Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Listed buildings

I am going to revert this edit. There is no consensus for this change and it is based on a pseudohistory argument that because the population of the UK is smaller than that of the USA today, the UK should have fewer listed buildings than the USA. In fact, buildings are not normally listed in the UK unless they were built before 1840, and are not automatically listed unless they were built before 1700. The UK had a much larger population than the USA before 1840, and a vastly larger population before 1700. The UK has a much larger number of pre-1840 buildings, and a vastly larger number pre-1700 buildings, than the USA. Therefore the UK should have a much larger number of listed buildings than the USA, because the UK has far more historic buildings than the USA, and the UK's historic buildings are generally far more important than those of the USA. The reality is that the NRHP largely consists of late 19th and 20th century buildings that would never get listed in the UK in a million years, because their historical importance is very low. The number of grade II listed buildings in the UK is reasonable for a country that has a massive concentration of medieval and early modern buildings of immense historical importance, something that does not exist in the USA, which has no medieval buildings and almost no early modern buildings.

This edit has been made during an RfC in which it was proposed to eliminate articles on villages that contained listed buildings. Presumably the purpose of the edit is to deny that the villages in question satisfy GEOFEAT despite long standing consensus in numerous AfDs (including quite recently) that a place with a sufficient concentration of listed buildings is notable and satisfies GNG as well as GEOFEAT (because the "list" entries are often very detailed). Since that RfC has not finished yet, or reached any consensus on this point, I do not think that any changes should be made to this guideline while that RfC is in progress, and that the proposed change should be discussed in that RfC. James500 (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Concur. SportingFlyer T·C 12:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I would support further discussion here. There is no justification that any Grade II listed building should have a article absent additional significant sources. Listed_building#Grade_II says 1 out of 50 buildings in the country is listed! Just because a building is old and shouldn't be demolished or changed doesn't mean it should necessarily have a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 14:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems extremely unlikely; unfortunately the link dates from English Heritage days, and the replacement article does not make any estimate.[1] Espresso Addict (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Checking the Wayback Machine, the source does support the claim. It might be unlikely, but it's also true - and demonstrates the issue with the current wording of the guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate to discuss this here when it is already under discussion in an RfC at the village pump. There are forum shopping issues with holding two parallel discussions. At the very least, some kind of notice of this discussion would have to be placed in the RfC, if we choose to have this discussion here. Even if the number of 1 in 50 buildings is true, it is irrelevant to our normal practices, I will explain below. James500 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a different question from the one under discussion at the Village Pump; there is nothing inappropriate about it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Where is this pseudohistorical argument? It isn't in the linked diff and note that what you just described is not a pseudohistorical argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Any argument that claims that 21st century population figures are relevant to the history of the pre-1840 period, when the population was radically different, is certainly a pseudohistory argument. There was a previous discussion on this talk page, that was invoked in RfC at the village pump, where the said argument was given as a reason for rejecting the listings. It will be in the archives of this talk page. I'll try to find it as soon as possible. James500 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In what way is that pseudohistory vs an approach to notability which you don't agree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Claiming that 21st century population figures are applicable to the pre-1840s is "the rewriting of the past for present personal or political purposes" [2]. Those 21st century population numbers clearly did not exist in the pre-1840s. It is factually inaccurate to claim that the pre-1840 population relative numbers were identical or similar to the present relative population numbers. Factual inaccuracy = rewriting. James500 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

But thats not what happened, nobody is claiming that the 21st century population figures are from the pre-1840s. I don't see anyone claiming that the pre-1840 population relative numbers were identical or similar to the present relative population numbers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

For an example of such a claim that was made in the previous discussion, see "The US NRHP has only 80,000 individually listed sites for a much larger (albeit younger) country". The problem is the words "much larger". The population was not "much larger" at the time. James500 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

