Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Old Rectory , Chidham

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Old Rectory , Chidham

The Old Rectory , Chidham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs, no indencations of notability, and an internet search comes up with nothing Abce2|This isnot a test 03:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I came up with the following links [1], [2], [3]. Not many, but perhaps enough to establish notability? ArcAngel (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  Huh. I looked everywhere for refs. Thanks for finding some.Abce2|This isnot a test 06:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  You're welcome, but if it's any consolation, I used Google to find them.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete The building is listed, but only Grade II. Might be worth asking at WP:HSITES re the notability of such buildings. I believe Grade I and Grade II* listed building have sufficient notability to sustain an article, but I'm not completely sure about Grade II listed buildings. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Man, all this over two sentences. I wish we would have originally redirected this to the Chidham talk page or userfied it to a sub page of the creator. We are spending ten times more on this article than the creator did. Ikip (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  It could still be userfied, I believe. ArcAngel (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't see any scope to expand this beyond a stub. Might be worth mentioning in Chidham though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Merge with Chidham, deleting the resultant redirect. This will probably merely involve adding the photo to that article, with the present content used in the caption. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote changed after having merged it as I had suggested, essentially by adding the photo. With 418000 grade II listed buildings we cannot have articles on all of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Grade II listed buildings are notable per se (this has been applied many times re articles about primary schools in listed buildings). It would be easy to add a few more words from the ref I've just added. Occuli (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Maybe Grade II listed status makes it notable but the article only has two sentences. Unless it is likely that an article can be created that is more than a stub it should probably be redirected. snigbrook (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chidham; where a mention of it exists. Setting a theoretical notability bar that "Grade II listed buildings and above are notable" is a little silly, in my view - the building clearly exists and clearly is Grade II, but there seems to be almost nothing else worth saying about it. In the situation where a building has notable characteristics but insufficient material to create a worthwhile separate article, the logical result is to discuss it in the context of a wider area. ~ mazca ^talk 10:52, 19 September 2009 (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.