Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Arkansas City High School

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. Neutrality^talk 04:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Old Arkansas City High School[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The place no longer exists independently and is now a hall in another school, Cowley Community College, in whose article all the relevant, historical information is already presented. Subject fails WP:GEOFEAT. Deleting this page and placing a redirect to Cowley would be the sensible move. The Gnome (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification This AfD is not about a school. It's about a building. The subject of the contested article no longer exists. Its building, refurnished, is part of the campus of a college that already has an article in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep. High schools are inherently notable, and notability does not vanish whenever a school (or any other institution for that matter) closes. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 12:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Didn't you read the clarification above? This AfD is not about a school! (As to whether or not "schools are inherently notable," the jury is still out on that one. But this is an altogether irrelevant issue. We're not talking about schools.) -The Gnome (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Delete. I have been informed that consensus regarding the notability of schools was not what I imagined it to be. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG; no reliable secondary sources. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 12:57, Sunday, June 3, 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which usually has sufficed to turn aside AFDs, because the standards for NRHP listing (including explicit standards given in guidelines for NRHP listing, experts' judgment, multiple levels of review and approval, documentation, bibliographies of sources, etc.) are generally higher than Wikipedia's notability standards. It is notable for its architecture and history. From the NRHP nomination document "The old Arkansas City High School is an outstanding example of the stonecutter's art. The fine detail and workmanship evident on the exterior make it one of the city's architectural landmarks. The building is also significant*to the educational development of Arkansas City, having served the community since 1890.". Article could be tagged for more development.

Merger to the community college article would be an alternative to deletion (and we are obliged to seek wp:ATDs), and would be obviously superior to outright deletion. However there is not much sensible overlap; the community college article is and should be about the school, and not about the fact of architectural and historic significance of one of its buildings, not necessarily an important one to the community college (I don't know about that actually). Simply keep is better, with tagging for further development. --Doncram (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is disputed is the independent notability of the hall in Cowley college; not its notability as a building per NRHP. Hence, the proposal to delete & merge (even though there's nothing more in here than what is already in the Cowley article). -The Gnome (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:DENY - FloridaArmy is under a community sanction preventing them from creating articles. Creating one over a redirect is still creating.Exemplo347 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a stretch. I created the article. The fault here is The Gnome's outrageous or BOLD edit, in this redirect, which eliminated the article on June 3, and put this into play. If FloridaArmy did not revert that edit, I certainly would have, as is proper under wp:BRD or under stronger reasoning of reverting near-vandalism. There is no way the elimination of the article would qualify under any Speedy criteria, and a PROD would be removed, and elimination by redirect is even further out of order, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't allow emotions to get the better of you, Doncram. I suggested a merge back in April 2018, but no response came. Some two months following that, I redirected the article. I never nominated this for a Speedy Delete. FA immediately reverted the tag. So, instead of edit warring, I nominated the article to be deleted and merged. All according to procedure. Please do not use words such as "vandalism" so casually. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal is fine, which had barely started; i was just pinged by the first participant, and was coming to see what was going on. You then violated process by redirecting it, pre-judging the merger proposal. Also opening the AFD seems inappropriate given the merger proposal outstanding. There is no way that an outright deletion is appropriate, so IMHO it is wrong to open an AFD, and doubly so given a process underway to consider merger. --Doncram (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on wikilawyering yet again, can I point out that by reverting the merge the "process" was effectively stalled. AfD is as good a place as any to progress things in these circumstances, given that we do not have WP:Articles for Merger. FloridaArmy is notoriously inept and you are bound to favour keeping it as the creator. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an organized process for mergers including having an uninvolved administrator close a given discussion: see wp:MERGE. Here there was a merger discussion in process, which was not closed. No need for personal attacks against FloridaArmy or myself. --Doncram (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also, the high school is notable as a school on its own, per User:SwineHerd's comments, despite The Gnome's protestations; once notable, always notable. The article currently is about the building, but it is perfectly fine for it to be developed about the high school per se, its alumni, etc. We don't need two separate articles about the high school, like we usually just have one article for any church and its current/past buildings. --Doncram (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not assume inherent notability for schools; not yet, anyway. So, has anyone found any sources that give substance to the claim of the school possessing independent notability? All we have is the building, which is now a hall, already having its own text in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome's claim/implication that the building's architecture and history is fully covered in the community college article is just false. Description of the size, architecture, materials, story of a builder going into bankruptcy due to cost overruns and a requirement to finish stonework in the basement, etc., etc. based on the NRHP document, would not be appropriate in the community college article. --Doncram (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into a back and forth about what's already there and what's missing, let's just agree that everything that is not already there can be, and quite easily too. And I repeat, this is not about a school article. -The Gnome (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely about that. --Doncram (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up changing the comments you mentioned. *Not* all high schools are notable; in fact, per WP:ORG and WP:GNG, schools must be covered in reliable secondary sources. Which this one is not. