Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denville 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 keep. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denville Hall

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

Article doesn't appear to meet general notability. There's no mention of the Hall in the Mail article cited. There is a Telegraph article - but it doesn't appear to have anything substantial on the home itself. The only other articles mentioning the place appear to have brief mentions, and are mostly concerned with the names of its residents. A re-write would work, but I can't find anything on which I could base such a thing. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle}

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not really notable. A nice place, no doubt, but quite low profile with no reliable sources I can find. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 18:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this squeaks by on general notability. It is mentioned in scads of obituaries and there are also articles mentioning fundraising for it. The location of at least one play is based on it. I found one opinion article substantially about it in The Telegraph, and there's an article in The Times with the headline "For My Final Act", dated 18 April 2005, that is at least partly about it (sadly I can't see that). Yngvadottir (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough RS citations for now. Philip Cross (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for its many well-known residents and frequent mentions in obituaries and the like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On casual glance I'd say it's been fixed - But I would sincerely urge people to look at the sources again. There's not significant coverage of anything to do with the hall with the possible exception of source number 7 (but I can't see that one). So I would still argue for it not to be kept. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the work has been done on it it has reached general notability. Jack1956 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- With a lot of notable residents, the hall is probably notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (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.