Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neils Hogenson 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) sst ✈ 10:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neils Hogenson House[edit]

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

Though this building is old, it is not a provincial or national historic site. Being designated a historic site at the local level does not confer notability, and no reliable source is provided to confirm notability otherwise. This good faith creation simply is not notable.

Note: This and similar articles were PRODed and no objections were received within seven days, but this and the others were objected shortly thereafter before they were reviewed by an admin, hence this now being an AfD. The reason for the objection was "Because the articles seem to have merit". Hwy43 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Being designated a historic site and any level is good enough. The worst case would be merger to some more general articles such as Kit houses in North America per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus and expand This individual house does not appear to pass notability, but the Eaton Catalogue houses as a group do. Because of lack of lumber on the prairies, catalogue houses were an important factor for western development, and some of the Eaton houses have had some media coverage. For example, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. If the focus of the article were broadened, quite an interesting article could result, and there would be plenty of references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems acceptable including its historic history. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2015 (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.