Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Withersdane 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. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withersdane Hall

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

Some local coverage, but not enough to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly notable, but the article was apparently written in connection with the article on the firm that currently operates it, and emphasizes this, rather than the historic aspects. It would need to be redone from scratch by one of the good volunteer editors here who work on UK historic buildings and know how to do it right. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per DGG. No indication the building is notable, as opposed to merely old, the history with Imperial College is minor and the current article is about promoting the current business, not about the building. Some photos here [1] are worth a look, but this article isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wye College, for which it was previously residential accommodation. This paragraph from one of the Pevsner Architectural Guides is, I think, enough to justify a sentence or two there, but it also pretty much contradicts the description of the building as "historic", at least as English people would usually understand the term (although one or two other sources findable on a Google search do suggest that the 1815 house may have been incorporated into, rather than completely replaced by, the hall of residence). The article as it stands seems very much to have been written in the interests (and in part from the publicity materials) of the building's current owner. PWilkinson (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's enough connection with the college for a redirect to be appropriate. We don't redirect from the name of every present or past building. We're not a directory of college buildings, though I will admit it sometimes does appear otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Andy Dingley .The building is old but not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.