But notability isn't determined by population at the time, its determined by modern coverage alone and modern coverage is roughly correlated with modern population. There is no historical statement being made there, a statement is being made about notability on wikipedia. Sorry you misunderstood. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is an exact correlation between population and publishing. IIRC, there are more books and newspapers published per capita in the UK than in the USA. IIRC, this is generally true of English speaking areas in Europe, North America and Australasia, compared to Continental Europe. Conversely, the UK has, IIRC, a relative paucity of audiovisual publications, such as paintings and music, compared to Continental Europe. I will have to check these numbers mind. I can remember reading about this, but it was a long time ago. James500 (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is not exact correlation, but there is rough correlation and I believe that is the argument that was being made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

If I remember correctly this was based in part on the US National Register of Historic Places which includes a narrative describing each place in great detail and often cites several other sources, so it was considered a reasonable indicator of GNG. The problem is that in other places, "protected status", "national heritage" etc can mean many different things that don't always align with GNG. This really illustrates the core problem of trying to define characteristics of topics that are likely to meet GNG - Why not just make GNG the standard? –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The British national heritage "listings" typically describe each listed building in great detail and cite several other sources. There may be a few relatively brief entries, but they should not exclude the more detailed entries. James500 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@James500 - "There may be a few relatively brief entries" - nearly all of them are actually quite brief. These sources simply aren't written for the purpose you want to use them for: they are verbatim descriptions of the buildings, without commentary. They are a primary source. I mean here's one of the more detailed descriptions I could find:

STANDISH STANDISH LANE SO 70 NE (north side) 6/244 Quintons (formerly listed as Pair of cottages formerly 1.0.1.55 Manor Farm or Whitlow House) II Detached house, previously in use as pair of cottages. Left hand side probably late C16/early C17, refronted probably in 1698 when right hand side built by or for William and Hannah Lediard, initials and date around oval window to right hand gable. Originally timber-framed with pair of crucks on left gable end, possibly true crucks with base obscured by half-height brick facing, rear rendered and probably timber-framed, front refaced to match right hand in coursed and dressed stone. Concrete tile roof, half hipped to left, very large ashlar ridge stack on later half with 3 diagonally set square flues with brick caps. Single range of single storey and attic, 2 large coped gables to front, with cross gable to right. Right hand side is rear lobby entry plan. Both gables have 2-light stone mullion and square hoodmould over 3-light similar with oval light in apex to right; 3-light to left offset from centre with former chamfered stone doorway to right, blocked with recessed stonework. Central small single light probably for newel stair in line with rear entrance and stack. Rear gable is brick above ground floor and has 2-light on ground floor. Small C20 lean-to to each end. (V.C.H., Gloucestershire, Vol X, 1972)

FOARP (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

A historian would tell you that the building is the primary source. It is not even certain that the list entry was entirely compiled from direct examination of the building, since it cites the Victoria County History as a source. You would need to examine the VCH to find out how much information has come from that source. A list entry asserts that a building is historically or architecturally important, because that is the criteria for listing. "Probably late C16/early C17 and "refronted probably" and "possibly true crucks" and "probably timber-framed" and "probably for newel stair" are not mere description, they are expert analysis and commentary. I particularly suspect that "originally timber-framed" and "refaced to match" are most probably not mere description either. Unless you have actually examined the building, and you have the expertise to perform that examination, you do not know for certain what is mere description. In any event, there is nothing in GNG that excludes sources that consist of description. Further, the recent NOTPLOT RfC rejected that idea that mere summary does not count towards GNG. If mere summary counts, then description will also count. Unlike a photograph, a written description of an object must necessarily be selective (and they are specifically describing the original features that are important enough to need protection from modification) and must involve some interpretation of the object being described. A list entry written between 1955 and 1986 is not a primary source for things that happened in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (when the building was actually built). A list entry based on the VCH cannot be primary so far as based on the VCH. Since the list entry states that this building has coverage in the Victoria County History, there is clearly more coverage. James500 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"A historian would tell you that the building is the primary source." - No historian would argue any such thing. A verbatim description of a building is a primary source, similar to a picture of the building, not the building itself. "Primary Sources are immediate, first-hand accounts of a topic, from people who had a direct connection with it." - this is the desciption of someone who has visited the building and is describing it. FOARP (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"the building is the primary source" do you mean plaques or descriptions placed on the building? For example if a cornerstone has "1901" carved into it or if a brass plaque with a brief history of the building has been affixed to a wall?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I expect this is the same "the road is a source" argument made with relation to roads. No, the road is not a source. It is not a source because it is not a published work, it is not indexed in anyway that would make it available. Driving down the road and reading the signs, and writing an article based on that, is the essence of WP:OR. Same thing with "the building is a source" - if you go there and write a description based on that, you've engaged in WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

