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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. While there is a division of opinion regards a straight keep or merge it is clear that there is no consensus to delete this page. Further discussion regarding a possible merge can proceed on the relevant talk page.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Page created by a sockpuppet promoting people and places related to Staniforth. Outside of architecture interesting to the locale, it doesn't appear to have any significant events or news coverage related to it.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are
374,000 listed buildings in England and Wales. An assumption of notability for the 8% that are Grade I or Grade II* might be ok, but I really don't think it's reasonable to say the remaining 340,000+ that are Grade II are all 'inherently notable'. Looking through the archives of
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features),
WP:GEOFEAT was added to before it was promoted to a guideline and this section
did not achieve consensus. I don't think it meets
WP:GNG: The official listing is one reliable source and refs 1 & 2 of the present article are both copies of this, but I can't find any others in a web search; ref 3 is not a reliable source and ref 4 is a
WP:primary source. Maybe it's worth a sentence at most in the article for
Ridgeway, Derbyshire but I don't think it's worth merging as that would unbalance that article. And I don't think we should keep an article on something just because it could be worth an entry in a list article that doesn't yet exist. --
Qwfp (
talk)
20:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Move to
Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire and start a list there. I just did that, I moved it and it is now the start of a list article. It seems to me silly to keep discussing this AFD, just do it and let's all move on to something more important. This AFD should be closed "Move" to ratify that this has been done. --
Doncram (
talk)
23:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Note This article is not about the listed building, which is a farm house. It is about the farm, which is a settlement (it seems it
was once a hamlet). Sure, one notable thing about the farm is that it contains a listed farm house, but we certainly shouldn't redirect this to a list of buildings. We need to judge this by
WP:GEOLAND "Populated places without legal recognition" and if sources are insufficient redirect to
Ridgeway, Derbyshire, where it can be mentioned along with the other settlements already mentioned there, such as Ridgeway Moor and Highlane.--
Pontificalibus14:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Some of those collection of buildings are houses, let and sold seperately from the farmhouse. This is why sources refer to "Litfield" as well as "Litfield farm". The borderline between a
hamlet, an
estate and a "farm" can be an unclear one, but sources support this being a populated place.--
Pontificalibus16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This is purely splitting hairs. A farm is usually understood as a farm, a complex of buildings, and is therefore covered by
WP:GEOFEAT and not
WP:GEOLAND. It doesn't matter whether only one of those buildings is listed for that to count. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
12:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Sure, but as I said sources show there are a number of houses in addition to the farm house, and that it is refered to as a named place without the "farm" suffix.--
Pontificalibus13:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Note I have found a reliable source identifying Litfield as a hamlet and added this to the article. It seems the other neighbouring settlements now subsumed into Ridgeway such as Birley Hay, Ford and Highlane clung to their seperate identities into the late 19th century and so are retained on the first OS maps of the area, but Litfield seems to have been the smallest of these and by then was mapped as a farm.--
Pontificalibus14:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Which seems to suggest that a separate
Litfield article might be in order (although only if it was ever a truly recognised place), but not that this article about a complex of buildings that includes a listed building should be merged. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Sources clearly show that "Litfield Farm" in the 19th century consisted of a number of houses and so was still a settlement. I don't think it would be useful to have two articles on the same populated place, each covering different time periods. Much more logical to have a
Litfield farmhouse article for the listed building, but as I've said I don't beleive that would pass
WP:GNG.--
Pontificalibus15:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Many large farms had multiple cottages for the workers. It doesn't make them a real settlement, any more than a university or a barracks, say, is a settlement. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Ridgeway, Derbyshire. Having searched for sources and examined maps, I conclude that this place fails
WP:GNG and thus
WP:GEOLAND, which says a redirect to the more "the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" is warranted. Also, if it was renamed
Litfield farmhouse to be about the listed building, that would also fail
WP:GNG, and a merge of that to
Ridgeway, Derbyshire would not be inappropriate.--
Pontificalibus15:29, 23 January 2019 (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.
