Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berystede


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Berystede

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

NN hotel, fails WP:NBUILD. Only sources are about sale of the company, not the building. UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, United Kingdom,  and England. UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Searching via WP:The Wikipedia Library turns up non-trivial coverage in The Evening Post, 25th April 1988 and The Bracknell and Ascot Times, 16th August 1973. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. @UtherSRG. Not sure what you mean by "fails WP:BUILD" – the link redirects to the MOS. Rupples (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant NBUILD. I've updated above. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: While currently there is enough support for keep based on the sources that were identified, there was a reasonable request to bring this AfD also under the attention of editors specializing in companies. So giving this an extra cycle and including this AfD in that delsort. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see what the claimed 'non-trivial' cites are, but I cannot see how this thoroughly unremarkable hotel is notable. There is no claim that the building itself is notable, and I expect that the company drone who assembled this cringing festival of snobbery in an attempt to make their dull business seem appealing would have mentioned it had this been the case.TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. A factor that works against notability is that the building isn't listed so has little to distinguish it architecturally. Hotel reviews online are scant. It's listed in editions of Fodor's but the entries aren't substantial. The area of interest is the history of the site, including its earlier connections and the fact that it was used in the Second World War as a court. Berystede is named in books in connection with some of the court cases held, but mentions only. Also, the BBC chose it for a short series of radio broadcasts. So, indications of notability. The only substantial coverage found to date is the publication listed under the Source heading, the 1973 review in the local newspaper, plus the Britain/In Britain magazine articles, which I'm counting as one as they may be the same publication with a different name. These three sources have sufficient coverage to just get the article over the line, as regards the GNG. The Reading Evening Post reference isn't sufficiently focused on the hotel to count. Although the article was likely written by a SPA editor with a COI, User:TheLongTone has removed the unencyclopedic tone and off-topic content. To summarise, borderline notability, but I'm erring on the side of keep because a merge to South Ascot is impractical given the length of the article. Rupples (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just about meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find additional sources to expand the article. "Tea at the Berystede" seems like it is potentially more normal then the hotel, but I'm not finding sources to make an article on that either.  It definately doesn't meet WP:COMPANY.  Under Notability, Geographic Features, we have WP:NBUILD, specifically about buildings.  People seem to be missing that guideline. Denaar (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Barnards.tar.gz, referencing might be weak but article should be preserved at this point in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I found many newspaper articles and I am satisfied that the subject meets the WP:NBUILD guideline. Lightburst (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looking at the Bracknell and Ascot Times article, this would certainly not meet WP:SIRS in WP:NCORP. As the article is about the business, NCORP applies. Neither does the Evening Post piece meet the independence criterion of WP:SIRS as it is clear from the articleThe Evening Post, 25th April 1988 that this is a promotional piece. Note that the end of the article contains the offer of a weekend for 2 as a prize for readers. What are the other sources being relied on here? because based on these two, I think this fails WP:NCORP for the business and it is clear it does not meet WP:NBUILD either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And to add, could someone please add the delsort for NCORP as I think this needs attention of editors experienced in the NCORP guidelines as it is about a business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Not enough to meet WP:GNG
 * Let&#39;srun (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As others noted before me, sourcing is sufficient for the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2023 (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.