Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert and Fay Havens House

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) Power~enwiki (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bert and Fay Havens House[edit]

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

I request deletion of 29 short stub articles on topics of NRHP-listed places in Jerome County, Idaho, because it would be better to have them appear as redlinks encouraging new editors to create articles on these topics if/when they have time and resources to actually develop the topics. As noted at wp:REDLINKS, good redlinks help Wikipedia grow. Currently the articles are traps for readers who might follow a bluelink to the topic, only to find no substantial content. These are all 29 "NRIS-only" stub articles in Idaho, after I and other editors have expanded all other ones previously in the category. I am usually an inclusionist in AFD voting, and I have created and expanded many NRHP articles myself, and I have even been criticized for my own short stub articles, so it is very unusual for me to be nominating this batch. However these are different:

They are short stubs almost all created by one editor in 2012 or so, using an NRHP infobox generator to provide all of the information from the NRIS database, plus their creating a sentence or two of text by extrapolating from the NRIS information (sometimes generating fully accurate statements, sometimes introducing incorrect statements because the bare NRIS data is ambiguous). For example, one article's text is just "The Hugh and Susie Goff House is a house located in Jerome, Idaho listed on the National Register of Historic Places." It was a good bet that the topic is a house, but it is ~~not located in Jerome~~ located _near_ Jerome, not in Jerome. For another it is asserted the place is "near" Jerome, but in fact the place is in Jerome. For many, specific address information available in the list-article based on a location field from NRIS is not provided in the separate article, because the NRIS-based generator draws on a different location field within the NRIS database that sometimes differs. (I am partly informed about this because i programmed using the NRIS database myself.) (amended, --do ncr am 01:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Although NRHP nomination documents are now available as sources which would allow more full development, none of them include such, and there is no information at all in the articles (or no substantial information) which is not already in corresponding list-article, National Register of Historic Places listings in Jerome County, Idaho, so nothing is lost by deleting them.
They don't meet basic requirements for articles that would allow them to be approved by Articles For Creation process. I know from experience, having myself created numerous NRHP articles through AFC process in the past.
Please allow me some leeway in describing the situation with respect to the original author of these articles. I respect the editor who is a valued contributor in many ways and areas in Wikipedia. Their creating the articles was acceptable by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and they did so with good faith. Also the now-online-available NRHP nomination documents which should be incorporated into articles like these were probably not available online then. However in part by this multiple-AFD I wish to send a message that their creating short stub articles like these is no longer welcome.
The original author, although active in Wikipedia today, is possibly over-extended in their editing, and has previously expressed not having interest in expanding similar NRHP articles they created, when invited to develop them cooperatively by me (and possibly by others). The editor has created hundreds of other minimal stub NRHP articles in Oregon and Washington. I see little likelihood they will develop these articles anytime soon. If they respond and say that they will, in order to save these, then I will challenge them to begin a personal development campaign to improve the other hundreds of NRHP articles, instead. Deleting these ones will make little difference. If/when they or any other editor wishes to re-create them with more substantial development, they can do so easily, starting again with the same NRHP infobox generator.
There are other editors who created numerous similar NRHP stub articles, but those editors are not actively doing so. The original author here created other similar NRHP articles as recently as 2016, and in 2017 they have created numerous minimal stub articles on non-NRHP topics and numerous redirects in lieu of stubs, all of which would better be deleted, allowing redlinks instead. (For these non-NRHP ones, there may be future batches of AFDs and MFDs to get rid of them.)
I personally have developed many NRHP stub articles created by this author but I am not happy to continue to do so. The vast numbers they created is overwhelming and depressing for me to consider fixing. At this point I want to make progress by mass-deletion of this batch, and then possibly more and bigger batches. I fear these stub articles are hurting Wikipedia in the NRHP area and other areas by discouraging other editors like myself. If I proceed and fix the mess here, I fear that is enabling this editor to proceed and do the same elsewhere.
Also it is irritating that the original author is monopolizing credit as original author for all these topics, although the editor has disavowed that being their purpose or any motivation at all. I believe the editor is not seeking credit that way, but it prevents new editors from getting the small rush of accomplishment from their getting credit.
The minimal stub articles complicate the process, or at least reduce the enjoyment, for other editors to do DYKs in conjunction with their development of the topics.
I note there will be some loss from deletion, by loss of good categorizing and other minor editing of the articles by other editors. However this is not too significant.

