Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quincy Point Fire Station
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quincy Point Fire Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. I believe this article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, because I could not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just being designated a "historical site" doesn't really establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the key point is that there are over a million buildings designated as "historical" on that list.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's about 80,000 properties on the NHRP list, not "over a million." Besides, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no practical limit to the amount of articles. If there are a million notable buildings, then there can be a million building articles. --Oakshade (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Of the more than one million properties on the National Register, 80,000 are listed individually," is what the NHRP article says.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And this one seems to be listed individually. The other 920,000 are part of historic districts and generally not notable on their own, but only as part of a larger area. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Of the more than one million properties on the National Register, 80,000 are listed individually," is what the NHRP article says.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All buildings on the register have already been determined to be notable by virtue of being on the list. It's not easy to get on it. It's like winning an important award for people. And they are all extremely well-documented by the information on the application if nothing else so are easily verified, from their condition, history, to the reason for significance. Drawn Some (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep NRHP have already been determined to be prima facie notable. Swampyank (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sigh - this isn't just "historical": it's an enrty in the National Register of Historical Properties, and there aren't "a million" of them (did you throw that number because you didn't have anything better to say?). And since the consensus is that they are inherently notable, and no VfD has ever been successful, lets close the debate immediately.--Aldux (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The National Register of Historic Places has much higher inclusion standards than Wikipedia. If it's notable to them, it's notable here.--Oakshade (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query — Please can you link the discussion in which these buildings were "determined to be notable"? If it's based on strong consensus, then I shall withdraw my nomination and close this AfD with apologies.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you're asking for. There's no "discussion requirement" on the notability of specific topics. We go by WP:NOTABILITY and other genre guidelines. By law alone, all places must go through a rigorous documentation application and documentation process (like I said, much more rigorous than Wikipedia's "notability" process) to even be considered for the register and it's all documented with the National Park Service. --Oakshade (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm asking for is either (a) evidence the article complies with the general notability guideline (by which I mean, links to the two reliable secondary sources that give it significant coverage); or (b) evidence there is a consensus on Wikipedia to disregard the general notability guideline for buildings on the NRHP.
I would accept either as sufficient reason to withdraw this nomination as a snow keep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will all NRHP properties there exists a National Register of Historic Places "Inventory/Nomination" or "Registration" document, with accompanying photos, that consists of an inventory of the property, a description of its significance, a summary of history of persons associated with the site, and so on, which is often a 20-30 page document. These are usually written by professional historians and edited by National Park Service NRHP staff. These documents are usually not on-line but may be obtained by request from the NRHP. Any NRHP is notable and its notability can be verified by these documents. To say "I want to see hpyerlinks of this significant secondary coverage or I don't believe it exists" is silly Wikilawyering and willful ignorance.--Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry this strikes you as wikilawyering and willful ignorance, Oakshade.
It doesn't have to be a link, you could also cite the significant coverage in multiple secondary sources by ISBN or ISSN.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- this link cites 6 sources, 5 are probably secondary sources and 4 are books (although no ISBNs are given). They aren't on Google books as far as I can tell. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Chiliad. I'll accept that and close this AfD, with apologies to anyone I offended by raising the matter.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- this link cites 6 sources, 5 are probably secondary sources and 4 are books (although no ISBNs are given). They aren't on Google books as far as I can tell. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry this strikes you as wikilawyering and willful ignorance, Oakshade.
- Will all NRHP properties there exists a National Register of Historic Places "Inventory/Nomination" or "Registration" document, with accompanying photos, that consists of an inventory of the property, a description of its significance, a summary of history of persons associated with the site, and so on, which is often a 20-30 page document. These are usually written by professional historians and edited by National Park Service NRHP staff. These documents are usually not on-line but may be obtained by request from the NRHP. Any NRHP is notable and its notability can be verified by these documents. To say "I want to see hpyerlinks of this significant secondary coverage or I don't believe it exists" is silly Wikilawyering and willful ignorance.--Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm asking for is either (a) evidence the article complies with the general notability guideline (by which I mean, links to the two reliable secondary sources that give it significant coverage); or (b) evidence there is a consensus on Wikipedia to disregard the general notability guideline for buildings on the NRHP.
- Not sure what you're asking for. There's no "discussion requirement" on the notability of specific topics. We go by WP:NOTABILITY and other genre guidelines. By law alone, all places must go through a rigorous documentation application and documentation process (like I said, much more rigorous than Wikipedia's "notability" process) to even be considered for the register and it's all documented with the National Park Service. --Oakshade (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HISTORIC. ZabMilenko 08:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Sorry, didn't notice the failed consensus mark. ZabMilenko 08:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Having some issues finding notability outside of WP:LOCALINT, which is expected of a structure only important to the city of Quincy. If I lived there, this link alone would make me argue fervently for a keep, but policy-wise I do not know of anything keeping the article in wikipedia. If someone can point me at what says NHRP stuff is automatically notable I would consider changing my vote. ZabMilenko 09:18, 5 June 2009 (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.