Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheppey Corner


 * 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   merge to Stanton, Gloucestershire. The Bushranger One ping only 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sheppey Corner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Search for sources found nothing significant that mentions this place (other than Wikipedia mirrors, and estate agent details). It doesn't appear on a Google Image search. Fails WP:GNG.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Note that the nom's claim that there are no sources except mirrors and estate agent details is frankly rubbish given that it's a listed building and there is a link to English Heritage's listing for it (which I added myself before it was nominated). I think we can take that as a significant and reliable source. Note also that it now appears to be called Pixie Cottage, although it's not entirely clear whether "Sheppey Corner" applies only to this cottage or to all three cottages in the listing, including Little Sheppey House. I'm not yet convinced of its notability (Grade II buildings haven't been considered to be automatically notable in the past), but let's not have spurious claims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, a Grade II listing is not regarded as "significant". Such listings are also giving to paving stones, lamp posts and bollards. We generally consider if it is relevant to mention them in a parent article, but would need something more significant for a stand alone article. If there are enough listed items in one place, then an article can be usefully made out of them, such as here: Regency_Square,_Brighton. Do bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory - listing all Grade II buildings is best served by English Heritage given that they list all buildings built before 1700, regardless of their interest to a general reader of an encyclopedia.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Such listings are also giving to paving stones, lamp posts and bollards". What on earth is your point? Yes, some "lamp posts and bollards" are Grade II listed (no paving stones to my knowledge, although there might be); so are hundreds of thousands of actual buildings, many of them very old (and there are certainly gateposts that are Grade I listed - not sure about either lamp posts or bollards!). But my point was that you claimed there were no significant sources, which is clearly not true. EH listing is a significant source. I'm not saying the article doesn't need more to be kept, but misrepresentation of the facts is never a good idea in an AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * At most Weak keep -- The English Heritage listing is certainly a source, but there are too many Grade II listed buildings for WP to have articles on them all. I think that should be limited to Grade I and II*.  Anotehr alternative might be to merge the article to an article on the village Stanton, Gloucestershire, which is quite modest in length.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I checked the listing on english heritage and googled, nothing there, not notable. Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into the village article, per Peterkingiron. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Merge to Stanton, Gloucestershire. NorthAmerica1000 04:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:13, 14 April 2014 (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.