A building is a historical artifact. Such artifacts, including buildings, are considered to be primary sources by historians and archaeologists: see, for example, the following sources: [3] [4][5] [6] [7]. The number of books etc that say this is so large that I could not possibly list them all. I agree that it would not be appropriate for a Wikipedian to cite a building as a primary source for a his description its appearance etc, and I certainly would never use a building as a source for a Wikipedia article. (Although I should point out that photographs are extensively included in articles on buildings, and your argument would require the complete removal of all those photos). That is why we need the list entries, and other written sources, to describe the listed buildings. Conversely, if a historian says that a building was probably refronted in 1698, he is certainly not a primary source for something that happened in 1698. A primary source would be something like a manuscript written by the builder that says "I refronted that building in 1698". A person in 1955 or 1986 cannot give a first hand account of a refronting that took place in 1698, nor does he have a direct connection with it. He was not even alive when it happened. The real problem here is that many Wikipedians do not know what a primary source is, and use the word "primary" in their attempts to exclude sources that they consider to be unreliable, unverifiable, impossible to use without original interpretation, or otherwise unsuitable, instead of giving the real reason why they think those sources should not be used. To sum up: the list entries are valid sources for Wikipedia, but the buildings themselves should not be used as sources. James500 (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If I have understood you correctly: You are saying that the artifact is the primary source, and a description of the artifact is a secondary source, even if the writer of the description did so on the basis of their personal observations and experiences? BilledMammal (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the essence of the "the road is a source" argument being made on here. And your response is the correct one - even if "the building is a source", it is a primary one and descriptions made of it by people simply going to the buildings and writing their observations are also primary. Driving down the road and noting your observations is still WP:OR, as is the electronic version of it using street-view. Ditto the descriptions in listings. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Since this discussion has resumed below James500, I am still interested in an answer to this question. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change and it is based on a pseudohistory argument that because the population of the UK is smaller than that of the USA today, the UK should have fewer listed buildings than the USA. In fact, buildings are not normally listed in the UK unless they were built before 1840, and are not automatically listed unless they were built before 1700. That's not my argument; my argument is that because the criteria for inclusion is so broad, the building being listed isn't a reasonable predictor of coverage sufficient to build an article.

Can you (or (Espresso Addict or SportingFlyer) explain why you disagree and see it as a reasonable predictor of such coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, UK listed buildings almost always have some coverage, in the Pevsner architectural series and other architecture books/journals/magazines, local history books, conservation area appraisals, local plans, and the like. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The Pevsner series will have sufficient coverage for an article for the more notable buildings, but not for less notable ones such as the vast majority of Grade II listed buildings. The rest of the sources are harder to assess, because the list seems to be a general hand wave; they aren't convincing to me. BilledMammal (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"conservation area appraisals, local plans, and the like" don't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if the number of 1 in 50 buildings is true, it is irrelevant to our normal practices. They are as follows. If a village has a sufficiently large number of listed houses or other listed buildings, that village satisfies GNG and GEOFEAT and is notable. If a street consists of two rows of listed houses or a sufficient number of them, that street satisfies GNG and GEOFEAT and is notable. I should point out that villages and streets with sufficiently large numbers of listed buildings will certainly satisfy GNG on the "list" entries alone and will, in any event, invariably have a huge amount of coverage in history books, such Wheatley's London. We generally create standalone articles for listed buildings if they are particularly large, public, old or etc: Medieval buildings, castles, fortresses, city walls and other fortifications, palaces, great houses, manor houses (typically medieval or early modern mini-palaces), cathedrals, churches (typically medieval), Westminster government buildings, Whitehall department buildings, shire halls and county council HQ buildings, courthouses (typically former Assizes), prisons, Inns of Court, guild halls, big Victorian railway stations with gothic architecture, university colleges and large university buildings, museums, art galleries etc. To claim that grade II listing is not notable is a complete oversimplification that does not reflect our actual practices or the reality of the massive GNG satisfying literature that exists. James500 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This begs the question: If they meet GNG, why do we need the SNG? We're not saying they're not notable, we're just saying that historical listing doesn't inherently establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm beginning to suspect that this is based on a misunderstanding on James500's part. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That begs the question: If SNG are supposed to identify topics that are likely to satisfy GNG (and that is very often said to be their purpose), why do we need any SNG? The answer is probably "to save time at AfD" or to provide a cushion for stubs etc that need to be expanded, while they wait for expansion. James500 (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I should point out that villages and streets with sufficiently large numbers of listed buildings will certainly satisfy GNG on the "list" entries alone

