Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sites on the Queensland Heritage Register in Toowoomba

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. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of sites on the Queensland Heritage Register in Toowoomba[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as per WP:NOTDIR. This is simply a list of mostly non notable buildings that can easily be found on the heritage register website.. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, easily found elsewhere ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 11:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My understanding is that this list was created so that the Toowoomba page wouldn't be filled with a list and that sites on heritage registers are notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Heritage Register is notable but no policy says lists of mostly non notable buildings are. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - valid split from an overlong article. Nominator has made the fairly basic error of concluding that if the items in a list are not individually notable (and I am not even conceding this - most, if not all of these sites would have enough historic sources available to sustain an article to meet GNG), this somehow means the topic of the list (i.e. Historic buildings in Toowoomba) therefore becomes non-notable. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also note the nominator did not notify the creator of the list (i.e. me - as a split from Toowoomba) about this nomination on my talk page. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you found this AfD in any case. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seem to include heritage property lists in Wikipedia. For example List of heritage buildings in Vancouver. Or master list List of heritage registers. Anything on a register is likely notable, by definition ("heritage" is a general way of saying notable - buildings of historic note). Not that being a heritage property is automatic notability, but good chance would be found notable if researched, thus the red link is justified. Probably do more harm than good to delete an article of heritage properties. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping. The Vancouver article has quite a few notable entries and detailed descriptions. LibStar (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but de-redlink the buildings. The article is harmless, but I do not think we could allow an article on every historic building. Perhaps rename to Buildings on Queensland Heritage Register in Toowoomba. This may encourage someone to write a sentence or two about each building and discourage the creation of two dozen or so useless stubs, most of which will never become more than stubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2013 (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.