Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooburn Grange Country Club


 * 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   redirect to Fawlty Towers. non notable, unsourced but a credible redirect term Spartaz Humbug! 03:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wooburn Grange Country Club

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is kind of a WP:ONEEVENT-type issue; the building has absolutely no claim to notability other than the fact that it was used to film a sitcom once upon a time. I have done online searches in all the venues I can think of, including JSTOR and other academic resources, and cannot find any reliable sources discussing this subject directly and in detail: in fact, I can barely find any sources beyond the ones listed, which have to say only the following on the subject: "The actual hotel seen at the start and end of the series was the Wooburn Grange Country Club in Buckinghamshire, but that burned down in 1991," and, "The exterior shots for Fawlty Towers were filmed at the Wooburn Grange Country Club in Buckinghamshire, which was throught to have the right run-down provincial charm." This is not significant coverage and I am very interested to hear from how he thinks that it is. ╟─TreasuryTag► Regional Counting Officer ─╢ 21:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I contested this PROD because the stated reason WP:ONEEVENT does not apply to buildings, and I had been able to find more sources. As a listed building there is an arguable case for notability.  All those form sufficient reason.  The nominator has elected to let the community discuss the matter and that is good.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As should be obvious to someone with your grasp of the English language, I was drawing a comparison between ONEEVENT (about people only notable for one thing not necessarily to do with them) and this building (notable only for one thing not to do with it). If you cannot find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources – and I assume you can't, since you've not !voted 'keep' – then the article should be deleted and you should not have wasted a week of the community's time by deleting the PROD-tag. ╟─TreasuryTag► duumvirate ─╢ 08:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your views on these matters, but they seem to have little to do with the question of whether this article should be retained or deleted. I pointed out that this building was listed, and that suggests (although does not always determine) notability.  Per WP:NRVE, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation."  Perhaps someone with access to, say, the relevant volume of the Pevsner Architectural Guides will have time over the next few days to say what they have to say -- it would not be available on a cursory online search. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saying that "there must be sources" isn't helpful. WP:ITSNOTABLE clearly observes that "simply asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability is problematic." And so far, that's all your comments amount to. ╟─TreasuryTag► Woolsack ─╢ 08:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, you seem to have forgotten to quote the following sentence of WP:NRVE—"Once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive." ╟─TreasuryTag► Regent ─╢ 08:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please address the issues rather than continuing to carp on about other editors. I did not "merely assert" anything, so your comments are irrelevant and unhelpful.  I gave reasons to expect existence of sources and suggested where they might be found.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The best and easiest way to analyze this is regarding whether the coverage is significant per WP:GNG, rather than making an awkward comparison to inapplicable guidelines. Every source that I could find merely has trivial mentions, stating the connection to the TV show and that's about it.  Which means it's worth a statement in the Fawlty Towers article about the show's exterior shots, but not a standalone article without more.  As this information is already in Fawlty Towers, there's no need to merge, so either delete or redirect.  BTW, I'm not sure what is meant by "listed;" if you mean by an historical registry, then that would be a good proxy for notability and you'd expect to find sources, so pony up.  If you mean by a tourist registry, that's not a relevant standard.  postdlf (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, a listed building is one which is protected from being knocked down, painted, altered or whatever by a British local council, usually because it's either old, though not necessarily of historical interest, or an important part of a townscape. Aside from the fact that this one did burn down, listed status doesn't mean notability at all; eg. my old house was listed, as are two trees in my current back garden, as are a huge number of London buildings. ╟─TreasuryTag► CANUKUS ─╢ 07:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the consensus is that "Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest", to give them their full title, are deemed notable if Grade I ("of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important") or Grade II* ("particularly important buildings of more than special interest"). I do not know which grade this building was, although it can easily be determined from the appropriate register.  If TreasuryTag has two "listed" trees in the back garden, then xe is surely aware that this is a completely different sort of listing, not germane to the current discussion.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you link to a prior WP discussion regarding how this may affect notability, and find a reliable source establishing what grade of listing this building may have been? postdlf (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bot_requests/Archive_41/Archives/_23 seems relevant. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not aware (and my intuition suggests) that this building would not have been listed in either of the top two categories. If this 'consensus' (of which I am also a bit doubtful, content polices not commonly being stated in archived bot requests) that Grade I or II* buildings are automatically notable is to be invoked, someone will need to provide a reliable source about this country club. It may also interest the Sergeant to know that listed trees are indeed listed in the same way as buildings, usually for their significance to the landscaping of a neighbourhood. ╟─TreasuryTag► voice vote ─╢ 17:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I can't seem to find a single reliable source stating that the site is listed at all! ╟─TreasuryTag► constabulary ─╢ 19:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no significant coverage about this building in reliable sources to establish notability. The building is claimed to be listed, but I can find no evidence that it is. -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The place appears by this title in multiple books and, given its notoriety, there is no reason to make it a red link. The rest is a matter or ordinary editing as should have been obvious from the outset per WP:AFD, "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case...". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think the article should be kept on the strength of its presence "in multiple books" and "given its notoriety" then you'll really need to quote some significant coverage in order to substantiate your position. ╟─TreasuryTag► Not-content ─╢ 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is not required for a redirect, but only verifiability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * clearly !voted 'keep', presumably on the basis that he considers the subject to be notable, in which case significant coverage is required. His reference to "multiple books" also hints that he was thinking of significant coverage, and I asked him if he could be more specific. Sorry if it's confusing. ╟─TreasuryTag► inspectorate ─╢ 22:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Try reading all of Colonel Warden's comment, rather than just the first few words, and you will have no need to presume anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I obviously read the whole comment. I interpreted it as meaning that his first choice was to keep the article (hence the bolded word keep at the beginning) and his second preference was a redirect, hence the subsequent italic quotation obliquely making that suggestion. If your interpretation differs then it has added useful fruit to this discussion, which the closing admin (and I do pity them) can mull over. ╟─TreasuryTag► CANUKUS ─╢ 22:59, 25 May 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.