Talk:Derwent House

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Orphaned status

This article has links in William Willett and Chistlehurst. I have added one in Arts and crafts movement. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article status

The above listed AFD was closed with two points, 1)- that this article needs expansion or merging, and 2)- that WP:NBUILDING needs work that seems to have been started. On this subject I am perplexed that I have not yet found secondary sources that one would think should be abundant. While I am still looking I will also consider the "merge" aspect towards possibly Chiselhurst Conservation Area per suggestions of @Doncram: and considering the valid concerns of @Pontificalibus: and others. Maybe I can find an editor (or more) from the area that might have access to more sources. There may be the possibility of a list article like List of conservation areas of Bromeley. I will have to explore this later as work calls but if there cannot be a solution this will likely result in a future AFD with no reprieve. Otr500 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Otr500, I am glad the AFD ended with a reprieve for now, despite my advocating during part of the AFD process for deletion (though I was changing my mind as you know). I think the way forward is to develop a bit at Chislehurst article to mention the Chiselhurst Conservation Area (call this CCA, currently a redlink) and include some info from the conservation area document, and then open the CCA article including a list of properties (either as a regular list with * points or as a table), and set an {{anchor}} for Derwent House, and merge/redirect this article to there.

I disagree with User:Ponitificalibus's last comment in the AFD: "Judging by that study, I am not sure this house would even merit a mention in an article on Chiselhurst Conservation Area." And I disagree that the document "should not be considered an independent source for the purposes of demonstrating notability - the society exists to promote the interests of residents in preserving the area, regardless of its particular historical signficance when viewed in a wider context" because the document is reasonable and historical in nature, it is not a biased source supporting some commercial purpose. In fact it is a very good source, and it is very worthwhile to develop about the village area as a suburb of London which grew when train service began, and as site for the French royal family, and about the type of Arts and Crafts development on Derwent House's road, and more. As for any historic district or conservation anywhere, having the designation is NOT appreciated by some; there is no monolithic force who wants this for commercial purposes. But P has a point that the "Chiselhurst article has room for expansion" and that should be done first IMHO, with the CCA split out to a separate article if its size warrants. --Doncram (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am still looking and have found some very interesting stuff on the Borough of Bromley. I still see the reasoning that grade II buildings are typically not covered. For any possible record: I totally agree on the need of expansion and improvement of main or parent articles over creating one or more very related stubs. I argue this all the time when I see articles created that are between dictionary and stub-class that I call a stubby-stubs. I haven't looked in a long time but I am sure I have only created a very small number of stub class articles, not because I feel they are not important, but because I just like to see sources that allow content to lead to a better class. I actually like to pick an article that has issues and "try to save it" now and again. I can argue successfully (and do a lot) for deletion but I think that is not a record to be so proud of. In this case it seems historically terrible that that England places so much on historical retention (even if it has become more or less zoning laws) with little on the recording of the history. Cutting down a tree in a conservation area can evidently bring an "unlimited fine" that was raised from £20,000. That is evidence that no matter a "zoning law" type rationale there are serious conservation intentions.

I have been looking for sources that would allow for expansion of the Chiselhurst article with a "Chiselhurst Conservation Area" section. I have found several sources but I do not like "passing mention" or just a one sourced embedded list. One thing I will offer is that if I can't find anything it will not be from lack of trying. It will likely either mean the sources just aren't available or maybe just so well hidden, and someone else would have to prove it. I just thought I would look to make sure there is not just a lack of editor involvement that might be an issue. There is the 2007 article List of conservation areas in England that could be expanded but would not help this article. Otr500 (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]