Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Building/Cincinnati Club (Cincinnati, Ohio)

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 . Listing in a historic building register is a good sign that there are appropriate sources that are not necessarily FUTON. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Building/Cincinnati Club (Cincinnati, Ohio)[edit]

Can't find any reliable sources for this; only source is to the main National Register website, fails WP:GNG. American Eagle (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – After doing a little more research, I see there are many other similar articles, such as Carlos Avery House and Eliphalet Austin House (Austinburg, Ohio), all created by NrhpBot (talk · contribs). These are all unsourced (beyond a link to registry database), and not every building is notable (even historic), from what I can see. American Eagle (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:NRHP has held consensus that if something is listed on the NRHP, it's notable. I agree, its harder to find info on this one, but we can usually dig up the nomination form which usually has *pages* of details. Or old newspaper articles, it just takes work. As for the nrhpbot, you'll see that it started in 2007 and then stopped, due to our concern about exactly what you raise. I believe we agreed to leave the articles that had been created, but to not let it create more stub articles. So, no need to delete this. dm (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree that anything listed on this registry is automatically notable, I will go along with it if that's consensus. I'm willing for this to be speedy closed, if advised. American Eagle (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do think that anything listed there is indeed notable, because to get it there at all, there will necessarily be reliable information available from good sources. BTW, the full nomination form, which ordinarily contains detailed references, for all the buildings and areas on the database are becoming available online--for the ones that are not, you can get them mailed. In addition, every 19th c. building in the urban US can be sourced to the decennial Sanford maps, and most all State Libraries have made some of the years for their state available on line. These may be primary sources, but they are utterly reliable for location, size, construction, and use. DGG (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the NRHP listing and DGGs argument. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2009 (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.