Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlfield House

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: Article was greatly improved after this AFD was started, and all participants in this discussion now support keeping it. Orlady (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlfield House

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

Not notable. All references are simply guide books &c. It's also highly promotional. TheLongTone (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources have been included such as reference to a book about historic buildings in Ireland. There are over 760 results in google books for Marlfield House. Marlfield House is a historic Irish building, a protected (listed) structure built in 18th century. It was a former residence of Earls of Courtown and is definitely notable. --7eventy7 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case write an article about the house & cite it with references to architectural books. As it stands its a promotional article about a hotel which happens to be in a (rather unremarkable looking) Georgian houseTheLongTone (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have referenced to the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and I hope this is sufficient. I was under the impression that it is important not only to mention the history of the house, but also to mention it's use as a hotel today. If mentioning that the house is used as a hotel is against any of the policies I would be most grateful if you could help rectifying any issues. Your personal opinion that the house is "rather unremarkable looking" is highly welcome but I am sure it may appear differently to other people and it should not be a basis for deletion! I would like to remind that the house is a historic Irish building, a protected structure and a former residence of Earl of Courtown and therefore it is notable. 7eventy7 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listed building, notable. --do ncr am 17:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If being a listed building makes it notable, I withdraw the nomination. Article creator is under the misapprehension that this is is notable because of the hotel development which has shafted the front elevation, but I've scrubbed most of the spam I think.TheLongTone (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides being a listed building, a remarkable amount of substantial coverage from multiple independent sources on this topic. The nom seems only concerned it looks like an advert - see WP:SOFIXIT. They can simply place an advert tag on it or re-edit the article so it doesn't look so much like an advert . The nom needs to become familiar with WP:AFD and specifically its WP:BEFORE which states that if an article can be improved with normal editing, it's not a candidate for AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get off your high horse, and read the whole discussion. When the aricle appeared ther was no mention of the places notability as a building: since that appeared I have edited the page accordingly.TheLongTone (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the version at time of nomination it already indicated a long notable history and with very in-depth coverage by reliable sources like the New York Times.--Oakshade (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels do rather tend to get mentioned in guide books and in the travel supplements of newspapers, much of which is PR driven. Ie the writer has been given a freebie. I don't think this really establishes notability.TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite an attack there on the integrity of both the New York Times and reporter Sarah Lyall! Do you you have a shred of evidence they received a "freebie" or does this WP:BLP violation need to be struck? (BLP applies to talk pages as well as main space.)--Oakshade (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. TheLongTone had a legitimate point that the original article was promotional. And it is true in general that travel guide books etc can be slanted with PR, and likely influenced by freebies. There is no specific BLP, no "attack". My "Keep" vote above was based on it being a listed building, which wasn't added until later, after TheLongTone and others had already improved the article. I think without it being a listed building, my guess is that the consensus would have been to Keep, but it is the listed building status that clinches it.

A lot of travel reports can be promotional, but a lot aren't. As a matter of fact, travel reporters routinely visit restaurants, hotels, etc. anonymously to ensure they don't get special treatment (ie "freebies"). TheLongTone is suggesting New York Times reporter Sarah Lyall was given a "freebie" in exchange for a promotional piece in the NYT. You really need evidence to back such a claim up.--Oakshade (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I sais was that PR freebies are not unknown and that the fact that a hotel has been written about in a travel supplement is not a valid claim of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the NYT is not an independent source or it's a paid advertising for the topic, WP:GNG makes no discrimination if coverage is from a "travel supplement." It could've been a piece called "I Love Marlfield House!" and it would still be considered significant coverage from a reliable source per GNG. If the reporter was paid or given "freebies" as you are claiming, that's basically synonymous with advertising. Do you have any evidence NYT reporter Sarah Lyall accepted "freebies"? Hint: "PR freebies are not unknown" doesn't count as evidence. --Oakshade (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheLongTone for bringing this up and for directly and indirectly improving this article. --do ncr am 17:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As this afd nomination (which was made in good faith) has improved the article and and help establish notability. Murry1975 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and not just because of the current condition: I would have said "keep" if I'd happened upon it five minutes after nomination. The promotional content was trimmable without totally ruining the article (no need for a WP:TNT deletion), and coverage in things published by names such as Wiley should generally be considered sufficient. Put this together with extensive 19th-century coverage of all things noble (i.e. there's going to be plenty of documentation on the house in publications about the owners), and you had something clearly notable at the time of nomination. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2014 (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.