--do ncr am 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles to be deleted are:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. I'll respond as the aforementioned editor. I cannot commit to "saving" these articles, because rescuing 29 articles is nearly impossible, but to say I've expressed not having interest in expanding NRHP stubs is not accurate. I have several Good articles about NRHP sites under my belt, and I've expanded many other articles even if they have not been promoted. I am not going to get in an argument here, but I see deleting these stubs about inherently notable topics as a form of punishment and not a net positive to Wikipedia. You did say in your sandbox that I "need to see [my] contributions deleted, maybe that will start to sink in." I responded to your comments about me there, but received no acknowledgement, which is fine. I acted in good faith by creating stubs for notable topics, and "credit" is not my concern. Life will go on if editors decide to delete these stubs, but I'm just not convinced doing so is necessary. I'll let others decide, and happy editing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry for not acknowledging your response there, but I think we are locked into a difference of opinion about whether such minimal stubs help or hurt Wikipedia, and others' views are needed. This AFD is one forum; there will be others. I had not looked it up before starting this AFD, but User talk:Another Believer/Archive 18#match you on OR nrhp improvements? is the discussion which I interpreted as your declining to be involved in any campaign to develop the Oregon-Washington NRHP stubs. I do respect your ability to develop Good Articles and otherwise contribute on these types of topics. I must object to your statement that "rescuing 29 articles is nearly impossible"; it would be very easy for someone to rescue these if they were interested, I would guess with about 20 minutes time each, because the good NRHP nomination documents are available as sources. I have "rescued" more than a thousand NRHP articles in the last year, myself. --do ncr am 21:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well if they're "easy" to de-stub, and they are about inherently notable topics, I don't understand the purpose of this discussion except your own personal dislike for such stubs. Not to mention, even if standalone articles weren't appropriate, redirecting would be the best course of action because these pages could serve as valid redirects for people searching about these topics. I'm sorry you don't like that I created some stubs 5 years ago, but you don't have a good argument based on policy for deleting these articles about notable topics. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable topics, but it is a sensible editorial decision to delete them, as they would then appear properly as redlinks in National Register of Historic Places in Jerome County, Idaho, which contains all the information in these articles (address, geo-coordinates, date of NRHP listing, etc.). People searching about the topics will find the list-article. I do not have a personal dislike for short stubs which serve a purpose, e.g. perhaps for including a link to a good source available online. My standard is really low here.
Redirecting them to the list-article or somewhere else would be very unhelpful. This is a basic misunderstanding I believe you have: you seem not to get how redlinks serve a purpose, and how redirects or minimal stubs just confound development. This misunderstanding was a major subject of an ANI discussion in which you participated and a related multiple-MFD to delete a big batch of redirects you had created, on topics of an artist's works, when the works had been showing properly as redlinks in a navigation template and in an article about the artist. The decision was to delete them all. I fear you misunderstood the consensus of that ANI and the MFD, and it continues into other areas. --do ncr am 22:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright well let's just agree to disagree and forgive my "basic misunderstanding" despite 10 years of editing. I won't be commenting on this further and will let other editors decide. Take care for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the actual deletion rationale? Are the subjects of the articles notable? If so, there would need to be a strong rationale for deleting existing articles, stubs or not. If you want to encourage expansion of the articles, make a list for a WikiProject to work on, or point the project to a stub category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep NRHP-listed buildings are notable. We are allowed to create stubs. We allow stubs for a reason good; once created, an article is more likely to get expanded. In short, "I don't like stubs" is not an argument. The stub argument has nothing to do with these articles and can be debated elsewhere.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please expand these stubs instead? Much more productive way to spend your/our time.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above keep comments. Stubs are a recognized form of article creation, and since Wikipedia isn't on a time-clock, these will eventually be expanded along the way to 2030. I've thought this many times but have never "said" it, but those giant maps which have been attached to infoboxes are quite annoying and seem out of place size-wise (a 'you are here' notice in giant form). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Stubs are expandable, and worth keeping. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 1) WP:NODEADLINE, 2) because these articles actually do contain more content compared to the National Register of Historic Places listings in Jerome County, Idaho article, and 3) because something is better than nothing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all As someone who's worked on expanding articles that were created as part of this batch (see Allton Building, for instance), deleting these won't make expanding them easier (and I can guarantee you that, while I may have other priorities at the moment, they will one day be expanded into at least a better-looking stub). And at any rate, the subjects of these articles are notable, and deletion is not cleanup; while I don't necessarily approve of this method of article creation, the solution to it is to clean up the articles and not repeat the mistakes of the past, not to delete what's already there. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Allton Building and other Jerome County NRHP articles expanded by TheCatalyst31 are not nominated. Only the ones that no one else got to. And if I myself wanted to develop that county, I would probably prefer to start with the existing stubs. But TheCatalyst31 and I and other fixer-upper editors are limited. There are 1764 "NRIS-only" minimal (<325 byte) substub articles, and 3283 minimal non-NRIS-only ones, too many for us few to get to, anytime soon. --do ncr am 02:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all As per above. Having these stubs causes no harm; I don't really see a policy-based reason. Even the DYK reason point is not well-reasoned - my last DYK was a 1500 character article I expanded to over 7000. These would be really easy to expand 5x. MB 01:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Responses :*The deletion rationale is that this is an editorial decision about where in Wikipedia the topics are covered now to the extent that they are covered now, and choosing for that coverage be in the list-article, which is certainly acceptable Manual of Style-wise. Choosing to remove misleading duplication. Choosing not to disappoint readers who click on the bluelink, but rather to inform them the topic is notable but we have not written about it yet. It is okay and good for a set of editors to organize their development of a topic area as they wish, e.g. like wp:SHIPS has long done by listing out ships needing articles in navigation templates. I tend to think ships editors would be outraged if you or I went through List of Liberty ships (A–F) and created one-sentence stubs like "SS A. P. Hill" was a Liberty Ship built in 1942" for the hundreds of remaining redlinks in that list-article. Nor do I think they would accept being told that they cannot operate that way.

