Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, California

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 delete. There were some calls for keeping all or some of the article, possibly via a merge or draft, but the "History"-section of Healdsburg, California already contains the verified historical landmarks in the city leaving nothing more to merge from this article. Since Healdsburg is a small city with only a small number of historic landmarks it would be easier to expand that section than trying to rescue this article via the draft namespace. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, California

[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)

As discussed at User talk:MikeVdP, this list-article is not adequately supported. I propose that it be deleted outright, or moved to Draftspace. A list-article on the topic of historic sites designated by the city/town of Healdsburg, and also including any historic sites within Healdsburg that have been designated by higher-level governments, would be acceptable in Wikipedia, if adequate sourcing were provided. For example, newspaper articles, and especially some sources establishing what is the correct proper noun name for Healdsburg's official designations. So far, here, there is documentation somewhat supporting fact of potential historic sites being surveyed (often a preliminary step to historic designations) but there is not outright coverage of the topic as would meet requirements of WP:LISTN. The creating editor has a big workload already to address sourcing and other problems of other list-articles, and has been cooperating, but this one has lagged and would best be removed from mainspace. Doncram (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLAR – A short cut and edit and paste into the city article will work nicely. And then we can close this AfD with no further ado. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Including the table in the article on the City would be fine. It can be found and used. Since there are so few items, this could be good. Thanks.MikeVdP (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, there is nothing to merge. And a point of this AFD is have the article creator hear from other editors, not just from me, that they cannot put unsupported material into Wikipedia mainspace. Note, there is already statement in the Healdsburg article that "The Healdsburg Carnegie Library, now the Healdsburg Museum, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as is the Healdsburg Memorial Bridge," and there is no other useable content. The article creator is suggesting that a table in the edit history of the article (deleted by me from the article), that is not supported by sources, would be put into the Healdsburg article. And "List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, California" is not a plausible text string that a reader looking for "Healdsburg" would accidentally type into a Wikipedia search bar. I now support outright deletion more strongly, rather than moving to Draftspace. If the article creator would agree to develop in Draftspace, then that would be okay by me and I would even help there. But so far they are not seeing the need to work in draftspace, and are suggesting they will make what amounts to an end-run around Wikipedia requirements, by putting it into Healdsburg article instead. Think of it: could every AFD be ended, by moving offending (unsupported) material to a different article? --Doncram (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 19:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I further realize some or all of the Healdsburg items may also be included in a different list-article, that also needs to be deleted IMO, per other discussion at creator's Talk page. ~~Expect to open AFD for that soon.~~ See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonoma County Historical Society list of landmarks. --Doncram (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 00:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are some sources, but they are not in the article and might not be significant coverage. If someone wants to draftify it and work on it, go ahead. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But that link goes just to a compilation of Wikipedia links/materials (invalid for Wikipedia to cite). --Doncram (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support the move to draft space if quality sources can be found and incorporated. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Draftify per Doncram. desmay (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

retain

The heart of the concerns about this article seemed to be that eight of the Designated Historic Buildings were documented only by their inclusions on two lists officially published by the City of Healdsburg. After much digging, the individual City Ordinances have been identified and referenced. See the talk page for the article. The City of Healdsburg is an official, incorporated city. It has a long 19th century heritage. It has established and renewed its historical preservation work. The buildings have been formally assigned recognition by the City Council. The list article seems like a good one.MikeVdP (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doncram's arguments for delete, and only for delete (not merge / return to draft) — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.