Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilbrogan House


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Kilbrogan House

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NBUILDING, WP:GNG and related criteria.

In terms of NBUILDING, this early 19th century building is like many others in Bandon and County Cork. And while several other buildings in this part of Bandon are listed on the Record of Protected Structures for County Cork (and are therefore may meet NBUILDING as 'officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level'), this building is not listed on the Record of Protected Structures. And therefore has no regional or national heritage/protection status. It is no more notable than any other (of hundreds or thousands or 10s of thousands) Georgian buildings in Ireland. And no more notability that the 40-50,000 other structures with an entry in the NIAH buildingsofireland.ie database. (While, in the dePROD and other similar AfD discussions, I have seen an argument that the NIAH is a record of protected or heritage structures. It isn't. The NIAH is a "long list" of structures that may be considered for protected status. As such it includes pretty much anything and everything that might qualify. And therefore contains structures that have been assessed for inclusion in the RPS, but were not afforded protected status. Or which have yet to be reviewed/protected. And as such is part waiting room, part reject list.)

In terms of GNG, I cannot find sources to establish notability. And can barely find sources, in fact, to support much of the text. A search in news sources (like an Irish Times search or a Google News search) returns nothing. At all. Book sources (like a Google Books search) only seem to include directory-style entries and the like for the B&B business. Academic sources (like JSTOR) and architectural sources (like the otherwise extensive Irish Architectural Archive/DIA) also return nothing.

In general terms, the stuff about the "present owner [having] opened the formerly private residence for guest accommodation including bed and breakfast and self-catering" (with multiple web links to accommodation websites) hasn't helped with PROMO/ADVERT/COI concerns. I'm really just not seeing how this B&B/building is any more notable than any other. Even in Bandon frankly. Not to mind the rest of the county. Or country. Or beyond. Guliolopez (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBUILDING as demo'ed by very thorough nomination. Spleodrach (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: no more notable than hundreds of other building in Ireland. There is nothing special here. The only source seem to be mentions in travel guides; online and printed. ww2censor (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. While inclusion on the NIAH may not actually meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT, I think it's a highly contributory factor, since anything included on the NIAH at Regional level or above is recommended by the minister for listing on the RPS. Despite the nominator's statement, I would say that most Georgian houses (large ones, at least) are in fact notable. The fact there are thousands of them is utterly irrelevant. In fact, if it was in the UK, where there are even more, this would almost certainly be a listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hiya. Thanks for the considered contributions. While I am always conscious of WP:BLUDGEON in these discussions, I thought it useful to note that:
 * While a listing in the NIAH may be contributory, it cannot stand as a notability consideration on its own. Otherwise this 1970s phone box or 1990s post box would meet GEOFEAT. And I'm sure we'd all agree they wouldn't. Not unless either were the primary topic of other SIGCOV.
 * While it might be your opinion/contention that "most [big] Georgian houses" are automatically notable, I'm not sure which notability criteria would provide for every [big] building (built over a span of ~120 years) being automatically notable.
 * While it is an interesting hypothetical ("if this house was in the UK it'd be protected"), and a possibly valid critique of Ireland's planning/protection regime, I'm not sure how that hypothetical applies here. Bandon is not in the UK :)
 * Otherwise, while the difference between "included on a list of buildings considered for heritage protection" and "included on a list of buildings conferred with heritage protection" is an interesting discussion to have, I don't see how it can be balanced against a simple WP:SIGCOV review. (In that, absent the NIAH entry and this Wikipedia article, I can find nothing which discusses the subject in any depth at all. To the extent that even the basic facts of the article ["greenhouse and conservatory may have been built c.1900", "auction took place there c.1900", etc] seem to be unsupported/unsupportable.)
 * Anyway, always happy to participate in a considered AfD discussion, but I can't personally agree with arguments like "considered for protection status is (effectively) equivalent to having protection status" or "all (big-ish) buildings built in the latter 18th and early 19th centuries have a form of inherent notability". Guliolopez (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would point out that my opinion that most large Georgian houses were notable merely followed on the heels of your opinion that they were not! As to my contention that such houses probably would be listed in the UK, I think it is important to point out the fact that an identical house would probably meet WP:GEOFEAT if it was in a neighbouring country with a very similar architectural tradition. It makes little sense in real world terms (as opposed to the rarefied and apparently increasingly "rules-bound" world of Wikipedia) that one passes notability requirements and another does not simply because their respective countries have different standards for heritage protection. Incidentally, according to the NIAH website, they're recommended for heritage protection (presumably by experts) rather than simply considered for; rather different things, I think. I would incidentally agree with you that individual postboxes and telephone boxes are not worthy of inclusion, any more than the hundreds of 1920s and 1930s telephone boxes which have actually been accorded listed building status in the UK are, although technically they do pass GEOFEAT. They're notable as types of structure rather than as individual structures. Sometimes we have to use common sense! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'll just confirm one thing here. And then we can move to User Talk as needed. In short, it would not be true to say that "[all NIAH listings are] recommended for heritage protection". Per the NIAH website, "NIAH surveys provide the basis for the recommendations of the Minister". Just because something was surveyed and recorded doesn't mean that it leads to a recommendation. Only once a building is included on the NIAH's recommendation for the conservation list, is that list passed on to the relevant county council. And the council then vote on what makes it onto the RPS. For example, this 1970s crane was surveyed. But the survey did not result in a recommendation. (The NIAH is not a record of protected structures and is not a record of recommended protected structures. It is record of surveyed structures. That might then be put forward for recommendation. Which in turn may then be selected for protection.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's one sentence on that webpage. Another is: "Sites/structures/groups of structures given a Regional, National or International Rating by the NIAH are included in the Minister’s recommendations" (italics mine). And per your edit summary, not everyone who applies for a driving licence is given one. But everyone who is recommended for one by the appropriate authorities is. But whatever, my keep !vote stands. This building is, in my opinion, notable enough for inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Cavendish's article. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The NIAH source is excellent for our purpose. The place is also documented in other good sources such as Fodor.  The place therefore passes WP:GNG and we're good.  The nomination's complaint that we might have lots of similar articles is not a problem or reason to delete per policy WP:NOTPAPER, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover".  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi. RE: "documented in Fodors and NIAH means GNG is met". Two pieces of coverage (one Fodors review/entry and one NIAH entry) wouldn't seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV expectation of WP:GNG. RE: "No practical limit". Apologies if my nom note wasn't clear. But it wasn't intended to a "slippery slope" argument ("if we mirror this NIAH entry we have to mirror all"). It was intended to be NN/WP:GEOFEAT argument (that not every building is notable). RE: "NIAH is an excellent resource". Yes. It is. I rely on it myself all the time. To support content. It doesn't, however, automatically support notability. Guliolopez (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Those sources tick all the boxes for WP:SIGCOV and there's plenty more which highlight other aspects such as the ownership by the Brennans, when it was attacked by British soldiery. The place is notable architecturally and historically.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * RE "plenty sources that highlight ownership by Brennans and attack by British soldiers". Can you share those sources? The main reason for the nom was that I find no sources to support/expand the content. Not to mind establish notability. I also note that the text states that the Brennans were tenants. Rather than owners. If there are sources which confirm otherwise, they'd be good to have. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, per Andrew's comment above. NemesisAT (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per Bearian. The information included is actually interesting (at least, the cited stuff that can be supported by sourcing), but I just don’t think it’s notable enough for its own page. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2021 (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.