Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlisle Dominican Friary

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle Dominican Friary

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Why does this exist? There are no sources whatsoever and no reason to assume notability. Réunion (talk to me) 19:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, medieval friaries are a rather specialised subject. This one was founded in 1233 and dissolved in 1539. Some information here: Blackfriars Priory and some sources mentioned therein (Medieval religious houses in England and Wales / The Victoria history of the county of Cumberland: volume two / Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society) but this would probably be better incorporated into a more general article. It is mentioned with a source (The friaries – Carlisle, Penrith and Appleby – British History Online) in the Carlisle Cathedral article. How about redirecting it there? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually List of monastic houses in England might be better. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of monastic houses in England - which doesn't have this in its table. I can find books in G-books that have this in their index but I don't have access to the text so I can't use them to improve the article. If someone comes along with access to a good research library it may be possible to recreate this as a viable article. Lamona (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Keep - Starting with the source that Malcolmxl5 identified I added some text and references but this isn't my area so it's not very full. However, using "Carlisle Blackfriars" or "Blackfriars of Carlisle" in G-Books there are hits. There needs to be some reconciliation, though, between the listings as "Carlisle Blackfriars" and this article. I'm thinking that the name in the lists doesn't specify the "monastic house" as other items in the list do. But I must leave that for someone better versed in the topic. Lamona (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s listed there under 'Carlisle Blackfriars'. List of monastic houses in Cumbria is another possible redirect target (again as 'Carlisle Blackfriars'). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- We have articles on most pre-reformation religious houses in Britain, so that there is a case for retaining this placeholder. The VCH article is here, covering four houses of friars in the county. Perhaps a single article on the Friaries of Cumberland would be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no longer unsourced NemesisAT (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to have enough sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is no longer unsourced. LearnIndology (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been improved since nomination so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2022 (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.