Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Guard Post, Helsinki

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. We now have sourcing, which solves to the earlier question of whether being listed was sufficient. Star Mississippi 01:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Main Guard Post, Helsinki

[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)

While one reference used in the article is offline and I cannot access it, the other two certainly do not indicate notability, and the offline source is used only for a fairly minor point so I suspect that it is a passing mention as well. The second source as of this nomination is a blog, while the third is about the guard regiment and mentions the building only in passing. Searches reveal only map listings and some other mentions, but nothing which would demonstrate notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a heritage-listed building[1] so clearly meets the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBUILDING Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" as required for buildings under WP:NBUILDING. I don't accept that buildings fall within Artificial geographical features. It may be there are Finnish sources that I'm not seeing. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course they do. What else do you think that section is referring to? Artificial hills? Artificial rivers? Artificial islands? Not a lot of those that are heritage-listed. And Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course they don't otherwise why would the buildings section even be necessary? That section refers to burial mounds, stone circles, hill figures etc. Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you've arbitrarily decided which heritage-listed things fall into the category and which don't. What makes you think a stone circle is covered but another structure is not? All are "artificial geographical features" and one is not more notable than the other. It's fairly obvious what the second section refers to. It's saying that if a structure isn't heritage-listed (i.e. is not covered by the first section) then it may still be notable for other reasons. Fairly obvious, I should have thought. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - For someone who maintains numerous lists of what they personally think establishes notability, accusing me of being arbitrary is rich. As usual you claim something to be "fairly obvious" when it isn't at all. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not arbitrary. That's illustrating consensus against deletion in order to undermine the tiresome arguments of deletionists who like to ignore consensus because they personally disagree with it. Incidentally, it appears you're the only one here who doesn't think it's obvious! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Your supposed consensuses and idiosynchratic interpretations of policies and guidelines are arbitrary and tiresome. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some Finnish language coverage from a few minutes in Google:

Yle news story: [2]
Paywalled Helsingin Sanomat story, ~350 words in 15 paras: [3]
Iltalehti story about effects of COVID: [4]
Listed on this website, which has a non-trivial editorial team, with the Editor-in-Chief being a professor of history.

Searching the digital archive of the National Library of Finland shows a couple thousand hits, but I don't have time to look over them and I'd expect a lot to be passing mentions ("so-and-so escaped from/was moved to the main guard post" etc.) with a bunch of false positives thrown in. I'm not sure where to look for potential offline coverage, as architecture etc. are really not my forte, but I'd expect books on the historical Helsinki downtown to mention it. At the same time, I can't point at any specific offline sources that would do so. With all that said, I'm leaning keep on GNG terms alone, with the heritage aspects (per WP:NBUILDING) pushing me clean over. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for the additional sources, I have expanded the article based on them. JIP | Talk 20:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the national heritage list, and I see articles all about it from the national broadcaster and a major newspaper. (I think we have Ljleppan to thank for both; thank you!). A clear notability pass. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:34, 2 July 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.