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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greaves Park Hotel, Lancaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Notability. Having stripped out all the irrelevant detail about people who lived here, there is nothing left. I don't think that being a Grade II listed building confers notability: I would like to see some substantial coverage in architectural histories or suchlike; this might make me change my mind. But it looks to me like a fairly unremarkable mid-victorian pile.TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Listed building so very clear pass of WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The listing includes plenty of detail beyond mere statistics. Chumpih ^t 20:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely disagree that all listed buildings are notable. I happen to live in a Grade II listed building, part of a Georgian terrace. I've looked it up in a couple of books on local historic buildings and it is barely mentioned, which I think is a fair indication of a lack of notability. It's pretty but really not very interesting. This is only a Grade II building, not even II*. The details on the English Heritage site would serve as cites for a description of the building (architectural descriptions do not interest the author of the article, which I find highly suspect): what is needed to establish notability is mentions in books about architecture or such.TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you agree with it or not, it clearly meets one of our notability standards. 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. This clearly includes all listed buildings, even Grade II. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but the way to play that out would be a change in the applicable WP:SNG policy, via talk for GEOFEAT. Chumpih ^t 15:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a difference between 'presumed to be notable' and actually notable? I'd argue that 'presumed' means that there is a bias in favour of notability, but that some other confirmation would be desirable. I see little point in articles with nothing interesting to say, and there is a huge number of Grade II buildings around. Does the house in which my flat is merit an article? And its the twenty-dd companions: There are limits.TheLongTone (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A valid question. 'Presumption' is all we have. And indeed WP:SNG defers to WP:GEOFEAT. If the bar were to be raised here, "Grade I or II* or otherwise WP:GNG" or some similar criteria, that would probably please quite a few. But given the current criteria at WP:GEOFEAT we should apply those criteria fairly, IMHO. Chumpih ^t 16:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably actually a fair amount to say about Greaves Park, given its history ("Large suburban villa, later a school, now a public house."). The fact the article doesn't say it yet is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. AfD is merely to determine whether the topic is notable, not whether the article is a good one. As to your own house, if the entire terrace is listed then I would say the terrace is notable enough for an article, but I wouldn't write one about each individual house within it (that's just a personal opinion). But standalone listed buildings like Greaves Park are certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Historic England gives very detailed coverage of this historic house.[1] I'll note that the nom deleted over 6,000 bytes of sourced content that they termed "off topic" just before nominating this. Since when is the history of the occupants of a property "off topic" to the article of a property? Removing almost all content just before an AfD, especially if it has sources, is seldom a good-faith effort. Oakshade (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A load of wittering on about ininteresting people. I suppose I should have filleted this, but there was almost nothing of interest; simply a list of people of whom nobody has heard. The sources deleted are run of the mill references or about the people.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We should assume good faith in the references that were deleted by the nom (see pre-deletion version here) most of which are offline but which appear to give significant coverage to the topic. I agree that notability is not inherited, and so simply having had famous people live there does not make this notable, but the coverage of the house seems to have been significant. Secret Lancaster by Howorth is also worth considering as a source. FOARP (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2022 (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.