Carsick Hall: There is the possibility of merge/redirect to Ranmoor , but I think that would give it overdue prominence in an article I'm not sure it even needs a mention in.  Boleyn ( talk ) 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Does not look notable - There is no listed building designation for it and although it is just within the Ranmoor Conservation Area there is nothing about it in the statement of special interest.  EdwardUK ( talk ) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE - Agreed.  Its sourcing is also odd, it appears to be the original creation of an SPA, and it contains some dubious statements.  To suggest that Sheffield has few old buildings because of the Blitz is nonsense - it has many, including many far more notable than this, e.g. Sheffield Town Hall .  KJP1 ( talk ) 09:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture , History ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There is some more information here but I'm not sure that's enough to be notable.  Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 17:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Doesn't appear to be listed.  Some of the article checks out.  (William Creswick at that address in 1843. Sales description in 1879 Sheffield and Rotherham Independent as well as notice of sale to Mr. James Ward for £370. Mentions in The Times and The Telegraph as home of Francis Balfour in the 1950s. Telegraph gives Eric Robinson as owner in 1980.)  I think there is also evidence that it might be among the oldest local buildings ( [10] states most of buildings of interest date from 1860–1914).  Also brief mention in The Making of Sheffield, 1865-1914 p 194 ("...Carsick Hall, a small double-fronted house unworthy of its name but very old and very old-fashioned.").  In the lack of any detailed coverage of the house, leaning slim merge to Ranmoor, where it might merit a mention.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 00:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment (leaning towards delete) -- The article appears to have sources, but they are cited in a peculiar (and incomplete) manner.   The house is apparently a minor mansion, but not obviously notable.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Two major problems with this: https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/441346-carsick-hall-help/? do=findComment&comment=7893247 is quite clearly how the original single-purpose editor got xyr information.   It's a fortnight before the article was created by ChaosAlien ( talk · contribs ).   I don't have any access to whatever "Find My Past" is, and the original single-purpose editor provided zero citations of whatever bunch of old newspapers have been stitched together to make this.  Espresso Addict hasn't provided enough above, either, alas.  The good-faith citations added later by someone else are impossible to check.   Having laboriously found what each one is and digging it up to cite it properly, I've had to add {{ pageneeded }} on every single one it turns out.   One of them is an edited collection book and the citation didn't even say which article in the book by which author is being cited.   Needless to say, not a single one of those sources is accessible to me.  Verification is simply impossible here.   I've tried.   This is unverifiable by any reader, or anyone at all who didn't write the article.  Uncle G ( talk ) 20:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's simply not true.  I verified much of it, just typing "Carsick Hall" into one of the WL newspaper searches.  I don't always provide citations when I do this kind of search because typing and especially cut & paste hurts my injured hand, but the search is trivial for anyone with library access.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm afraid that it is true.   "Mentions in The Times and The Telegraph in the 1950s" doesn't cut it.   As I said, I've looked for sources, and tried to look into the sources already cited.   A vague handwave in the direction of an entire decade of two newspapers points to nothing.   It's as vague as the handwave to a 264-page book (which Google Books reports no instances of "Carsick" at all inside) from 1948 is.   If you cannot point to things that I or other people can check, then verifiability is simply not there.   Amazingly, all of the people with the claimed actual access to these old newspapers, from the person on the WWW forum through the article creator to you, have not cited one single specific newspaper article for the rest of us, let alone the clearly multiple ones used in the WWW discussion forum.  Uncle G ( talk ) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In attempting to check the sources and found copies of some on archive.org (Reeder, Walton and Tiratsoo), and White Rose eTheses Online (Donnelly).  But searches within these indicate that none mention Carsick Hall, Walton has only a brief section on Ranmoor (p.225) and there were no search results for Sheffield in Tiratsoo.  Cannadine and Hebblethwaite require journal access but the statements they are there to support do not suggest notability.  I do not have full access to the British Newspaper Archive, but a search for Carsick Hall shows some results that could verify the residents and history section (Sheffield Independent 10 May 1879 p.11, and 7 March 1938 p.2, and Yorkshire Evening Post 11 June 1940 p.5) but these also do little to indicate notability.  Delete seems a reasonable option because if all the unsourced and trivial content was removed there would be little left to merge.  EdwardUK ( talk ) 09:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's names and dates at least, more than anyone else has given.   I didn't think to look for an in-copyright 1997 book in the Internet Archive, and thank you for the pointer to the thesis, too.   It's very disappointing to discover, especially after all of that effort hunting down the proper citations, that all of the additions by GavinMansfield ( talk · contribs ) were false sourcing.   Having seen now how irrelevant they were to this subject, especially the thesis, I have changed my mind about these being good-faith edits.  Uncle G ( talk ) 13:07, 14 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect