Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friar Garth Farmhouse


 * 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 Withdraw as I didn't know it was listed. That should be more blatant in the article or something... Tavix (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Friar Garth Farmhouse

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The best claim to fame for this farmhouse is the fact that it is 300 years old. As far as I'm concerned, age does NOT equal notability. There are a lot of old thing that aren't notable. The only other thing I'm seeing is its connection to Fountains Abbey, which isn't that strong. Also note that notability is not inherited (in this case, it would be inherited from the Friars who owned it.) Tavix (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  05:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All listed buildings are notable. The appropriate agencies are the ones who decide, not Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While age does not neccesarily equate notability, listed buildings are notable for their historic or architectural significance. - Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I originally PRODed this article for the same reason, as well as a dubious unsourced relationship to Fountains Abbey. However, the PROD was declined with the addition of the English Heritage listing which does allow it to pass WP notability criteria. The Fountains Abbey connection is still being looked at here. — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW Keep - I'm pretty sure a listed building has a reasonable degree of notability and I don't see any delete votes here. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if the building is listed, but I'd prefer it to be expanded beyond the owners keeping chickens. There surely has to be more on why it is a listed building available out there. --Russavia Dialogue 15:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A listed building is notable however the article does need some attention. Frozenevolution (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. the UK Gov found the historicity of the building sufficient for inclusion in publicly held lands for historic purposes and reasons, good enough for Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2009 (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.