Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High St, Elstow


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 17:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

172 High St, Elstow

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unless all Grade 1 listed buildings are notable then this article isnt notable enough to have an article Eopsid (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Elstow. Grade I listed buildings are relatively uncommon, and I would expect a large proportion of them to have standalone articles on Wikipedia. However, if, as in this case, the reason for the listing seems to be just that it is an exceptionally well-preserved building of its type (and particularly if the building is being used as a private residence), it may well get relatively few mentions in reliable sources, with none of them giving any more detail than is already in the article. In this kind of case, the information would actually be more useful in the article on the place it is in. PWilkinson (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - To be a Grade I listed building it must adhere to higher inclusion standards than Wikipeida. By virtue of the application, research and listing process, English Heritage has extensive documentation on their listings and that in itself ensures passing WP:GNG guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is usual for Grade I listed buildings to have their own articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not every Grade I listed buildings have an article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not every village in the world has an article yet. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have. Daft argument for an ever-growing encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Grade I listed buildings in Bedfordshire: I searched the address on Google and Yahoo and got very little relevant results. I also can't verify the reliability of the article's single source because it does not look like it is run by the British government or a historian (it has ads and a disclaimer saying "Incorrect location/postcode? Submit a correction!"). Since right now, all we know is that it is a Grade 1 listed building, it is best to redirect it to the main list article. Therefore, if more information about it can be found, we can simply undo the redirect. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now added the official English Heritage listing to the article. Reliable enough? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does not change my vote. That source still does not provide enough information to have an article about this structure (e.g. When was it built? Who built it? What was its purpose? Why was it added to the Grade I list? Did anything notable happen there?). The building does not even have a name, which is usually required for landmarks or notable structures. Still voting for a redirect. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not seeing the rule that says a name is required for landmarks. Does the fact it only has an address make it any less notable? Not as far as I can see. Not every country follows the American practice of giving every old house a name. If it has one then it has one; if it doesn't then it doesn't. When was it built? In the 17th century. Clearly no more accurate date is known. What was its purpose? Well, EH says it was a house, so my guess is that someone lived in it! Why was it added to the Grade I list? Because it was built in the 17th century! Not many secular buildings from that date still exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Should of course be renamed to 172 High Street, Elstow. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Grade I is the highest standard of heritage listing - such buildings are of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important; only 2.5% of listed buildings are Grade I. All grade I buildings (not to mention grade II* and some grade II) qualify for entries in such works as Buildings of England so there will be other sources, but the English Heritage listing is quite sufficient for verifiability. And of course the building has a 'name' for WP purposes - 172 High Street. That is the usual way of naming domestic properties in England. The fact that some people in the past have chosen to give a name such as Bide-a-Wee is not relevant to notability. --AJHingston (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Grade I listed buildings in Bedfordshire. The only source is a database entry with a single paragraph of formulaic text; this is not the "significant coverage" of which the WP:GNG speaks. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG speaks of the existence of sources and does not require them to be included in the article or, as it explicitly states, even available online. --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Search this address of any search engine and you will not find enough sources to prove this address meets WP:GNG. If you look at this Google Maps view of this building, you will see that it looks just like an ordinary home that is still occupied, so I am certain whoever is living there would not want their privacy invaded by having their address on Wikipedia. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no solid argument that in depth coverage in reliable independent sources exists. A building can be an exceptionally well preserved period-piece without having any published sources on it. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Publications like the Buildings of England automatically cover listed buildings at grade I (and more besides). If the current edition does not (I do not have easy access to one) the new edition would as a matter of course. That is because of the status confirmed by the listing. The established principle that listed buildings in the highest gradings are automatically treated as notable is convenient and sensible. Written sources will invariably exist somewhere and if not somebody will write them, so no useful purpose is served by deletion. The article is expandable. --AJHingston (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed they do cover buildings such as these. But the question is whether they have "significant coverage" or just the same kind of database entry as is linked to in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now the complaint seems to be that the information is held on a computer database and not in narrative style. Stripped of abbreviations and written in a different style, it seems to me that the official listing does constitute significant coverage and the survey report on which it was based will exist and be available in the archives. Architectural guides, like birdwatching guides and other similar publications, often do adopt a conventional technical style to save space and because users are familiar with the meaning. --AJHingston (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep because a grade 1 listed building is the kind of topic that an encyclopedia should cover. Let's not fetishize any guideline to such an extent that we throw basic common sense out of the window. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Legendary Ranger. It can always be recreated if anybody actually writes an article.--Charles (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why exactly, since stubs are perfectly acceptable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a stub is for it to attract editors in hopes of improving and expanding an article, but in this case, absolutely nothing has been done to improve this article since its creation over a year ago. This should be a sign that the building lacks notability outside its neighborhood, city, etc. We cannot have stub articles sitting around forever with no hope of expansion or improvements and like Charlesdrakew said, when we redirect articles, they can easily be restored if necessary. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Were it the case that stubs that haven't yet been expanded cannot be expanded and aren't notable then we may as well stop creating articles right now, as by the same token subjects that don't yet have articles after eleven years of Wikipedia clearly aren't notable. That would clearly be ridiculous and, on an ever-expanding encyclopaedia, so is your argument. It simply means it hasn't yet been expanded, not that it can't be expanded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2012 (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.