Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Portland Historic District

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Any merging can happen outside of this AfD by editors being bold (and following WP:BRD if necessary). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Portland Historic District[edit]

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

South Portland Historic District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a brand new "sub stub" article, created counter to the general interests/wishes of WikiProject NRHP. The current article contains no text information besides what is already included in the row for this item at National Register of Historic Places listings in Southwest Portland, Oregon. I don't speak officially for the WikiProject, but I believe this is the general opinion, that we prefer to have no article at all so that a redlink shows in the corresponding NRHP list-article. The editor who just created this has in the past (several years ago) created many hundreds of "substub" NRHP articles, but stopped doing that I believe because of the negative feedback they received. We don't want this. Doncram (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merge and redirect. I don't understand what's going on here. A day ago, this was a simple and perfectly acceptable redirect to South Portland, Portland, Oregon, which served the purpose of discussing the NRHP listing. The redirect was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Doncram based on the plainly incorrect reason that the target of the redirect didn't exist. User:Another Believer contested the speedy delete, and appears to have expanded the article from redirect to "sub-stub" in response. This seems like a spat between editors that got escalated to a deletion discussion for some reason. I don't see why this article can't just be left as a redirect. — Ipoellet (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC) (Edit: Merge and redirect is what I really meant. Just had trouble finding the right words earlier. — Ipoellet (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Question Does the article have potential for expansion? Any chance of that occurring in the near future? YBG (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course. The historic district is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand or redirect to South Portland, Portland, Oregon. If the article is not expanded in the next few days before this AfD is closed, it should be redirected to South Portland, Portland, Oregon, which has some info about the district that could be expanded. The map could be merged there, which is the only thing not duplicated so far. Of course, redirecting would not preclude creation of an article in the future by any editor interested in doing that. Station1 (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's no debate about whether the topic is Wikipedia-notable, but we don't have to have a separate article split out, either, serving readers and editors poorly. Technically, the pre-existing redirect should not have been there, IMHO, because it redirected only to an article which did not cover the NRHP district. This came up because it was brought up for discussion at WikiProject NRHP by the new article creator at wt:NRHP#South Portland Historic District. AFD is not for cleanup. The WikiProject talk page is also not the place to try to force others to clean up. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert and Fay Havens House in 2017 is the previous AFD about 29 similar articles in Idaho which were created in 2012. The Idaho ones, and many hundred similar Oregon and Washington ones, have not been developed since, and I don't welcome this new substub just being created. Readers and editors are worse off having substubs like this in place. WikiProject NRHP has about 26,000 redlinks presented appropriately within our list-articles, compared to about 66,000 bluelinks. Redlinks are proper way to invite editors who might actually develop articles with more information than is already in the list-articles. --Doncram (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    South Portland, Portland, Oregon did and does cover the historic district, albeit not in tremendous detail. I agree that the stub article as of today is not an improvement; it could be expanded, but if it's not, there is already some info about the topic in the South Portland article, so a redirect is not inappropriate. And although it's true AfD is not intended for cleanup, if that's the result it's not a bad thing. Station1 (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. The subject is an historic district on the National Register of Historic Places, and therefore independently notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Ipoellet for the succinct background. Very helpful to read the discussion above. Merge and redirect to South Portland, Portland, Oregon. Or, as my second choice, "weak keep." I do agree with Doncram that redlinks can be useful, but the goal of building the encyclopedia is secondary to the goal of facilitating readers in learning about a topic. If information about a subject exists on another page, a redirect is preferable to a redlink. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article has been expanded quite a bit, so I think the deletion issue is now moot. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per Ipoellet and Pete Forsyth. The nominator appears to lack understanding of the fact that encyclopedic content should cater to a general audience, not to the whims of active editors here to push their favorite topics. To address Bubba73, the article has not "been expanded quite a bit". The article I'm reading right now has an excess of formatting thrown in with intent to mask the absolute lack of usuable prose. The original South Portland article addressed the information I was seeking on this topic, while this article did not. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, after the recent expansion, its size and content is consistent with hundreds (or thousands) of other NRHP project stubs. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not impressed with the "expansion", which comes across to me as possibly passive/aggressive or deliberately insulting, as if trying to add just a minimum which is hoped to be enough to confound this AFD proceeding, and absolutely not show any real effort. As has been pointed out by others here, the minimal effort is unhelpful in confounding coverage of the district. I note it doesn't even link to the South Portland, Portland, Oregon article. An editor trying to add value would have sorted out where coverage is appropriate and would have adjusted related articles. I myself have created many short stub articles, but I think we can all see the difference between trying and not trying.
