Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Hall (Long Beach, Mississippi)

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. -- Lear's Fool 02:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Hall (Long Beach, Mississippi)[edit]

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

Non-Notable historical site. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a historic site listed on the official List of Mississippi Landmarks. I am not familiar in detail with their exact standards, but the listing would have to be approved by documentation and a reasonably objective process, meeting Wikipedia notability standards. Tag the article for further development. But under-development is not reason for deletion. --do ncr am 02:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It maybe a notable historic site in Mississippi that's pretty much it. It does not meet the criteria of inclusion into Wikipedia. I did a search on Google and Yahoo and there are very limited articles or references about the Masonic Hall in Long Beach, Mississippi and in general does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For many places listed on the National Register, of which there are about 1300 listed in Mississippi, comparable to about 890 Mississippi state landmarks, you would also have trouble finding articles on the internet, and for these i know they are all wikipedia-notable, based on having passed through multiple levels of review against objective standards, and that documentation is available from the National Register upon request. For historic sites, particularly older ones, the formal documentation exists but is not online. There would be local and state newspaper coverage, and other coverage too. Your not finding a lot of info about it in a Google search online is not surprising. The Mississippi Landmarks article describes its review process briefly involving at least 2 levels of government judgment, consistent with Wikipedia notability. --do ncr am 03:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - revisit if article is not actually improved within a reasonable time. - This AfD highlights a broader problem with many of our articles on landmark buildings: We have hundreds of one sentence perma-stubs on landmark buildings, that consist of no information except the fact that the building is listed as a landmark. Whenever these stubs are sent to AfD, the mantra is the same... that documents that will substantiate notability exist somewhere with the land-marking agency. However, no one ever bothers to find these documents and supply a citation to them. This needs to change. Notability should not be based on the assumption of documentation, it needs to be based on actual documentation that can be verified and checked. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should change but that would entail a lot of Historical Societies putting all their records online or doing a Library Crawl. Both big tasks for a Stub. It would be a fair assumption that; if a building is listed, that a Offline Source does exist. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mississippi Landmarks. This entire article is only an elaboration of an entry on the list that is cited as the only article source, and everything in the article can and should be part of the Wikipedia list-article, which does not currently seem to include this building at all. If somebody gets more information some day, a separate article could be created, but at this time there's no purpose to a separate article. --Orlady (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If somebody gets more information some day, a separate article could be created ..." Since that "some day" is today :) , would you consider changing your "merge" to "keep"? Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a keeper now. Congrats on the research you did, Cbl62. And I see that Doncram has added it to the Mississippi landmarks list article. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This one was a challenge and required forking over $2.95 for access to a Biloxi newspaper article, but it does tend to show that these officially designated historic sites will almost always meet notability standards, if we take the time to the time to dig in. Cbl62 (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The designation as a state historical landmark indicates notability. If it's notable enough to be distinguished by the state of Mississippi, then it's notable enough for us.--Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But does that justify having more extensive documentation of this building in Wikipedia than is available in the only cited source (from the state of Mississippi)? --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rename - if the claim to Notability is its historical status, then that is the vein in which the Article should be titled. The Article can then be expanded to show its past and present uses, as well as highlighting its architectural notability. Redirects are cheap enough that this name can remain as such. (no comment on what the name should be.) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can/should indeed be expanded that way, to explain its notability and so on. I agree about Keeping it, don't see a need to rename it, but if a different common name of the place is found then indeed it could be appropriate. --do ncr am 22:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article already has more info (alternative names, address, listing year) than is included for any other item in the Mississippi Landmarks list-article. I just added coordinates and a map displaying the location, which a reader can drill down in on in Google maps view upon clicking on the coords. Deleting this article by merger to the list-article now would lose information, unless the list-article were upgraded to include all that for all entries. IMHO the short article is fine, and conveys properly to Mississippi locals or others that more information would be welcomed. No one is nominating this for one of Wikipedia's best works. --do ncr am 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it written that all entries in a list-article must be equally devoid of meaningful content, or that list entries must be identical to article names (e.g., "Masonic Hall (Long Beach, Mississippi)") instead of being piped to fit the context (e.g., "Masonic Hall, Long Beach"? --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rename. The fact that the building passed the process to be designated as a Mississippi Landmark suffices IMO to establish the building's notability. I've added some additional information about its history and its current use. Since the original use of the structure was by Hancock County Bank and photographs of the building here and here show that the name "Hancock County Bank Building" is emblazoned in the stone work in the facade, that would probably be the most common usage and best naming for the article. ~~I find nothing on usage of the building as a Masonic Lodge, which is probably how it was used after the bank closed there in the 1930s.~~ Also, this source (the post-Katrina Long Beach Master Planbook) at page 4 refers to the building as the Hancock County Bank Building. Cbl62 (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an established principal that every building listed individually on the National or State lists of Historic Landmarks is individually notable. Even if the article is a mere stub identifying it and giving a reference, it's still justifiable, because stubs can be expanded, and there is always for such buildings full 3rd party information available--though not yet always online. Furthermore, the present article is much more than a stub. the proper name of the article is a separate discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 1 August 2011 (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.