Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrea Head Hall


 * 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. The delete view appear to be based on a reasonable interpretation of policy and an absence of suitable sourcing. The keep votes are overall more assertion and/or non policy based arguments and therefore do not overcome the strength of the delete arguments. Spartaz Humbug! 20:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrea Head Hall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tilney's book could pass as SIGCOV, but I cannot find any other independent reliable SIGCOV. MrClog (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see sources that discuss it before they turned it into a hotel, as a web search brings up local news on the hotel and a bunch of travel listings. It's not necessarily non-notable. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried finding sources, including via NewspaperARCHIVE.com, but couldn't find any. --MrClog (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although not a listed building, I would say it is a significant enough building for an article. View here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I might be missing something, but that link sends me to Google Street View. How does that establish notability? MrClog (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just providing a view of the property. As an architectural historian, I think actually seeing a building is important in determining notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that way of determining notability is supported by policy. --MrClog (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have to be. Just by opinion. Wikipedia is not bound by rules, only by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. (emphasis mine). --MrClog (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Basing a keep vote for an undersourced building on Google Street View alone and then claiming that opinion is more important than any rules we have about sourcing is bad enough, I'm frankly extremely concerned an administrator would make an argument like this - and I'm someone who would like to see this article kept if at all possible. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm mystified as to the editors who don't seem to think that opinion matters at AfD. If all that mattered were strict "rules" (once again, note that Wikipedia doesn't have any rules) then we wouldn't have AfD discussions at all, as I've pointed out many times. I'm not aware I claimed my opinion was "more important" than anything. I simply stated that it was my opinion. Which I am perfectly entitled to express in AfD discussions. Please try not to misrepresent arguments. I've read these bizarre insinuations that admins aren't allowed to express an opinion before. They were ludicrous then and they're still ludicrous now. What, are we only allowed to regurgitate policies? Sorry, I have always applied common sense to AfD discussions. And to me, common sense dictates that we keep buildings such as this. To others it may not, but that's their opinion too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can't back up your opinion with reliable sources, then your opinion's not worth anything. I'm astounded you keep digging yourself into a further hole by saying that whether something should be deleted or kept is based on "common sense." It's based on whether the subject is notable, which requires reliable sources. You don't get to have an opinion that reliable sources may or may not exist. They either do or they do not. Maybe common sense applies in very specific circumstances (such as early Olympians from non-English speaking countries where nobody has done an archival RS search in the native language), but I've done probably four figures of AfDs now and that's never been the case. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As have I. And in my experience common sense is usually a factor. Notability is entirely subjective, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere. As I said, if this were not the case we wouldn't have AfDs at all. The article is reliably sourced. The building exists. A Google search produces many results (admittedly most of them hotel reviews). All that counts is whether it's held to be notable or not. And that's up to us here at AfD. If you don't think it's notable that's of course your prerogative, but please don't attempt to dismiss and sneer at another editor's opinion because you don't agree with it. That's completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sneering at your opinion because I don't agree with it, I'm sneering at your opinion because "looking at a building" is not and has never been a requirement for determining whether something is notable, and as someone who is an administrator, you should absolutely know better. If you think the three sources in the article are sufficient for inclusion, fine, have that opinion. It's easily argued against, though. You should know that. The second one is primary, the third one is two sentences, not significant, and potentially primary as well. No other reliable sources have been identified yet. There are a few results in a newspapers.com search, but I'm not sure how significant they are. And yes, source review can be subjective, but WP:GNG, the overriding notability guideline, is actually an objective guideline. You must have reliable sources for something to be notable. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Whatever notability the politician and his family has doesn't transfer over to the location in which they've lived. Having merely one reliable source isn't enough in terms of providing the detail that we need as well. The article as it stands doesn't appear worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there more info about its time as a convalescent place for objectors? If so, it would strengthen notability. Caro7200 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment (nom) In addition to my earlier search via NewspaperARCHIVE.com, I also searched via Newspapers.com, and couldn't find anything either. --MrClog (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Doncram (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The photo link provided by User:Necrothesp is helpful in evaluating notability. Badgering about that is not helpful, and if the badgerers here want to badger me too, well, please, don't.  Some of us, probably not including the badgerers, have some degree of informed intelligence and relevant knowledge to interpret a photo like that.  It might well be good to have a self-ban of those from looking at photos or commenting about them.
 * Right, sure it may not be "in the news"; but it is substantial and there surely exists off-line resources and perhaps on-line resources not found, under different naming say.  It does suffice to establish well enough that sources do exist or must exist.  To the badgerers, please spare me badgering about your take on the relevant policy/guidelines on this;  I disagree with you, and I don't care to listen to your opinion; others here are not idiots.