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 14:50, Sunday, June 3, 2018 (UTC) 14:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry i did not follow your change of position. I disagree about schools, but let's leave it for elsewhere to debate the RFC about schooloutcomes and about the general advisability of Wikipedia choosing editorially to shut down interest of thousands of beginning editors who create articles about schools, etc. There is no way this topic is not notable on building history and architecture, reflected in NRHP listing, alone, so let's just agree about that and withdraw this AFD, and also choose not to allow this AFD to be used to harass FloridaArmy. --Doncram (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, we are engaging in "vandalism"; now we are "harassing" people. What next? This does not do your credibility any good, Doncram. I sincerely wish you step back from the cauldron of emotion. -The Gnome (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you are twisting my words, both about vandalism and harassment. I did not say what you are implying I said. --Doncram (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not characterize the redirect I did as "near vandalism"? Did you not demand that this AfD, which I initiated, should not be used "to harass" another user? No one is "twisting" your words. If you regret writing them, just say so. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The building itself is notable, as are pretty much all properties on the National Register of Historic Places; the National Park Service has higher standards for listing properties than we do for notability. Most of its history came before the community college bought it, so I'm not convinced that it belongs as a section of that article, and at any rate AfD isn't the place for merge discussions. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does the National Park Service have to do with anything? -The Gnome (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The National Park Service oversees the National Register of Historic Places and its nomination process. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:GEOFEAT policy does not state that inclusion in the NRHP automatically confers notability. The relevant paragraph about buildings is, in its entirety, as follows: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Note plural in "sources" and the term "significant." But even if we accept the automatic notability supported by the Keep suggestions, let's not forget there are more than one million properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Do we call for the creation of one million articles? -The Gnome (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCatalyst31. The building was notable enough in 1973 for the state historical agency to nominate it for the National Register and for the NRHP to approve the nomination. Its notability has been well documented by experts since then, if not before. As far as the "one million properties" on the NRHP - most of these are in historic districts. This is a stand alone site. The total of stand alone sites + historic districts is under 100,000. And yes we have articles for about 70,000 already and look forward to another 30,000 or so. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:GEOFEAT states: "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." That should cover it completely. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOFEAT has separate paragraphs for buildings and for artificial geographical features. This means that the notability criteria for buildings are explicitly different from the criteria for constructs like a dam or a bridge. What you wrote is irrelevant. -The Gnome (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reasonable way to read the three bullet points in the "Buildings and objects" section pointed to by WP:GEOFEAT is that buildings and objects "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable" whereas buildings or objects that are not so designated require additional third party sourcing and some infrastructure objects such as dams are more properly covered in articles about the geographic features where they are constructed. This NHRP-listed building is, accordingly, presumed to be notable. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that further down in the policy it explicitly states that "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Ergo, NHRP does not convey inherent notability for buildings. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 04:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those "experts" who testify to the building's independent notability, "since [1973]" or "before"? Beyond NRHP, do we have anything else? This is the gist of the nomination, see. No one and no thing possesses inherent notability in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk)

@The Gnome: you've made over a dozen edits to this nom. It's time you do some listening to other folks. Telling me that my opinion is "irrelevant" is a problem, take a break. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to sit back and listen to anything relevant. So far, we only have zero sources beyond NRHP and citing irrelevant policy. -The Gnome (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should focus on the achitectural history while the community college can talk about the school itself. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge (sorry, I accidentally posted this comment in the wrong place first time round. :I'm inclined to agree about the merger (originally proposed in April, although a listed building is, as Doncram said, notable for being a listed building. In my experience, it's not unusual for us to make articles about listed buildings under their new name, e.g. Ulster Museum, Mar Hall, Playmakers Theatre. If the article were significantly expanded, it might be appropriate to have two separate articles for readability purposes.Deb (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT NRHP listing and discussion about the two above at Smallbones's !vote. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NRHP listing is enough to show it is notable. Indyguy (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was initially torn between keep and merge... but what settled this for me was reading the nomination document at the NRHP website (here). Had that document discussed events and personages associated with the building, I would have said that the building's history is what makes it notable (and, since being part of a larger campus is also part of the building's history, I would have said merge it into the article on the larger campus). However, the document barely mentions the historical aspects, and instead goes into great depth about the buildings architecture (calling it "an outstanding example of the stonecutter's art" and noting "The fine detail and workmanship evident on the exterior"). The fact that the building is now part of a larger campus is actually irrelevant to that architecture. It would be notable for that architecture no matter what was around it, or who owned the building. I do completely agree that the article's title should be Ireland Hall (as I think the more modern name will be more recognizable, and thus better meet our WP:Article titles policy)... however, this isn't the place to discuss that (for name changes see WP:RM... not WP:AFD). Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to respond here because the editor has moved numerous articles on NRHP-listed places to temporary "current" names, when the long-standing permanent name of the place was deliberately chosen in the NRHP listing name. This sometimes amounts to trashing/near-vandalism of Wikipedia articles; I have recently been coming across a number of these and reverting the moves. Often/usually the "sources" used to support a name such as "Adams Sewing and Vacuum Center" are gone from the internet, because the temporary business is long gone, while the "Masonic Lodge" name used in the NRHP nomination and permanently emblazoned across the top of the building, continues to be used by history books and by city/locality plaques and common usage. The permanent names chosen in NRHP naming tend to persist and resurrect, and we should not go with "Spooky's Halloween Costumes" or "Monroe County History Museum which will last 10 minutes" or the like. They don't need the promotion / it is inappropriate to promote "The Antique Emporium" or whatever. The name in Wikipedia should usually reflect the permanent long-term significance. Per NRHP naming guidelines, that's what the NRHP name does.

