Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyke Castle


 * 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   keep. Courcelles 00:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wyke Castle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I know that one should assume good faith, but given that this property is currently for sale and has a website setup to promote the sale that is used as a reference in this article, it seems to me that this article might also be part of the efforts promote the property sale. Bob Re-born (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As the article's creator, I am in no way interested in promoting the sale of the castle, and I don't see how the article comes across as simply something to promote any such a sale. Any reference to the property's sale is merely part of the factual history of the castle. The reference is mainly used for some of the castle's history. This is a Grade 2 listed building? Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 11.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  16:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is difficult to see how a listed building, and a castle-like one at that, could not be notable. The article can undoubtedly be improved, and discussion of sale is likely to muddy the waters, but the topic appears obviously worth a place here. I'll copy-edit the worst bits out now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - that the article needs improvement is not a reason to delete it. Listed building status add weight to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable and referenced. If the only reason for deletion is the website promoting the sale of the property then I suggest we delete that. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.--Ykraps (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Another concern might be the paragraph describing the castle, which appears to be lifted wholesale from the English Heritage website. Give me a day or two and I will fix this.--Ykraps (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This was part of an expansion of coastal defences in preparation for a war that never was. Certainly notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not all Grade II listed buildings are inherently notable (although Grade II* and Grade I buildings are), but I think this one definitely is. Appalling reason for nomination. You can't delete an article just because you think (wrongly, apparently) that it might be used for commercial reasons. You have to have evidence it's spam and this clearly wasn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a listed building, which is notable enough for my tastes.  I've done plenty of articles of National Register of Historic Places properties in the United States, and even though some of them have been up for sale, that doesn't change their notability.  Now, maybe if someone used real estate agent hype in the article to describe the house ("Super curb appeal!  Lots of charm, in a nice neighborhood!  Basement has plenty of potential!"), it might count as an ad, but I don't see that here.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:07, 15 January 2013 (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.