Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Black House

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) Thanks, RyRy (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Black House

No reason given on why this house is notable. -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous to think there is any reason to delete this entry. For one thing, I haven't even finished completing all of it yet, and it is definitely a notable artifact. For any history buffs in the southwest Virginia region, there is great significance. The Town has rescued this historic property that has rich history and relevance, and it has a unique role in the Blacksburg Museum which is in the works as well. All of this is to be explained in the article shortly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuadelung (talk • contribs)

The above comment overwrote the afd. I fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I accidentally changed it apparently. As I said before, I'm not sure why this article was marked for deletion by the user above. This is a historical landmark, and that in itself makes it a notable structure. If Wikipedia is supposed to be a forum of encyclopedia-like articles, then historical sites should definitely be included among these articles. As you can see now, I have better finish on the article than 15 minutes ago when the above user tagged it for whatever reason. There are now photos that show some of the evolution the house has undergone, and future articles involving the history of the town of Blacksburg, Virginia that I plan to write will link even more relevance to this article, as it is going to be part of a much larger project called the Blacksburg Museum. Joshuadelung• —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article also appears to be a copied and pasted for the most part from [1]-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 02:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
g12 as copyvio from this. No prejudice against re-creation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Stubify and weak keep per Edison. May be notable after all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TenPoundHammer has stubbed the article down and removed the cut and paste copyvio. Edison (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The house is not particularly old or architecturally significant. The article presently lacks reliable and independent sources to prove notability, but the efforts that the article claims the town of Blacksburg has made to preserve it imply there might be references for notability. Are there books, magazines or newspaper articles with substantial coverage of the house? If so, add them to the article in the next few days during the course of the AFD. The ref to the city of Blacksburg site does not mention the house, but [2] does. Google News has 50 articles about "Alexander Black House" [3] from the Roanoke Times, some with substantial coverage, which argues for notability. See [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] (which says the house is "No. 1 on the list of Blacksburg's endangered historic buildings") If the present article is a copyvio, it should be stubbed rather than deleted. Edison (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that the copyvio has been removed, there seems to be enough secondary source coverage to develop an honest article. According to sources, the Black House is up for formal recognition. It's pending but sufficient historic interest appears to there. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hope, however, that someone can add significant information that does not deal with future events. We could use the site mentioned in the page's original version as a source... --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the house has a history associated with the founding family of the town. I added some history of the house from the town of Blacksburg's site. The town thought enough of the house that they paid to preserve it, and there's a chance it could become part of the Blacksburg Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. That seems significant enough. And, by the way, who in the world would put vinyl siding on a Queen Anne style house? That's almost a crime against architecture. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep afd is not cleanup nor cite, if you wanted this improved, then it would have taken 5 minutes of research to determine and support notability. it's notable.--Buridan (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep- how silly. If a thing doesn't show notability but does actually have it, fix don't delete. If I see no assertion of notability, I check for myself via google news etc [8] rather than just attempting to kill. Sticky Parkin 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with good ol' Sticky Parkin. So now that everyone is in agreement, when will the marked for deletion tab at the top be removed? Joshuadelung (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Joshuadelung[reply]

not yet. The tag stays until the debate is closed. Unless the nomination is withdrawn or WP:SNOWBALL is invoked, we'll just have to wait. In the mean time, doing what we can to improve the article won't hurt. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's close it. What can be done to close the debate? It seems there is little debate. From reading above, I noticed really only one user who ever had a problem with the article, and it seems there are quite a few votes to keep the article. Sorry if it's a dumb question, but let's end the debate, get the speedy deletion tag removed, and continue improving the article... though I felt the original version was much more architecturally and historically informative... it was not documented with enough varied sources and it was mostly directly quoted material. However, it was not information that under copyright and there was permissive use, though it wasn't really needed from government-created materials from what I understand of the copyright laws. At any rate, let's restore the article as much as possible with more varied sources and quit debating for no reason. Process for the sake of process is something that Wikipedia discourages anyway. Joshuadelung (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Joshuadelung[reply]

1) The AfD will automatically be closed in just a couple more days, so I don't see the rush. 2) Most works of the federal United States government are copyright-free, but all other governmental entities in the US own the right to the copyright of anything they produce; although some release their material, the website in question specifically has "© 2008 Town of Blacksburg, Virginia" on every page of their website, so Wikipedia cannot have verbatim copies of that website's content. Shawisland (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2008 (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.