Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Yarmouth Carmelite Friary


 * 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. I'm not sure about friaries being automatically notable but there's a clear consensus that this one is. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Great Yarmouth Carmelite Friary

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of noteability via third party sources. Single line stub with no edits since it's creation other than adding cats. Jtrainor (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * keep references added. wrongful nomination: friaries are notable. Slowking4 : 7@1|x 15:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * keep I wouldn't say friaries are notable by default, but that I could not conceive of a friary for which sufficient sources couldn't be found to establish notability. Slowking4 has now added such sources to his article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * i stand corrected; exactly right. it's not that it's inherently notable, rather it's inconceivable to be unsourceable, especially given the monuments heritage database. there are a thousand like this, you could force me to source by afd, wouldn't it be better to get a geo quality circle up to source them? i'm preoccupied with NRHP stuff, but this is on my to do list (just way down). Slowking4 : 7@1|x 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I'd like to see some more reliable sources, such as books, but I'm sure such sources exist. -- 202.124.74.145 (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the history and sources found since the afd began. More sources found which can be used. .  The WP:AFD instructions include WP:BEFORE.  Not having been edited since creation is not criteria for article deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is exactly the sort of information that one looks for in an encyclopedia. Bella the Ball (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, monastries, priories etc are generally notable enough to sustain articles. Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The friary had a long enough history to be worth having an article on. The fact that it survives as a listed building only adds to that.  It would certainly be better if some one could expand the article from the present stub.
 * Keep - sources given clearly indicate this is a notable historic entity. Lady  of  Shalott  01:33, 29 August 2011 (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.