Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings Mill, Stamford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Mill, Stamford

[edit]
Kings Mill, Stamford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A watermill in a city that really has no importance. LAAFansign review 18:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Grade II Listed building. Keith D (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the original complaint. What is meant by 'a city that really has no importance'? Stamford is not a city, it is a market town, historically one of the five boroughs of the Danelaw. How is that 'of no importance'? The King's Mill is locally said to be named for Henry VIII, after the dissolution of the monasteries. The current building is 17th century and is listed in the national monument register There is no reasoned explanation of the proposal to delete, and the remark above reads like a vexatious provocation, not a sensible criticism of the suitability of the article being listed. I understood that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia.--Brunnian (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my original statement was misunderstood, the meaning of my nomination is that the mill itself has no real importance. An article is on Wikipedia if something interesting is in the article. Did something happen there? Does it hold some record? If so, you can put that in the article with the link; I would be willing to help you with putting a proper reference in if you find out. Hope this helps. --LAAFansign
Well, I trust the additions to the article will help give you some understanding. The millstream probably dates to the time of the Danish conquest, of around 970, but may be earlier: it cuts trough the roman route of ermine street and there are stones there that suggest the millstream is older than the road. The very existence of "the meadows" as a public grazing right owes its existance to the millstream, that defines the outlines of the land. The Earliest known record of a mill is the domesday book, and as 'north mill' the site is the subject of a law suit in the court rolls of 1143. Which I am unable to cite at the moment. Corn was ground here for at least 900 years, until the coming of the railway changed the way agriculture was done. The current building is a grade II listed building and the home to a day centre for handicapped kids. Like all Wikipedia articles I was creating a stub that I hoped people with access to the records would be able to expand - I don't have a copy of domesday, for example, but the Lincolnshire Record society does. When domesday on line covers Lincolnshire I would be happy to make the citation. Perhaps the director of the Kings Mill Centre will write about his work? The hydrological challenge of a watermill in flat country is in itself evidence of sophisticated application of technology. I can't say that in an article without being accused of lack of citations.
The Via Melancholia is one of the most popular walks in Stamford, and traditionally formed part of the hare and hounds course for the boys school in the 18th and 19th centuries. I didn't put that in because I have no references to it. But the Via Melancholia is beautiful, tranquil, and deserves to be better known.
There is a category page Category:Watermills in England which is very light on Lincolnshire (and east midlands in general) entries even though there are several dozen known watermills in the area, some (like cogglesford) still working after a thousand years. Maybe all of them are 'of no importance' either?--Brunnian (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills is a new project (and a small one). How it obtained the name Kings Mill will require historical research. Most mills forming part of the crown estate were soldoff under James I. The question will be hose it was before the dissolution. There were 1000s of mills in England and we cannot have articles on them all (much as I would like it), but do not be too hasty over a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but consider merging unless more sources can be found. Listed buildings are not inherently notable according to guidelines, and it is unclear whether there is consensus on their notability. Grade II listed buildings are not of no importance but often only of local interest, and multiple sources are needed. There is at least one (the listed buildings record), and the Lincolnshire Life may be another if there is sufficient coverage, so it is possibly notable enough, although maybe there should be a list article, or a section of the Stamford, Lincolnshire article, that this could be merged to. snigbrook (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Stamford, Lincolnshire unless someone finds enough sources for the article to grow beyond its current stub. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (alternatively merge to Stamford, Lincolnshire). There is enough content to be worth having; certainly deletion should be be an option. Tag for sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with Merging is that it makes a nonsense of the categorisation mechanism - you can't have a whole town categorised as a mill - and the project linkage. Not to mention how you make the kml mapping tool on the category page pick it up and name it.
I am hoping to include something about the day centre, but there is little publicly available material. Their minibus can be seen in the photograph on the National Monument record. --Brunnian (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As well as being a listed building, it is also a scheduled monument, thus meeting WP:N. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a Grade II Listed building and the article has references. I see no problem with this.--BSTemple (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness to Laafan, the references were not there during the 6 minutes between creation and being flagged for deletion.--Brunnian (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just by virtue of being listed means its the significant subject of secondary coverage. And nominated an article for deletion within 6 minutes of its creation is not cool.--Oakshade (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A listed building is wikipedia-notable. There will exist adequate reliable sources. doncram (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kings_Mill,_Stamford&oldid=1142649341"