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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preshaw[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Proded by User:Serial Number 54129 with "It is not a locality, but a house ([1]): fails WP:GEOLAND." and removed without explanation. Source on page also calls it an estate/house, and coordinates point to Warnford. No indication of notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The place is a landed estate – a manor with a history going back 500 years to Tudor times. The main manor house includes architecture by the famous John Nash and is officially listed for protection. The ownership and history appear in numerous sources including History, gazetteer, and directory of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight; The Hunting Countries of England; A Hampshire Manor; Hampshire Gardens Trust; &c. (Personal attack removed). Andrew🐉(talk) 22:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andrew Davidson, applying WP:NBUILDING, the subject appears to be notable. Chirota (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And this. Properly documented estate. Rubbish article. Uncle G (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson loves the article rescue sqauadron, but perhaps he could consider "rescuing" crappy one-line "articles" when he removes prods without explanation, rather than attacking those who question such mediocrity that (a) has wrong coordinates – these were three miles off, (b) vaguely calls something "a locality", and (c) has the wrong name making it harder to search: if the Preshaw House is notable, perhaps this should be called that instead. Spot-checking the 390 such "Private Parks & Gardens" in the Hampshire Gardens Trust didn't bring up any others with articles so I see no reason to assume its notability as a big old house. As usual, History, gazetteer, and directory of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight lacks any significant coverage and merely mentions it in passing as a farm a few times. Reywas92^Talk 06:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, just a non-notable house, fails WP:GEOLAND CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added some sources, including some mentioned above. The article as it stands is admittedly useless, but there is enough on the place to satisfy WP:GEOLAND <added: or WP:GEOFEAT Ingratis (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC) > if someone has the interest to rewrite it properly. Ingratis (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andrew Davidson and all above, sources are enough to satisfy WP:GEOLAND. RockOften (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reverted the AfD Close by the nominator (informed them on their talk page). Closing as keep by the nominator as a non-admin is not allowed, they can withdraw as speedy keep but not close it on their own. See https. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The initial article may have lacked enough sources. After Ingratis added more sources, the article is in the good shape to pass WP:GEOLAND ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:47, 20 April 2021 (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.