Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Palace (York)

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. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Palace (York)

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

Disputed prod (whose disputant, quixotically, admits that this building is non-notable). No evidence of third-party sourcing for this structure. Also unlikely search term, so no real point in leaving as a redirect. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grade I listed building.[1] Articles about listed buildings are usually kept. Grade I listed buildings, the highest classification, are clearly inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to York Minster. Whether or not the building in notable in its own right, the information is worth preserving and ought to be mentioned in the York Minster article whether or we keep a holding stub for a separate article. I agree that this page tite isn't that useful as a redirect, but it is worth adding as an entry on the Old Palace disambiguation page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a Grade I listed building is in the top 2.5% of all listed building. Notability should not be in question here. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Includes remains of the Archbishop's Chapel of c1230-40. Might be merged with the Minster because of proximity but not architecturally connected. If there were an article on the Minster Library (unquestionally notable) it could go there. Reliable sources will need searching out. Pevsner and Neave (Buildings of England: York and the East Riding, 1995) does not include the new extension though it does describe the 19th century structure. Almost anywhere but in York it would get an extensive write up in guides, of course. The title is also a problem because as pointed out it is usually described as either the Minster Library, which it houses, or the Archbishop's Chapel of which little remains. The article is right in asserting that this is the correct name of the building. York is poorly covered in Wikipedia; that is not because of lack of notable features or interest but because a serious amount of work is needed to do things justice. The sources are rarely sufficient in themselves and those best qualified to write them up will usually have done original research or be disqualified, at least in the view of some editors, because they have some association with the subject. --AJHingston (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I think that a merge with the Minster would be a mistake. There are various notable buildings in the vicinity with some connection with the cathedral and there is already quite enough to say about the Minster without adding other buildings. Although the Old Palace houses some Minster staff the Minster Library is effectively a separate institution with links with the University of York. And putting the building in a new library article would be slightly odd as it is not the sole occupier. There is enough that could be said about the building to justify an article of its own. Most of it is only 200 years old and so normally dismissed, but Pevsner & Neave are kind about it and the genuinely modern extension is interesting in itself. The solution to the search problems may be to create a new article on the Minster Library, which could then have a link to this one. Archbishop's Palace York and Archbishop's Chapel York should both direct to Bishopthorpe Palace (a stub demanding a lot of work) and I'd be inclined not to complicate things further there. --AJHingston (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Grade I listed buildings are considered notable architecturally. Keith D (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but also probably move to Minster Library, which is clearly the name given to the building in both the listed buildings databases I habitually use (here and here - with this reference to the arcade of the palace as well). As a Grade I it's a pretty sound keep for me anyway, but it's also clearly got notability beyond the Minster. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in danger of going off topic here, but the registers are not reliable when it comes to the names of buildings. English Heritage rely on the name written on the top of the sheet when the survey was done, not necessarily correct, sporadically updated, and the other lists follow. I could give York examples. The building has changed with the addition of the Alcuin Wing in 1998 and so did the name. There's every reason to write up the Library though, with more here. --AJHingston (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — suggesting the deletion of a Grade I listed building demonstrates a misunderstanding of the notability of buildings in the United Kingdom. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the others. Look at the article for Grade I listed building to understand that rating. Its clearly notable. Dream Focus 14:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue by Jonathan Bowen (talk)

- Strong Keep - Grade I listed buildings in the UK are architecturally notable, and should always be kept and improved. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep the information but rename as York Minster Library, the name by which it is Grade 1 listed by English Heritage [2]--Harkey (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English Heritage register is absolutely not an authoritative list of the official or existing names of buildings, nor is it maintained as such. Sometimes English Heritage do amend the register when changes come to their attention, but that can itself leave the register in an anomalous position. An example is the church of St Mary Castlegate in York, which is now on the register as The York Story, that being the name that the register entry was changed to some years after listing because it was the name of a permanent exhibition it contained. But that exhibition was removed years ago and the building is now called St Mary's Castlegate by the trust who have it in their care. For Wikipedia to refuse to accept the names given by the owners or occupiers of listed buildings has significant implications. I say that with feeling, being responsible for three including one whose name on the register was never the legal name and not the one we use. --AJHingston (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Then a redirect from Minster Library to this article. Much as with The Gherkin.I live close to York and have always heard the place referred to as "The Minster Library", although there could be some confusion here between the historic Grade 1 listed building itself and its function as a library. My vote was to "Keep" the article's present content, however, not enter into any deep polemic about it at this stage.--Harkey (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2011 (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.