No number of "list" entries that look like this:

TM 02 SE GREAT BROMLEY HARWICH ROAD HARE GREEN (north side)

6/66 Hill House

- II

House. C17 with later alterations and additions. Timber framed and plastered. Red plain tiled roof. Off centre red brick chimney stack. 2 storeys and attics. 3 window range of C20 small paned casements. C20 entrance porch to right. Interior features include ceiling and stop chamfered bridging joists. Back to back inglenook fireplace.

is going to make a town meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Having lived in a couple of listed buildings in my time, it is beyond bizarre to me that anyone would think they conferred notability on the settlement in which they are situated. I mean looking at the register, I see such scintillating listings as this one:

Heritage Category: Listed Building

Grade: II

List Entry Number: 1261615

Date first listed: 09-Dec-1986

List Entry Name: UNIDENTIFIED MONUMENT, ABOUT 5 METRES SOUTH EAST OF ANDREWS MONUMENT IN CHURCHYARD OF CHURCH OF ST NICHOLAS

Statutory Address: UNIDENTIFIED MONUMENT, ABOUT 5 METRES SOUTH EAST OF ANDREWS MONUMENT IN CHURCHYARD OF CHURCH OF ST NICHOLAS

Details

STANDISH STANDISH VILLAGE SO 80 NW 7/259 Unidentified Monument, about 5m south east of Andrews Monument in churchyard of Church of St. Nicholas GV II Chest tomb. Unidentified, 1706. Limestone. Flat top, moulded capping and wide plinth, lyre ends with acanthus returns and high relief cartouche with cherub's head to ends. Recessed moulded rectangular side panels with flanking drapery drops.

Indeed I would be very interested to know if Espresso Addict can identify significant coverage for this listing in the Pevsner series. A farm near where I live has three listed buildings on it (the farm house, the barn, the granary), so that farm is notable now and no need for a WP:CORP pass? But this is the logic of what you are saying. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the listing you mentioned, there are ~18 listed memorials in that churchyard; the attached church is grade I and there's a war memorial, a gII* gatehouse and something called a 'court', which turns out to have been built by the Abbot of Gloucester in the 14th C, as well as a bunch of other listed buildings; I think it extremely likely that one could find other sources sufficient to write a decent article on Standish, Gloucestershire, which for the record appears to be a civil parish, and therefore a legally recognised settlement. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Many grade II entries contain far more information than the examples FOARP has selected. This is an example that I hope is as random as a human can achieve. It is important to bear in mind that the list entries were compiled over a long period of time by many different hands, and their length and detail varies. Three or six examples do not prove anything for a list with the number of entries that this one has, especially when FOARP has generally not disclosed his sampling methods. They are not a statistically significant sample. James500 (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

