Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harbor Beach Community 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor Beach Community House[edit]

[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)

Sourced only to local publications. Deprodded because of the building being over 100 years old, which is not a valid argument. All of the hits on GBooks appear to be directory listings or passing mentions ("...X was a former librarian at the Harbor Beach Community House"), and the only hits on Newspapers.com were similarly trivial ("...X will be holding a program tonight at the Harbor Beach Community House"), with all but a number of said hits being from the Harbor Beach newspaper. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Michigan. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added several references, from multiple sources, to the article since the nomination and above delete vote. I feel WP:GNG is now shown to be met. NemesisAT (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of those is local, routine coverage that does not extend beyond the county. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GNG doesn't require sources outwith the county, it just requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Those conditions have been met. I really don't see why we need to be overly strict on sourcing for a historic building. NemesisAT (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: What I wrote was "Deprodding; community building >100 years old likely to have sources. Needs pruning though" implying that sources exist, thereby meriting a deletion discussion. Which we now have; thanks. No opinion at the moment, but if I don't have time to get back to this for all the other deletions in which I have more interest, then I agree with the above that significant coverage need not extend beyond the locale, as long as it talks about the history of the building or its architecture or similar, rather than just being directory listings or the like. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing about this building in the sources cited that would indicate that it is notable. The mural article doesn't even mention the building, except to say that the mural is to be painted on the building. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mural is part of the building. So I think it's fair to say articles covering the mural help establish notability for the building as a whole. NemesisAT (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's sad to see an article up for deletion without a mention of an alternative to deletion. Verifiable content here could be merged to Harbor Beach, Michigan. NemesisAT (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading the article and the sources I've come to the conclusion that it should be kept. The building is not only "old", it has been an important part of the life of this community for more than a century. The sources, although mostly local, are multiple and reliable. Alan Islas (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic by U.S. standards (>100 yrs old), significant in its community, with multiple substantial sources. --Doncram (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:32, 11 May 2022 (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.