Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cound hall


 * 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cound hall
Non-notable structure, doesn't assert its importance apart from being old, which doesn't really count on its own. Not sure if it falls under CSD A7 so listing here. Erath 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. Erath 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is an early 18th century manor in Shropshire less notable than the concrete platforms and staircases at the Jordanhill railway station in Glasgow? BTW, it seems that Barbara Cartland probably lived there for some time. At least her first husband, Alexander George McCorquodale, owned the place at the time of their marriage in 1927 (ODNB). up+l+and 17:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * May I draw your attention to No personal attacks - the second sentence of which reads, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Your comment about Jordanhill railway station is clearly a comment on me as the contributor. Erath 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you take it that way, but I actually thought of the Jordanhill railway station (as another UK structure, and since I happened to look at it again the other day when reading this article) as a useful comparison, without having looked at your userpage. If a railway station is inherently notable just for being a railway station, even one (as far as I understand) without any actual building, I don't see why a 300-year old manor couldn't be notable just for being an old manor. I question the consistency in including one and excluding the other. You are welcome to address that point. up+l+and 11:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to this BBC page, it is a grade 1 listed building ("buildings of exceptional interest"). Here, at the English Heritage website, is a large colour picture and a detailed but nearly unreadable description with references. Here are some more pictures. up+l+and 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all Grade 1 listed buildings in the UK. The correct heading, nts, is Cound Hall. --Wetman 11:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly of national importance, especially as England has so few Baroque buildings. It would have taken the nominator less time to wikify and tidy it than list it here!  I do wish people would check for notability before wasting everyone's time here. Giano | talk 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already warned one contributor about a personal attack and I don't want to warn a second. I don't know the first thing about architecture, but I saw an article, it looked in a delapidated state and didn't assert any notability. Now that the article has been improved, fair enough, turns out it is notable. And we now have a better article for all the debate. Tell me, whose time was I wasting? Erath 21:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not entirely necessary to accuse everyone of personal attacks, you know. Notwithstanding that there over 6,000 Grade I listed buildings (according to our article on listed buildings), this one is more notable than a minor railway station, irrespective of who wrote what, and it would have taken less time to wikify it than list it here.
 * I am rather surprised that you think an article on a substiantial country house could be a candidate for speedy deletion, as a vanity article.
 * Most articles have a habit of improving over time without being listed at AfD. In my experience, most manage to improve without being listed at AfD. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest it was a vanity article. I was suggesting that the article didn't assert its importance. Since it's not a band, group of people, or such, I didn't think the criteria applied - and I was right. Had enough of a go at me yet, or would you like to continue? Erath 23:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not having a go at you personally - I am commenting more generally. A7 refers to "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages" - I suppose an article describing the limited merits of my modest home would be vanity, but this is clearly nowhere near that.  Anyway, enough said. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there's clearly no future for this debate (outwith bashing me) so I'm officially withdrawing my nomination. Erath 22:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

*Keep. The article now clearly asserts the importance of the building by stating that it's a Grade 1 listed structure. This is the top listing classification used in England, and all Grade 1 buildings are notable for that reason alone. There are few enough of this quality in the country not to worry about swamping Wikipedia with large numbers of articles.--MichaelMaggs 12:37, 3 August 2006 (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.