Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hicks Hall

:{{la|Hicks Hall}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Hicks Hall}})

Non-notable place. Does not have multiple non-trivial coverage. Thisbites (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. This entry has been added as an abuse of process due to my listing one of user Thisbites entries for deletion.--Dmol (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Tit for tat for a deletion nomination of California Shuttle Bus by the author of this piece, it would seem. I don't think either of these nominations make for a very productive use of time, frankly. If something is undersourced, flag it for more sources and move along. This article has been standing since 2005, about a multiple-centuries-old building. It's fair to assume that sufficient sources are out there, even if they're not presently showing. Suggestion: there's a big and growing backlog at New Pages, help clean that up instead of ripping up the carpeting at Wikipedia... Carrite (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment please assume good faith, I just took a look at this users contributions and came across this article and it came under my scrutiny. I then went on to comment on several others up for AfD. This article is not a historic landmark and there does not seem to be anything making it famous or special. This is regardless of California Shuttle Bus. I am not opposed to a merge with some other article like Clerkenwell but there are tons of buildings this old in London, this one is unremarkable. Just click on the sources links at the top and you will see that there are no sources. If sources are found, by all means keep it here. I could not find any however. Any perceived "retaliation" is irrelevant to the deletion. I simply make a habit of checking out other user's contributions and making edits, improvements, copyedits, taggings, or even AfDs, I might also say this article does not meet the draconian application of speedy/AfD the accusing user has applied the article that I created and he should be a bit fair here. The fact that this article has been around since 2005 is also not a measurement used for notability for these debates.Thisbites (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - in it's time it was quite notable, being used a mileage marker for London, and hosting notable trials[http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45103]. It was an important, if not particularly loved building for 170 years[http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66099]. Seaphoto^Talk 02:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The suggestion that sources cannot be found is blatantly false. See [http://books.google.com/books?id=_Q8HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA54 From Hicks's Hall to Campden House], for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks to be notable. As to Thisbites' "there are tons of buildings this old in London, this one is unremarkable", it would undoubtedly be a listed building if it still existed, if only due to its age (most pre-1840 buildings are listed as a matter of course), and we generally keep articles on listed buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 28 April 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.