Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigowan Lodge

: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 merge to Balmoral Castle. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[Craigowan Lodge]]=

:{{la|Craigowan Lodge}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Craigowan Lodge}})

Only one source, no notability besides a queen staying there. Minimal hits on Google, almost none reputable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

:Delete Seems to be part of the Balmoral Estate though the article does not say so. Not notable in its own right, though it probably deserves mention under that entry (though not in this form). AJHingston (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The Lodge has been at the heart of stories in the royalist press: [http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/54306 Dail Express], [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039040/Bransons-doctor-house.html Daily Mail]. It is also on the official [http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Coats%20of%20arms/ANNEX%20D%20-%20Royal%20Residences.pdf list of royal residences] as 1 of (only!) 22. AllyD (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

:: It does not have its own page on that site [http://www.royal.gov.uk/], however, nor is it searchable on the site directly or using the A-Z index. I'd still favour including it in the Balmoral entry with a redirect. Lots of parts of, say, Windsor Castle or the Tower of London are notable, and some qualify for their own entry, but it is usually best to keep them within the main entry unless they have a significance other than that accorded to the property itself. So far as I can see, at Balmoral the Queen and guests sometimes stay in the Castle, sometimes in the Lodge, and I'm not clear what notability the Lodge has beyond that. But I admit I've never been invited to stay and am not claiming direct knowledge! It may be of great architectural merit or some dramatic events may have occurred there. AJHingston (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Balmoral Estate. Debatable as to whether this would be notable in its own right, but as it's part of a wider subject that is notable, coupled with the fact that there's only a small amount of encyclopaedic information itself, Balmoral Estate seems to be the best place to put the verifiable information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but Balmoral Estate redirects to Balmoral Castle so would have to split to a separate article first. Peter E. James (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. There is a section about the estate (albeit a messy one), so we could put a paragraph into that section quite easily. I think there's a good case to split Balmoral Estate into its own article anyway, but that's a separate debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to Balmoral Castle, not sufficient for its own article. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Merge for now with no prejudice against later re-creation. Generally I would say that any place a member of the royal family stay frequently is inherently notable. However there isn't really enough in the article to warrant a separate one for the moment. If some expert has more information at a later stage the article can be spun-off from Balmoral Estate again. Travelbird (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep: Very notable! This Lodge has been at the center of the stories in the Royalist press. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

: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.