Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crieff Hydro

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. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crieff Hydro

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

Article is very dubiously written and while it does show traces of notability it is unreferenced. It did come to my mind to request speedy deletion under the unnotability clause but I would rather gain the consensus of the community. maucho eagle 01:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is quite all right. I haven't got round to putting references into it yet. Perhaps the wrier of this unfriendly comment doesn't realise that it takes time to develop an article so s/he goes round deleting things. It is not a helpful way to develop the 'pedia.

The Hydro is a large and inportant building and a hotel with a long history. I don't know what is dubious about the writing. It is grammatical and spelled correctly, for two. It gives some insight on the development of the water-cure in Britain in the C19. It is much more informative that the endless entries we have on the smallest hamlets in Poland, where there's little more than a grid refernce and a popoulwtion If theis is your standard of contribution to the Wikipedia, why don't you get something better to do rather than carping?

Charles Norrie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.159.136 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Weak delete~~ It's big and old, and I'm told it's a great place to stay. Searching for references in the usual places (Google Books) yields pages of hits but I'm having trouble finding anything but trivial coverage. It's mentioned in tourist guides in the usual fashion, going back to Victorian guides, but I can't find anything that goes beyond a few brief sentences. To the contributing editor: articles about companies/organisations such as this need to demonstrate notability as per the guidelines listed in WP:CORP or more generally in WP:GNG. Essentially there needs to be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. AFD nominations don't tend to be placed on the basis of the quality of prose in the article. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RCAHMS have an entry on the Canmore database: here It lists some publications that could be referenced:

Anon (1870) The beauties of Upper Strathearn, Crieff; Edinburgh

Christie, G (1967) Crieff Hydro, Edinburgh

Ferguson, M (1870) A tour through the highlands of Perthshire, Glasgow

Marshall, W (1881) Historic scenes in Perthshire, Edinburgh

Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other Hydro establishment in Briatin today at Peebles in the Borders. It has a wikipedia entry. Surely a venerable institution that has been soing for over 100 years is worthy of inclusion? It is notable in that its an example of a sort of treatment/medical/resort centre that is rare today. I have put together a coherent story from lots of different sources - from the Austrian water cure to Edinbugh medicine to its success as a business and the critic here just sits and car Futhermore, the delete notice suggests a merger. But with what? Claerly not woth the Peebles Hoel Hydropathic which though formed in the same wave of nature-cure in the C19 is in a different town and county in Scotland were separate organisations with entirely differnt philosophies. Temperance was important at Crieff, and the Church of Scotland. Not so at Peebles. Peebles was prepared to give the sum of £1000 to the town's golf course, if they looked more favourably on Sunday Golf - an abomination in Sabbatarian Scotland. Crieff did not. The sorts of treatments avaialble were different. Far more extensive at Crieff, the emphais on plain living and water at Crieff. It would be like merginng the articles on Woolworths and British Home stores into a single entry on Chain Stores in the UK as they are both chain stores - madly innappropriate. I think my deletionist should consider his position as an editor of the Wikipedia ass/he simply does not understand the concept of the 'Pedia. -- Charles Perhaps the creator of the speedy deletion notice should care to read this entryt on New Pages in Help "articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision". Artiles are never submitted to Wikipedia in a final stand alone form, and many authors may make many editors before they are happy. Speedy Deleter,s approach is discourteous and s/he should consider his contributions to the 'Pedia in this light. The 'Pedia offers a low barrier to entry for a reason - the 'Pedia would not have been built if unthinking behaviour like that of speedy deletor had prevailed from the start. - Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.159.136 (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crieff Hydro holds great historic importance for Scotland and has been an iconic presence in Scotland for hundreds of years. Initially for it's healing therapies, then for it's religious stance, and now as the largest hotel and family resort in Scotland. I feel the only concern with this entry is that a great volume of the Hydro's history has been omitted - facts which can be found in the publication 'The Hydro of Yesteryear'. This is a very valid and worthy entry with regards to Scotlan's history and the Hydro's importance to the present economic climate of Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Tic-Tac (talk • contribs) 10:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There seems to be a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources which should be investigated before this topic is deleted, and I am not convinced that the nominator has done so. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 12:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always notable. It acquired a reputation over the years, and is of historical interest. Most references to it will not be found on the internet, but that isn't relevant here. --AJHingston (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added more references including the Gazetteer for Scotland article which should be enough to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some inaccuracies though; if it still has no bars, I can't think how I came by the whisky I recall drinking at ceilidh nights there... But that's personal testimony! AllyD (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable - see British spas from 1815 to the present, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2011 (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.