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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. While there is a division of opinion regards a straight keep or merge it is clear that there is no consensus to delete this page. Further discussion regarding a possible merge can proceed on the relevant talk page.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Page created by a sockpuppet promoting people and places related to Staniforth. Outside of architecture interesting to the locale, it doesn't appear to have any significant events or news coverage related to it.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are
374,000 listed buildings in England and Wales. An assumption of notability for the 8% that are Grade I or Grade II* might be ok, but I really don't think it's reasonable to say the remaining 340,000+ that are Grade II are all 'inherently notable'. Looking through the archives of
Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features),
WP:GEOFEAT was added to before it was promoted to a guideline and this section
did not achieve consensus. I don't think it meets
WP:GNG: The official listing is one reliable source and refs 1 & 2 of the present article are both copies of this, but I can't find any others in a web search; ref 3 is not a reliable source and ref 4 is a
WP:primary source. Maybe it's worth a sentence at most in the article for
Ridgeway, Derbyshire but I don't think it's worth merging as that would unbalance that article. And I don't think we should keep an article on something just because it could be worth an entry in a list article that doesn't yet exist. --
Qwfp (
talk)
20:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Move to
Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire and start a list there. I just did that, I moved it and it is now the start of a list article. It seems to me silly to keep discussing this AFD, just do it and let's all move on to something more important. This AFD should be closed "Move" to ratify that this has been done. --
Doncram (
talk)
23:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Note This article is not about the listed building, which is a farm house. It is about the farm, which is a settlement (it seems it
was once a hamlet). Sure, one notable thing about the farm is that it contains a listed farm house, but we certainly shouldn't redirect this to a list of buildings. We need to judge this by
WP:GEOLAND "Populated places without legal recognition" and if sources are insufficient redirect to
Ridgeway, Derbyshire, where it can be mentioned along with the other settlements already mentioned there, such as Ridgeway Moor and Highlane.--
Pontificalibus14:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Some of those collection of buildings are houses, let and sold seperately from the farmhouse. This is why sources refer to "Litfield" as well as "Litfield farm". The borderline between a
hamlet, an
estate and a "farm" can be an unclear one, but sources support this being a populated place.--
Pontificalibus16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This is purely splitting hairs. A farm is usually understood as a farm, a complex of buildings, and is therefore covered by
WP:GEOFEAT and not
WP:GEOLAND. It doesn't matter whether only one of those buildings is listed for that to count. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
12:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Sure, but as I said sources show there are a number of houses in addition to the farm house, and that it is refered to as a named place without the "farm" suffix.--
Pontificalibus13:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Note I have found a reliable source identifying Litfield as a hamlet and added this to the article. It seems the other neighbouring settlements now subsumed into Ridgeway such as Birley Hay, Ford and Highlane clung to their seperate identities into the late 19th century and so are retained on the first OS maps of the area, but Litfield seems to have been the smallest of these and by then was mapped as a farm.--
Pontificalibus14:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Which seems to suggest that a separate
Litfield article might be in order (although only if it was ever a truly recognised place), but not that this article about a complex of buildings that includes a listed building should be merged. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Sources clearly show that "Litfield Farm" in the 19th century consisted of a number of houses and so was still a settlement. I don't think it would be useful to have two articles on the same populated place, each covering different time periods. Much more logical to have a
Litfield farmhouse article for the listed building, but as I've said I don't beleive that would pass
WP:GNG.--
Pontificalibus15:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Many large farms had multiple cottages for the workers. It doesn't make them a real settlement, any more than a university or a barracks, say, is a settlement. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Ridgeway, Derbyshire. Having searched for sources and examined maps, I conclude that this place fails
WP:GNG and thus
WP:GEOLAND, which says a redirect to the more "the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" is warranted. Also, if it was renamed
Litfield farmhouse to be about the listed building, that would also fail
WP:GNG, and a merge of that to
Ridgeway, Derbyshire would not be inappropriate.--
Pontificalibus15:29, 23 January 2019 (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.