 * Built in 1881, the building is a substantial work that, in the U.S. would surely be listed on the National Register of Historic Places or eligible for listing, for its architecture and substance. There's mention/assertion above that this is not a listed building, which rather puzzles me.  Also, there's substantial stuff about this.  I too am interested in the conscientious objectors angle.
 * The place's own webpage about its history, https://wreaheadhall.co.uk/heritage-lifestyle/ is valid for use in developing the article. Enough already. --Doncram (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way this is a nearby listed building, seems comparable (built 1882) and a substantial house (see the photos), but clearly lesser, too. Compare to photos of the country house that is Wrea Head Hall, e.g. the view showing its size/scale in its brochure. --Doncram (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, interesting to compare to nearby Holbeck Hall Hotel, which collapsed into the sea! With same owners, per

this article in The Independent. The waxing and waning of luxury hotels is, in fact, of interest to many, and is covered in news locally and sometimes more widely, in addition to offline historic stuff about the place before it was a hotel. This one is more historic and arguably notable than many other luxury hotel articles I've seen or contributed to. --Doncram (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't typically like to address WP:OSE arguments, but that hotel was only notable because it fell into the sea - my WP:BEFORE search on that property only brought a couple of advertisements from the 1930s. If this is more arguably notable than many other hotels you've contributed to, it should be easy for you to source it adequately, which is ultimately the major test of AfD. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I won't continue the discussion whether looking at the article via Google Street View is a reasonable way of determining notability. However, I think that your assertion that there must be sources is insufficient. I searched extensively, including through NewspaperARCHIVE.com and Newspapers.com, which combined have large numbers of articles from local, regional and national newspapers going back a long time (often well before 1881). Do you have any sources that I missed? Also, I request you withdraw your insinuations that other editors here do not possess "some degree informed intelligence" and are "idiots" (WP:NPA). --MrClog (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not relevant. Misread what I wrote.  I directly said editors here are not idiots, how do you manage to twist that inside your head to say the opposite?  It is obviously true that some editors in Wikipedia are way more informed than others, about interpretation of architecture. --Doncram (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I misintepreted the comment as meaning that those other than the "badgerers" are not idiots, as opposed to the "badgerers". Striking. The rest of the comment still stands. MrClog (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm going to formally vote !delete after the relists. Having reviewed the available sources and having looked for available sources, this doesn't quite pass WP:GNG. What the building looks like in a photo is irrelevant. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, as the deletion nomination noted, there is significant coverage in the Ellis source, not much used in developing the article yet. And I added a bit more from The Independent article, and a little from this recent Scarborough local article (not yet recognized here, i guess searching so far has been imperfect):. --Doncram (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ellis source is less than a page and doesn't describe the building much. Independent article is just passing coverage, it's literally less than a sentence. It's hard to tell what exacty the Scarborough article grants notability to, as it's mostly just an interview with the owners, only mentioning the building briefly. I think this is about the building, but if we're reviewing this as a hotel business, it completely fails WP:NCORP. My searches included newspapers.com and a British newspaper archive, all of the search pages brought up by Google and an alt search engine, and Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar - doesn't really feel imperfect as I did try to save this thing. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand -- GhostInTheMachine (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: There have been some misunderstandings within this AFD, and some unusual deletion/editing of others' comments, I guess all in good faith though, involving perhaps some English-not-being-first-language issue and some unfamiliarity with AFD practices.  Although I would prefer that no one should comment after every other persons' statements, I am okay with this stuff being discussed elsewhere, and I think it has not too seriously undermined things here.  About the AFD subject:
 * This place is the subject, or a main locale, of a series of children's adult mystery/romance books by Lynda Stacey, including "House of Secrets" which appears to mean is about this hall. To see, try Google books search linked above.
 * Tourist guide books can be quite great, reliable sources. I don't have access to the inside contents, but Alfred Wainwright, apparently reputable author of Westmorland Heritage (2004) and Wainwright Memorial Walk and several other books in the Google books search link which discuss and/or picture Wrea Head Hall.
 * There are two Creative Commons-licensed photos of Wrea Head Hall at https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4290455 and https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3661485, which I believe can be freely uploaded into Commons and used to illustrate this article.
 * I don't have access myself to full regular tourist guide books which may provide substantial reviews. Brief mentions in TripAdvisor, Kayak, etc. don't really provide substantial material, but do, IMHO, still speak to notability.
 * --Doncram (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The only editing of "others' comments" that happened was this. page creator isn't supposed to be signed, meaning the "unsigned comment" notice was very likely added by mistake, possibly due to unfamiliarity with the template being used, which is why I removed it. --MrClog (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Old buildings need not be listed to be notable. This one passes WP:GNG.  Good work in expanding/rescuing. Cbl62 (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment (as nom) I don't think the new sources provide the SIGCOV required for GNG, so I still believe it should be deleted. MrClog (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets requirements† Encyclopædius  09:20, 5 May 2020 (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.