Also I see this flurry of responses on the "Keep" side, but I don't see representation on the side of deletion which was strenuously represented in WikiProject NRHP previously. There have been extravagant expressions of distaste for stub articles, including labelling them "substubs" and tallying them at User:NationalRegisterBot/Substubs. All 29 of these are tallied there. Several hundred NRHP articles in Ohio and other states have in fact been deleted over the past couple years, articles which could have been developed (and which I was in fact developing but I only got to about half of them) which had been created by an editor who turned out to have been banned under another username. How are these !votes consistent with all the previous criticism?
I am concerned that there should not be merely a kneejerk response, in the same way that I and other NRHP editors have responded with solidarity against any outsiders nominating NRHP articles for deletion, over many years, when the outsider was saying the topics were not notable. Typically in those cases I and others have developed the articles in question, during the AFD in process. Here, I do acknowledge that the topics are notable, and that anyone could write an article if they actually will, but no one is choosing to do so. (And while I and editors commenting above are actually developing many NRHP articles, there is no reason why these 29 should be developed instead of what else we were doing.) Please note the consensus of notability for the topics will continue to be represented by the list-article's display of redlinks. --do ncr am 02:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator would do well to read the essays at WP:TEARDOWN and WP:NODEADLINE. Nobody has expanded the articles yet, but editors expand stubs every day on Wikipedia. The stubs are more likely to be expanded if they exist and have linked references that provide material to expand them. Redlinks are far less inviting to editors than stubs with references. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while I agree with the nominator in that these articles need some serious expansion I don't think deletion is the right answer. There is the possibility for expansion, in fact it's a probability because these people appear to be notable. Sources exist but someone interested in the area needs to add them. Maybe the article creator? If not, I would be in favour of a userspace draft move. DrStrauss talk 15:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a valid deletion rationale. Stubs contain valuable information. Regarding encouraging creating of red-links - this could be encourage in other ways (for instance by marking "low quality" links).Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i just randomly chose one - Jerome City Pump House, i don't see anything wrong with it, it tells the reader what it is, when it was built and by whom, shows where it is located and has a picture of it, all in all a great little stub, could the nominator please state what more they want?, looks like a case of i don't like them, can a helpful admin please speedy close this snowy afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale presented, as I understand it, is that they want this to be a redlink so that editors reading articles referencing these will be tempted to click and create a new article - at a level above the current stubs. This is not a valid rationale IMHO.Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the specific question, User:Coolabahapple. The Jerome City Pump House article's text consists of just this: "The Jerome City Pump House is a water works building located near Jerome, Idaho that was built in 1922 by stonemason H.T. Pugh. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1983." Its only reference is to the NRIS database, and the text is constructed by guessing what the database info means. In this case, the author guessed wrong that it is "near" Jerome, because in fact it is in Jerome. I myself had some time ago added about the stonemason H.T. Pugh having built it, when I was developing the H.T. Pugh article. That article has nothing not in the Jerome County list-article, at least not after I just added "It is a water works building built in 1922 by stonemason H.T. Pugh." to the list-article. And in fact the list-article has more: it has the specific location, "600 block of E. B St." which is not in the Jerome City Pump House article because the NRHP infobox-generator tool used to create it fails to grab that info from NRIS.

