Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High House Gardens, Congham


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  00:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

High House Gardens, Congham

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

Firstly, Notability. The only source of any solidity is Pevsner; one line on the house, nothing on the garden. Secondly, this is a lump of the kind of promotional flannel that the owners of 'hospitality venues' create so that gullible would-be clients are bamboozled by the fact that there is a Wikipedia article. TheLongTone (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And thirdly the article has nothing about the garden in it; it consisted of a lot of guff (to use the technical term) about the rich people who lived there. I've removed it, of courseTheLongTone (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And fourthly the editor is (I assume) being paid to create this dreck. I've AfD'd (sucessfully) od of their cratios, & will be looving at the rest.TheLongTone (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think we should assume good faith towards, who created this article. If you look at their editing pattern, yes, they have created articles about two historical properties in Norfolk that have become wedding venues, but they have also created or worked on a variety of other articles, mostly about historical buildings. It is extremely common for such buildings to be used as wedding venues. Practically every house in Norfolk more than 100 years old and equipped with a garden big enough for a marquee is available to hire for your wedding if you want! If Maypm just happens to live in Norfolk and like writing about his/her local historical houses, they're doomed to writing about wedding venues, without this meaning that they are being WP:PAID. , if you think Maypm is being paid, the place to deal with it is probably an administrators' noticeboard, not AfD, but I don't think it'll hold much traction. Some of their other articles, for example Reymerston Hall, Norfolk are quite well balanced and historically informative. In general, the current commercial use of a property shouldn't count against its notability. Having said all that (and sorry about the rant!) there appears to be nothing useful to say about High House Gardens, Congham, so delete is reasonable. Elemimele (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do assume good faith, but having looked at a couple of the editors other contribution I remain very doubtful. I cannot imagine why anybody should create an article ostensibly about a garden which in fact consists entirely of eyewateringly dull biographical details of the now demolished house's owners.TheLongTone (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * and I (sort of) apologise for removing all the references bar one; not intentional, but the baby went with the bathwater.TheLongTone (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  23:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mmm, been doing some thinking. Looking at the original article, before you trimmed it,, you are quite correct that it was about the house, not so much the garden. My personal guess is that the article's creator was either driving past, or attended a function at the garden, and is the sort of person who finds local history fascinating, so they got to work. There are two ways to handle this; one would be to restore the information about the house and its history, and rename (move) the article to Congham High House. But to do this, we'd have to be certain that the house and its history are notable, and that the article isn't original research. My feeling is that the house would be only borderline, and that the article was supported more by primary sources than secondary, so it does stray into the territory of writing that should be published as local history, not as encyclopaedia content. So I do still think (sadly) that delete might be the better option. I am sorry I got so grumpy yesterday! Elemimele (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * As a dedicated curmudgeon I noticed no grumpiness. My doubts about the author of these articles remains. Most of the content is dull beyond belief.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete no evidence of significant coverage of the garden in reliable, independent sources. No opinion on whether the house may be notable. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete My search only generated brief mentions in publications such as the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society of London and Gardener's Chronicle. I would have voted to merge to Congham, but it is already mentioned on the page. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2022 (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.