      • User:Bubba73, I don't get your seeming to defend this. Bubba73 and I have cooperated in improving NRHP articles in the U.S. state of Georgia, covered by this worklist. There were 138 especially poor ones early in 2016; now there are just a relative handful of somewhat complicated-to-fix poor ones. As Georgia is relatively difficult by dint of relatively poor quality NRHP documentation there (for its courthouses and many of its historic districts, especially), some of those improved articles and some new ones we created are pretty short, but I believe we did good overall and that we are always providing readers with value for their clicking on their bluelinks. And I/we have cooperated with occasional new or returning editors there whenever we notice them.
      • User:NationalRegisterBot/Substubs tabulates the worst NRHP articles. My quick review finds 15 out of the worst 30 were created by this editor, who has had plenty of time and encouragement to improve them, and I could provide diffs to their declining to cooperate in fixing them on several occasions. When I last made an sustained effort to improve Oregon NRHP articles, I got discouraged by the ongoing creation of new Oregon NRHP substubs. WikiProject Oregon probably has the best collaboration community of any U.S. state, but basically no one is choosing to improve their NRHPs because they've long been disgusted and the situation just sucks (my professional analysis). Sure, this editor doesn't have to work with me personally, but IMHO they should be making some effort somehow to improve the old ones, and not create new ones. --Doncram (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doncram, when you first nominated this, the article had (I think) just two sentences that didn't really say much of anything. After it was expanded, I think that it is on par with a lot of NRHP stubs, including a lot of ones that we (and others) worked on.
        • The description which was added lists the blocks and streets, the number of contributing buildings, it list five places that are independently on the NRHP, links to their articles, and gives architectural styles.
        • Also, I don't know if there is any policy about this, but I prefer to have an article just about the NRHP aspect of it, rather than having the NRHP details and tag in a more general article. But, again, I don't know if there is a policy on this. And you are not the only one who disagrees with my assessment that it is now a proper stub, so your point is well taken. And my opinion isn't fixed in stone. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect for now, with no prejudice against creating a better article later. The district is notable, but the article on it doesn't add much to the article on the neighborhood of the same name, and unless the article can demonstrate its significance independent of the neighborhood (which would probably mean a start-class or at least a longish stub article) there's not much point in keeping it separate. The district and the neighborhood seem to have pretty similar boundaries, so there may not be a need for two separate articles at all. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems a relevant historic district, and will likely have further additions added in time. I find that it's interesting to add well-known notable residents in pages like this, although that's not needed to clarify its already notable status. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect(with possibilities) I recommend a {{Redirect with possibilities}} to a new section ==Historic district==. For smallish articles like these, the reader is not served well my having multiple small related articles with lots of overlapping information. Although off-topic, I would recommend merging in South Portland, Oregon also. When the section grows enough then it could be split back out into a separate article, but until then it is much better all in one place. YBG (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I like that template, thanks for pointing it out. However, I disagree with including South Portland, Oregon with this merge. I don't know if you're very familiar with Portland, but this could be a somewhat confusing issue. South Portland (neighborhood), South Burlingame, Hillsdale, and Multnomah, are all neighborhoods that are part of the quadrant Southwest Portland, Oregon (quadrant). South Portland, Oregon will be a new "quadrant" (or "sextant" seems to be the lingo people are using, as there will be six), so it's on the same level in the taxonomy as Southwest Portland. Unless we're going to merge in all the under-developed neighborhood articles into their quadrant articles, I don't think this is a good idea. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peteforsyth: Apologies for inserting my off-topic note into this discussion. It belonged elsewhere. YBG (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my preference is merge/redir > keep > delete. The disadvantages of delete are not overcome by its two small advantages (1) the redlink emphasizes work to be done (2) it allows article creators to add a notch to their belt, and both of these can easily be overcome. With regard to (1), redirects may not be bright red, but they are colored differently, and I believe can be emphasized more by some user css preference. With regard to (2), the notch can still be collected by starting a new article in draft space and then moving it over the redirect. YBG (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an historic district on the National Register of Historic Places, this place is notable. The article has been expanded since the nomination. The rationale offered in the nomination is not compatible with WP:ATD. If we have a stub on a notable topic, we expand the stub. At worst we merge and redirect it pending expansion. We do not delete. A stub or redirect is always better than a redlinked notable topic. A stub or redirect can be expanded by non-autoconfirmed users. A redlink can only be blue-linked by an autoconfirmed user. Redlinks do not encourage content creation, they seriously inhibit it by creating a barrier to participation by the majority of editors on whom we are highly dependent. It is also much easier to expand a stub than to bring an AfD. Look at the amount of text in this AfD. If half the time spent by editors commenting in this AfD had been spent expanding the article, the article would be so greatly expanded that there would be no problem. James500 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about whether the topic is notable, it is about whether separate sucky articles are wanted, irritating readers who think a bluelink means something, and irritating editors who might develop articles if someone else hadn't already claimed credit as creator, while not even trying to serve readers. If the creator of this article or others went and created 26,000 sucky new substub articles, progress in developing NRHP topics would immediately halt. No one wants to develop these. Note, if we wanted these, we would have a bot run done. We don't want these. