Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langham Estate

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Langham Estate

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable London property estate Polyamorph (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a 14 acre neighborhood in the center of London with a long history. Meets WP:GEOLAND Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not about the neighbourhood, it's about the real estate companies that owns properties on streets that we already have articles on, Bolsover_Street, Great Portland Street, Hallam Street etc. which I absolutely agre should exist, but where is the significant coverage for this particular property estate? Polyamorph (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you see it as a company, wbile I see it as a historic collection of properties purchased as a block. Sorry but a collection of properties this large and well located is notable. See the long list of refs and fact it is in the middle of central London. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I refer everyone to helpful comments on the talkpage [1] Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the test here is WP:NORG, not WP:GEOLAND. Will look to see if it's notable or not in a bit. SportingFlyer talk 23:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to defend this entry, as I fear that if the Langham Estate is not considered sufficiently notable then many other wikis covering land ownership in the centre of London (Derwent, Howard de Walden Estate, Portman Estate... etc.), others elsewhere or even other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langham entries should be considered for removal.

One case in point: the neighbouring estate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derwent_London has a similar footprint/value/impact. The Derwent wiki has been in place since 2008 and has not be challenged in this way. The same applies to the similarly aged entry for Langham's other neighbour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaftesbury_plc. It would be nice to see equitable treatment.

Langham Estate is similarly one of the largest holdings in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzrovia and the 16th largest in London -- it lies next to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Street (with some of the most valuable real estate in the UK). The Langham Estate is worth GBP 100s of millions , has been in existence for about a century and its activities have had an outsized impact on the economy and the lives of thousands in this section of London.

The article lists numerous references and they substantiate (notability: verifiable secondary sources over a sufficiently significant period of time) what has been written in the text. Its references are verifiable and come from reputable and independent sources (University College London Bartlett School of Architecture, The Independent, Financial Times, Evening Standard, Sunday Times, and a number of books... etc.). The fact that SOME of the articles might lie behind paywalls for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rosguill does not mean the reference material is not there. If necessary the references can and will be revised to show hard copy reference sources -- but then what would that change? I took much time to carefully justify everything I wrote in this text.

Let me know. I am sorry you think this article unsuitable.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. The article is about a company, not a landmark, so WP:GEOLAND does not apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does specifically say it is about the company, so it must meet WP:NCORP, as other editors have noted. I do find some coverage not included in the article: 'Langham Estate deal near', Mortished, Carl, The Times (London, England), Monday, August 9, 1993, Issue 64718, p.31; 'Langham offer lower as bidder disputes figures', Kinloch, Bruce, The Daily Telegraph (London, England), Tuesday, April 27, 1993, Issue 42873, p.25 (171 words); 'Langham Estate £59m tag looks excessive', The Daily Telegraph (London, England), Tuesday, March 9, 1993, Issue 42831, p.23 (769 words); 'Could the owner of Langham Estate test good relations with move for Shaftsbury?', The Telegraph, By Ben Marlow, 29 Nov 2014; 'The Langham Estate snaps up West End office for £29 million', The Evening Standard, JOANNA BOURKE, Monday 20 April 2015. There are other articles which mention it, but the focus is often on the owner rather than the estate, or on neighbouring estates. These 5 articles, and The Independent article already in included as a source, all include the name Langham Estate in the headline, indicating that they regard it as notable, and they are all about it. They don't come under 'Examples of trivial coverage, eg standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: "expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" - or at least, many are about sales, but not routine, eg they're reporting on the progress of and problems with a proposed purchase. So I would say we probably have 6 sources which meet all the criteria of WP:ORGCRIT, significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and certainly enough to meet the 'multiple' criterion. Interestingly, I don't find much coverage before 1993, but that doesn't matter for establishing notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Survey of London: South-East Marylebone: Volumes 51& 52 of UCL [Yale University Press; Slp edition (3 Oct. 2017)] gives a good account of the company prior to 1993 -- and the fact its previous owners lost 100s of millions of pounds with the entity -- it is considered notable enough to mentioned in this study.
Keep, per sources presented. Notability is satisfied. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2018 (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.