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. Didn't mean to relist the first time around, but given WP:RELIST says "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days" and that I think there is a consensus to keep, I'm closing as keep. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester Park House[edit]

Worcester Park House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article seems based almost completely on original research. PastScape and Historic England show no notable structures at this site. Undoubtedly there was a building here at some point but there's no reliable third-party sources to document the claims made in the article. Kelly ^hi! 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This very detailed description does seem to match the details in the article. Other in-depth coverage exists. [1][2] Apparently James Pennethorne lived there. [3] --Oakshade (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Certainly appears to have existed and would undoubtedly have been listed Grade I had it survived to the present day, so would meet WP:GEOFEAT. I see no good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was a house. It is verified independently. The references that verify it are independent. The coverage in them is significant. It is capable of being referenced further. The building passes WP:GNG. The nominator may have a point with segments of the content. Those segments can be edited. Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They may have dug up the body of Thomas Pride, who died there, but that is no reason for us to behave in similar fashion. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2016 (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.