Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widnes Laboratory

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. Missvain (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Widnes Laboratory

[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)

First, if it remains, it should probably be renamed ICI Widness Laboratory, as the few mentions of the place refer to it as that. Second, there are very few mentions of it. It's main and only claim to fame is the development of Halothane there in the early-mid 50s. A thought would be to add a sentence or to the Halothane article in the history section about the ICI lab, but other than that, appears to be a run of the mill lab/factory. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Deprodded without explanation or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim to fame seems quite ample. I find that Mike Peel took a picture of its corresponding blue plaque. (right). It is featured by Historic England in A History of England in 100 Places, having been selected especially for its place in the UK's chemistry heritage.

Note also that the use as a lab followed the site's previous use as a site of the United Alkali Company – one of the components of ICI. There's an extensive paper on that company's Widnes Lab during the First World War and I'm still digesting the details.

As for the PROD, this was disruptive as the page had been newly created in good faith just two days before. The PROD process is only for "uncontroversial" and "uncomplicated deletion proposals" but a landmark in science is obviously not in this category. The nomination complains that no improvement was made but it doesn't appear that the nominator has made any attempt at improvement either. Our policy WP:ATD explains that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And deletion is not improvement; quite the contrary.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew. Blue plaque notable. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also as per Andrew's comments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, notability seems to have been established. Dunarc (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just so we're clear, having a blue plaque is grounds for notability? So the John Dalton Cottage would meet those notability requirements? Or the place where a water pump once stood where John Snow conducted research on deaths from cholera? I don't believe that this lab is on the list of National Heritage List for England (NHLE), or is a Listed building. In addition to say it is "featured" in a book by Historic England might be a bit of a stretch. Online searching is unavailable in that edition. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 24 December 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.