Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Row Barrow

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.

Willow Row Barrow (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)

An article that serves as promotion for a company Sacred Stones that builds these modern barrows. Originally the first reference was to the company itself. Most of the references read like advertising, created by a SPA who has added promotional content on a number of barrow articles. Also the company built a modern long barrow first so this is a minimal claim of significance to be the first modern round barrow as opposed to a long barrow. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I initially accepted this through AfC as it had some coverage in decent sources and I figured there would be more due to the claim of notability of being the first of its kind in a thousand years, however doing a more thorough
  talk) 19:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 is being quite nasty and high handed here, I am sorry to say. I read his/her comments and addressed them on the talk page, properly and promptly and I set out my relationship with another modern barrow where my wife is at rest. I used a link to a developer's website (supporting a point made in the Church Times). The citations he/she thinks are inadequate are in the Guardian from its main architecture critic, and in academic journals. This was discussed on the talk page by me. Nevertheless this has been subject to inuendo that I am promoting a company I have no role in and that the citations are puff pieces but they are serious writing in national newspapers. Finally, as you see, there are pages for other barrows and cemeteries. By all means edit, or even delete, but please lay of the insensitive and unpleasant innuendo. Beninruses (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep not advertising, also they are not all built by the same company (looks like this is the first that was). Some sources are not about this location, but probably just enough coverage for
  WP:GNG. Peter James (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • They previously built and operate Soulton Long Barrow, as per here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, question: is this any more wikinotable than the 100s of cemeteries throughout england, would suggest a "merge" to Tumulus#Modern barrows but i see that the article creator has already added adequate information there. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tumulus#Modern barrows. Agree with above users hat coverage is mostly about "modern barrows in general than this specific one" so it makes sense to redirect to the section about modern barrows in general. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to and merge with Long_barrow#Modern barrows, which is how I ended up on this page in the first place. It is a fairly specific type of tumulus and may be better at home in the long barrow article. Trigaranus (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd support a redirect to Tumulus#Modern_barrows, not sure merging with Long barrow is appropriate since this is a round barrow, not a long barrow. Spicy (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Neutrality requires us to not delete articles on topics we don't like, when they are supported by enough RS to pass GNG Geo Swan (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2020 (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.