorry, I am new to wikipedia and do not fully understand it yet. Please note that I have taken the refrences part out of the article. I apologize as it is the first article I have written.

Thanks --L-scottie--L-scottie (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable (possibly?) and unsourced. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not notable. DB-Bio was declined since it was a building. Sounds like a loophole in CSD as there seems no notability inclusion for buildings. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Switched to Keep par article additions. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep Delete as non-existent (without space too) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Keep per recent editions but second the page move, it needs to be under its proper name. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but please don't be discouraged. This article is being deleted because there is nothing in the article which says why this house is notable. What's special about it? What makes it important? Pburka (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep in light of Eastmain's additions. Are Class C buildings notable, though? It's the lowest class of listing in Scotland. Pburka (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a reference which confirms that it is a Class C(s) listed building (as address: "Stirling Road, Cowden Park"), as well as information from the Directory of Scottish Architecture. --Eastmain (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Cowdenpark House is a listed building which removes any doubt about notability. Class C, whilst the lowest in the Scottish scheme is not a classification handed out willy nilly to any old pile of bricks. nancy ^(talk) 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the proper name seems to be Cowden Park House - suggest a page move if this AfD results in a keep. nancy ^(talk) 09:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - listed historic building. References are adequate to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2008 (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.