Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historic properties in Buckeye, Arizona

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic properties in Buckeye, Arizona[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:IG and WP:LISTCRITERIA. Only the Buckeye Union High School and Hassayampa River Bridge are listed on the NRHP. The rest of the photos and descriptions are of local, non-notable buildings. The history of Buckeye should be placed on the Buckeye, Arizona article. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Buckeye Union High School and Hassayampa River Bridge are listed on the NRHP as stated, however that in itself does not make those the only properties with historical significance in Buckeye. There are many properties which are listed as such by the Buckeye Valley Historical and Archaeological Society and those are the ones listed on the article. Evidence of this claim can be found in the following reliable sources: Buckeye Parks and Recreation Master Plan and The Early Days of Buckeye, Arizona. These are properties which are important in the history and the development of Buckeye and as such may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. I have tried in the past to include them in the Buckeye article, but the nominator removed many of the images and changed the format. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - This is a "list" and as such lists tend to provide images, not for decoration, but to visually describe the subjects discussed within. Example: List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War II and National Register of Historic Places listings in Alabama. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LISTCRITERIA. The Buckeye Pharmacy is not considered "notable" the same way an NRHP property is. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Buckeye, Arizona#National Register of Historic Places already has a more complete list of historic places. Places recognized by local groups aren't worth compiling in general. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - Your link does not lead to a "Buckeye, Arizona#National Register of Historic Places" as intended. The section and images in the article were completely removed by the nominator. It should be noted that one end of the historic Gillespie Dam Highway Bridge is located in the municipal jurisdiction of Buckeye and the other in the municipal jurisdiction of Gila Bend. Plus, the historic Hassayampa River Bridge is located on the Old US 80 of the municipality of Buckeye which includes the communities of Liberty, Arlington, Palo Verde, Verrado and Buena Vista.

This map shows both the dam and bridge outside Buckeye's city limits. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In another note, the structures listed are recognized as historical by a local governmental organization and not just by any local group or groups. Every city has an organization which determines which structure is historical. In this case it is the Buckeye Parks and Recreation Master Plan, a local government agency. This is not the job of the NRHP. Once they do that, they have the option of filling out a National Register of Historic Places form and submitting it. However, just because a property is not listed in the NRHP, does not mean that it is not historical in accordance to the the town or city criteria. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Reformat in a manner similar to New Rochelle Historic Sites or List of Town of Oyster Bay Landmarks. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep [was "Keep"], although editing is needed / would improve the article. Some negative tagging would justified, because the article is somewhat promotional and grandiose, stepping beyond what is claimed in the itself-promotional "Master Plan" document. For example, currently the article claims "Some of the structures are listed in the National Register of Historic Properties" which is an overstatement; it should just name the ones that are (which I think is just one, the high school building). It also makes overstatement and/or nonsensical statement: "Those that are not listed are considered historical by the Buckeye Parks and Recreation Master Plan and therefore, determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under criterion 'A' because of its association with the locally important history of reclamation and is a Section 4 (f) resource." The "Master Plan" suggests that two historic districts might be proposed for NRHP listing; that is far from anyone having determined anything eligible for NRHP listing, which is a phrase that has a very specific meaning (the NRHP itself determines that something is NRHP-eligible although not NRHP-listed sometimes in the case of NRHP nominations that meet all criteria for eligibility but where the owner objects to listing). To be clear, the town does not get to determine what is NRHP-eligible. Note, however, that buildings mentioned in the "Master Plan" are not equivalent to Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments or other local historic registry items which have individually been considered and designated by a local legislative body. Here there is no local historic register. To be clear, the town has not specifically designated any of these as official historic resources of the town. The town council or whatever could do that, but they have not. I think it is still okay to have an article about the local historic resources, but it should be edited to be truthful and careful about its claims. --do ncr am 01:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truly an excellent suggestion. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see the article was adjusted slightly. (It is a bit irritatingly vague and/or overstated still. It still claims at least twice that "some" of the buildings are NRHP-listed, when in fact only one located in Buckeye is. A change made to be more accurate was tagged "minor", as if to assert there was/is nothing wrong with the article.) Upon further reflection, it is really weak, and perhaps selective merger back into the Buckeye article is better. There is nothing particularly notable about the individual buildings listed. It is fine for Commons to have pictures of them and for that Commons category to be linked from the Buckeye article. But the documentation for most or all of these places is merely mention in the promotional-type parks & recreation plan document. They are mentioned there as having potential to be included in a future National Register historic district or two, if/when somebody actually did proper research about them and actually did determine them to be significant. The city council having approved of that plan does not constitute city action on any one of the buildings individually. --do ncr am 21:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (quip) 17:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - The list in my opinion should be retained as is. It is a well written list which serves as an educational visual instrument for those who are interested in the history of Buckeye and Old West architecture of the town which it reflects. Attempts were made in the past to include the list as a gallery in the article of Buckeye, however the format of said list was tampered with, images removed and finally the whole gallery section was also removed.

1. The list in question does not violate any of the following deletion policy criteria:

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion

Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria

Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish

Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)

Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

Redundant or otherwise useless templates

Categories representing overcategorization

Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy

Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace

Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

2. The list does not violate what policy considers as not suitable for an encyclopedia: The following content is not suitable for an encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site
Wikipedia is not a directory
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
Wikipedia is not a newspaper
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Wikipedia is not censored

3. The structures whose images are in the list have been considered as historical by a local Buckeye government agency and therefore are deemed as notable in accordance to policy:

An accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

Tony the Marine (talk) 02:36, 6 April 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.