To be trueful James this is a relatively modern listing of a modernist building which was listed in the lifetime of it's designers. Most of the 360,000+ Grade II listing are properties beyond 100 yrs or more old. Churches and Stately piles definitely have very good listing, and will have mentions probably in Pevsner and on British History Online so would clearly meet GNG. However many domestic properties don't. Take [8] Chalkwell Hall, a grade II listed property which doesn't get a mention in Pevsner and has a very small listing. In fact Pevsner only mentions domestic properties built later on the surrounding Chalkwell Hall Estate. [9] I think Grade I properties and Grade II* are definitely notable and will have had other material than a listing to prove notability. However Grade II are likely not to meet notability on a listing alone, and other secondary sources are needed. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Pevsner does mention Chalkwell Hall. He refers to "The Hall itself . . .". That means Chalkwell Hall. Pevsner is also far from being the only book or other source eg [10], so the Hall might satisfy GNG on the strength of other sources. And sources on the Hall will contribute to the notability of the surrounding manor and estate. I would suggest, to begin with, just putting the hall, manor and estate in the single article at Chalkwell (which be WP:SPLIT if and when it becomes too big) or at Chalkwell Hall, including all three manor houses and the full history of the manor and estate from 1381 onwards [11]. I think we can treat the manor and estate as a settlement that is more than just a building built in 1830. James500 (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have a draft RFC at User:Crouch, Swale/Listed buildings. IMO most Grade I and some Grade II* listed buildings will be notable, exceptions may include ancillary buildings and other unnamed buildings, most Grade II listed buildings aren't notable and should be covered in the listed buildings in X parish list. I think most public buildings like parish churches and pubs even Grade II will be notable as there will normally be other coverage. Otherwise they should be covered in the parish like Listed buildings in Dalston, Cumbria or see de:Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Kauns for an Austria equivalent. I'd suggest modifying GEOLAND and this would likely apply to similar buildings in other parts of the world. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion, the listed buildings in X lists are of limited use to readers (they are of limited use to me as a reader), and it would be better to have (at least in addition to the lists) articles on villages, civil parishes, streets, squares and etc that contain listed buildings. The Dalston article is only 5kB long, and says almost nothing about the buildings. The Dalston civil parish list does not even tell you whether the buildings are in village of Dalston or in one of the other villages in the parish, and the co-ordinates are not a satisfactory subtitute (I as a reader do not find it helpful to have to click on links to find out where something is, or to have to check the whole of a list that is not grouped by location, and which sorts by name and number instead of by village and street). James500 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• If I was writing a notability guideline for grade II listed buildings, it would probably look something like this: "Villages are presumed to merit an article, and the presence of grade II listed buildings in a village increases the strength of that presumption in proportion to the number of listed buildings. A street that includes X number of grade II listed houses is presumed to merit an article." I am not sure what number X should be. In each case the presumption would be rebuttable as usual. Then I would proceed to give a list of specific types of buildings that are presumed to be notable such as castles, medieval churches, Elizabethan manor houses etc. Finally I would point out that a grade II listing means that other coverage in books and periodicals (especially those relating to history and architecture) is likely to exist, and that coverage needs to be considered, and common sense should prevail. James500 (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  If I was writing a notability standard, I would not judge the notability of something by the number of single-paragraph verbatim descriptions in a primary source associated with it. FOARP (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Good reminder to never let you write a notability guideline. There's common sense on one side here, but its not with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: Please remember to comment on content, not a contributor. Thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Both are comments on content, the first is a comment that I would not want someone to create a specific form of content and the second is about what content common sense supports. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back: No, "Good reminder to never let you write a notability guideline. There's common sense on one side here, but its not with you" is absolutely and unambiguously a comment that prioritizes criticizing the contributor. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, we are allowed to prioritize criticizing the contributor in a comment. You will note that is not my only comment, that does not appear to be the case for you... You've made exactly no comments at all about content, you've only commented on a contributor. Note that the whole idea of commenting on a talk page solely to say "Please remember to comment on content, not a contributor" is hypocritical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Moving this discussion to your talk page. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There is absolutely no consensus to add this. It would simply be used as a deletionist's mandate to delete as many articles on listed buildings as possible. I do agree that not every listed house should be regarded as individually notable, as often we have a case where an entire street or terrace is listed, but in these cases the street or terrace should be considered notable and the houses on it described in an article about it. However, named buildings should be regarded as individually notable whether they are Grade II or higher. The wording is fine as it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: do you mean should be presumed to be individually notable rather than "should be regarded as individually notable"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That's what it says! The presumption of notability should stand, with common sense being applied in some cases. You know, that thing that some editors seem to have a distinct lack of and be terribly uncomfortable with employing! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"should be considered notable" and "should be presumed to be notable" are completely different standards, one of which is a recognized wikipedia standard and one of which isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At some point I am intending on creating lots of new articles on listed buildings but yes I don't think they should all be presumed notable. Yes many Grade I and Grade II* and Grade II that are/were public buildings will likely qualify as notable. I think we need to reword GEOFEAT to say that such buildings (whether in England or not) should not be presumed notable. I don't think we should be basing a settlement's notability on listed buildings and lists like Listed buildings in Wharton, Cumbria do a good job for those that don't need separate articles. If a street has many of them then yes that may be an appropriate place to discuss them but in general I'd use the parish lists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Grade II listed buildings are "officially assigned . . . protected status on a national level" within the meaning of the guideline. Further, grade II listed buildings are "national heritage" within the meaning of the guideline, because they are officially classified as being of national importance. Before 1970, the non-statutory grade III listed buildings were listed by local authorities (and not by the national commissions on historic buildings and monuments), were then considered to be of local interest below the level of national heritage, and did not then have the protected status that grade II listed buildings have or any "protected status on a national level" whatsoever. We could not generally exclude grade II listed buildings without removing the entire "protected status on a national level" and "national heritage" language from the guideline. Otherwise we would be creating a systematic bias against the UK. It has been reported that the number of listed buildings relative to population in the UK is similar to other European countries: see the SAVE report described in "Gambling with history" (1979) 250 Estates Gazette 735 (26 May 1979). It does not therefore appear possible to claim that the UK has an unusual, let alone excessive, number of listed buildings. James500 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Otherwise we would be creating a systematic bias against the UK." you made me snort coffee on my keyboard. Systemic bias is there being a large number of extant pre-1887 buildings in London but not in Benin City. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