So, no, User:Blueboar, I don't think anyone here "agrees" about changing the name, or at least no one agrees that it would be obviously better to go with the current community college name. The building is known and notable as "Old Arkansas City High School" or "Arkansas City High School". There is documentation at the time and since on its architecture, as having been built at that name. Probably nothing about its architecture appears under "Ireland Hall" name. --Doncram (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't the venue for discussing what the title of the article is. However, I suggest that you read our WP:Article titles policy (especially the section on name changes) and the essay WP:Official name. We don't do things here on Wikipedia the same way the NRHP does things. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National Register of Historic Places are notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge - Restore the redirect from this version and merge the content to that article. I agree that the content is notable as a listing on the National Register of Historic Places, but the content relevant to it being a building on the Cowley Community College campus. (Although I was tempted to vote Deny because the article was created from a redirect by a user that was sanctioned/prohibited from creating articles.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability of this building evidenced by inclusion in NRHP. MB 01:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has enough sources to show independent notability of the building. There is no good reason to merge or redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Independent notability established. There's enough to make this a decent article separately from that about the college. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being on a register of historic places is a sufficient claim of significance; the article is in a state that would qualify it as a WP:TNT delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the documentation for a successful NRHP nomination alone is more than enough to satisfy GNG. There is a reasonable presumption that numerous sources exist for any public school in the US; the strength of that presumption increases with the age of the school. Notability is not temporary is a very strong keep argument for this article. I see no merit whatsoever in either of the nominators arguments, and neither does the community in general. The school was notable when it was extant; hence it still is. The building is notable enough solely on the merits of achieving an NRHP designation. Even the author of the last school RfC had stated that it was so poorly crafted as to be meaningless. Outcomes since have shown that to be true. Sorry, whether you like it or not: high schools are virtually always going to be notable. John from Idegon (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After voting, it dawned on me that we actually have three articles containing details about the same building. A more logical place to put the information about the building, it seems to me, is within the Arkansas City High School (Kansas) article, where there is already a photograph of it. Assuming this nomination fails, I might put in a redirect request accordingly. Deb (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Deb, that article is one of Florida Army's stellar creations. From a school article standpoint, it should be completely re-written, a task I'm planning on taking on as soon as the community decides what they are going to do about its creator. Perhaps Doncram and I could work together so the history of the school in the old building could be used as a partial content fork of the history section of the school article. It's clear that an NRHP building is notable in its own right, and so is the school. Carrying them as two separate articles with appropriate cross references seems the much neater solution to me. John from Idegon (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building itself is notable, and regarding notability for the high-school - notability is not temporary (though the question is whether, as schools (as opposed to the building), whether Old Arkansas City High School and Arkansas City High School (Kansas) are separate or the same).Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, may as well pile on here, meets WP:GEOFEAT due to being on the NRHP, the article's references, and the consensus here. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By inclusion on the NRHP means that the building's significance has been verified by people on the local, state, and national levels. The article may need some work, but the building is independently notable beyond the institutions that have used it. Farragutful (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep registered on NRHP is a slam-dunk keeper. Cannot think of a single time that such a location was deleted, even if the article is as stubby as a stub can get. And this one looks good.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone link to the consensus that NRHP listed buildings are automatically notabled? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can link you to a guideline that says exactly the opposite. Per WP:GEOFEAT, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, *but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability*." Which this article blatantly lacks. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 21:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- IP, the article itself is not what is or isn't notable, it's the subject. An NRHP application is a huge, highly detailed document. It alone is more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. Your claim shows both a lack of understanding of what AfD is for and a drastic lack of WP:BEFORE, which is a requirement if you are going to express an opinion. John from Idegon (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is on the National Register of Historic Places. Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is on the National Register of Historic Places. Passes WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2018 (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.