Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley House (Fall River, Massachusetts)

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 (non-admin closure) per WP:SNOW, listing on the National Register of Historic Places means the house is prima facie notable. Whpq (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley House (Fall River, Massachusetts)[edit]

does not assert notability for inclusion in WP; lacks citations Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing on the National Register of Historic Places means the house is prima facie notable and therefore stub worthy. There was a citation to the National Register listing (nps.gov). Swampyank (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Registered Historic Places are notable by definition. This policy has been upheld many times. (Don't you people have anything constructive to do?)--Appraiser (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listing on the NRHP means that the historic and/or architectural significance of the structure has been independently verified. Which means it also meets any notability requirements we might have. It also means there's a 4+ page document on this property published when the site was listed, which cites sources. Needs expansion but expansion is essentially guaranteed to be possible. --Rividian (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps Speedy Keep. Absolutely notable per NRHP. JRP (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion standards for the NRHP are much higher than Wikipedia standards. If it's notable per the National Historic Preservation Act, it's notable here. And why was a NRHP site article nominated for deletion within one minute of its creation? --Oakshade (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there may be only one reference, but I think the article should be given time to improve. The subject appears to be notable. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:23, 17 July 2008 (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.