My proposal is not to delete any information, because it is all in the list-article (or will be, with a very few edits mentioning the stonemason added there). I believe it is a valid editorial decision when to split out information from a bigger article, and one is not required to split it out just because a subtopic might notable on its own. It does readers a disservice to have the article split out, IMO.

Creation of these specific articles was not opposed in 2012, so my opposition now is not timely about these, I will grant that. I also grant that this AFD is not trending towards "Delete", but I am not wasting time, I am serious with my concern and questions. Could editors considering this please comment on whether they would go along with deletion if the articles were just created just recently, though? And assuming/accepting my opinion that the consensus of WikiProject NRHP is that we do not want articles like these. Could editors comment on whether a WikiProject or other group of editors developing things in a certain way, using redlinks on a navigation template and/or list-articles, like in List of Liberty ships (A–F), have any right to control the pacing and process of development? To me it seems that creating mere redirects or truly minimal stubs can be considered wp:DISRUPTIVE.

Also I don't think anyone is addressing the fact that these articles really would not be accepted by wp:AFC Articles For Creation, could anyone speak to that please? --do ncr am 21:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what are your policy-based deletion criteria? There is a helpful list at WP:DEL-REASON. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really it is a matter of editorially choosing not to host duplicative information, choosing not to split out material with no additional content. Off that list (which states that it does not include all valid deletion reasons), I suppose the closest is reason #4, the articles are redundant "content forks": WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The split-out articles have no content different than the main article. They should be merged back in (i.e. any very small shreds of info in a few cases, namely several mentions by me of one stonemason, are to be moved to the list-article's description column). I suppose they each could then be redirected to the corresponding row in the list-article, and this AFD can be closed, leaving it to a separate MFD process to delete the redirects because, I suppose, WP:RFD#DELETE reason #10. --do ncr am 02:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. No valid policy or guideline related deletion rationale. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Using 'Would not b accepted at AfC' is not an official argument; unlike Page Curation or here at AfD, AfC is a Wikipedia:WikiProject with no official status in policy - furthermore it's riddled with its own problems. Finally, listed buildings are on a government register and unless it's a hoax, they are kept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The question has to be whether we can allow an article on every singe place on NRHP. We do not allow articles on every listed building in UK, which is somewhat equivalent. What we are asked to discuss here is a series of 29 placeholders for stub articles. Sometimes the best solution is to merge them all into a single list article, until such time as a substantive article can be produced. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is anyone able to show that articles need to be "substantive", whatever that means, and should not be stubs? at Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) it states "Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable.", lets have a look at Gazetteer - "A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas." which is exactly what these stubbies are doing. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is wp:NOPAGE, a section of Wikipedia:Notability guideline, about when separate pages are not needed. It takes some interpretation, but I take that to support the idea that we are allowed to weigh the pros and cons, and to decide not to have separate pages yet, when all the info is in the list-article. This is not about whether the 29 topics are notable if an editor would actually make an effort to include sources and develop them, it is about the Wikipedia:Editing policy. (BTW, some side discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E&BV Subdivision (2nd nomination) bears on this. Maybe AFD is the wrong forum to discuss this, in practice, though I am not sure it has to be this way). --do ncr am 01:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi doncram, thankyou for the info but i remain unswayed from keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2017 (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.