There are many historic buildings in Asia, in North Africa, and in Central and South America. There are a very large number of historic buildings in, in particular, India and China, which are by far the most heavily populated parts of the non-western world. The historic buildings in China are mainly from the Ming dynasty onwards, but the number of historic sites in China is more than 800,000 according to The Guardian. The number of historic buildings in India is up to 700,000 according to the SCMP, with more than 100,000 monuments according to the Economic Times. The one obvious exception to the norm is Japan, which has a paucity of historic buildings due to the bombing that took place in the Second World War (according to the Hutchinson Dictionary of the Arts), but Japan is one of the richest countries in the world and presumably does not lack for media on its geography and local history. James500 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm saying I don't think all protected buildings in other parts of the world always or at least normally require separate articles. If you look at de:Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Rinn you can see only the church has an article, the other entries don't which is what would probably happen for most parishes in England. For most private Grade II buildings often the only reliable source is the listing, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Thatch, Suffolk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seasons, Suffolk where I argued back in 2010 that they are notable. The fact that the UK has grades unlike other countries (it seems) makes it easier to distinguish on notability. A few years ago I suggested having a bot to create lists of listed buildings for each parish but that never happened and I didn't suggest creating individual articles for every listed building as I didn't think that would be appropriate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The big problem I see here is that, while I'm entirely sure your motives are good, the deletion of the presumption of notability would lead to the prodding or AfDing of hundreds of articles on listed buildings, as deletionists always seize on these weakenings of notability standards to indulge their weird ideas on what Wikipedia should be. The fact is that Wikipedia is not flooded with articles on non-notable buildings because of the existence of this standard, but its existence does prevent mass deletion "just because we can". You might like to look at this list of AfDs of historic buildings. The current presumption of notability has not led to the retention of buildings which genuinely are not particularly notable, but it probably has saved the deletion of some that are. I see nothing wrong with retaining the status quo. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)