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain the vast majority of editors have no interest in who "claimed credit as creator". I want to develop these 26,000 notable places on NRHP. I am sure there are many others who feel the same. James500 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Doncram on this point, that replacing red links with redirects or single-sentence stubs discourages some editors from creating new articles on NRHP-listed properties (real articles, with infobox and at least a few paragraphs), because it has done so for me in several instances. Although being able to "claim credit" for creating an article is far from being my primary motivation to carry out the necessary research to create a real article for WP, it is one motivating factor. Having credit permanently taken away, by someone's creation of a single-sentence stub (which, in the case of the editor who made this one, usually remains extremely short for years) or a redirect reduces my motivation to spend time doing research for an actual article. SJ Morg (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded in terms of formatting puffery, not in terms of substance. For another example of how that and the belief that an NRHP listing warrants a separate article amounts to a net negative to the encyclopedia, see how Andrew Berg Cabin has been recently split off from Andrew Berg. The new article is little more than an infobox and a dumping ground for the same tired old incestuous "sources". A bigger problem is that the new article's lack of substance has the effect of confusing the NRHP-listed cabin with another cabin moved to a more accessible location to serve as a museum piece for tourists. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. We can't keep the current article as it is - there's only one source, and it's a primary source. At the moment, fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND, and even if it passes can easily be merged back into the other article. SportingFlyer talk 05:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After comparing the article with the proposed target for merger, I reached the conclusion that there is sufficient information in the article to justify a keep. Subject meets WP:GEOLAND and the WP:GNG. My only concern was information organization and that has been put to rest. gidonb (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect, per Ipoellet, Pete Forsyth and TheCatalyst31. I am ambivalent on this one case, because while I am critical of Another Believer's longstanding practice of creating single-sentence stubs (without even an infobox) and almost always never carrying out any expansion himself later, I recognize that this discussion should not be a referendum on one editor's practices, but just a discussion of this one "article". I was tempted to abstain from this discussion, only because this entry has a map and (now, post-deletion-nomination) an infobox and several sentences of text, all things lacking from this editor's usual new "articles" on NRHP listings. And contrary to SportingFlyer's comment, the topic meets WP:GNG by its being listed on the National Register. However, at least for now, I am inclined to vote merge/redirect based mainly on my knowledge, based on past experience with this entry's creator, that this entry is unlikely to receive any substantial expansion or additional references in the foreseeable future. I agree with nominator Doncram that the creation of ultra-short stubs in place of red links is not helpful and actually discourages some editors from creating real articles (it has done so for me in several instances), but in this one case I support leaving this as a redirect to the South Portland article, since it has existed as such since 2010 and since there a map of the historic district which can be included there. SJ Morg (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SJ Morg: The national register is a WP:PRIMARY source, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:GEOFEAT is the correct presumption, but per my understanding WP:GEOFEAT requires cultural heritage plus a little extra to be notable - you can be a little short of WP:GNG. My contention is it's not sourced enough to be there yet. SportingFlyer talk 10:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction/clarification. SJ Morg (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SJ Morg: Thanks for weighing in here. I can appreciate your dislike for single-sentence stubs, but for the record, I converted the redirect to a stub after Doncram nominated the redirect for deletion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Close as keep without prejudice to merger/redirect etc. discussions, that's the closest thing to a consensus for purposes of AfD.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would object if this were simply closed with advice to restart/continue the discussion elsewhere. This is the discussion; kicking the can down the road, to a different venue, is not a responsible closer decision. The goal of an AFD closure should not be to end the AFD, it should be to resolve the issue. It has been many years since the only AFD outcomes were "delete" vs. "not delete". This was covered at length in a recent deletion review about a different AFD (about national capitals). The main advice there was that an open discussion should be continued, rather than closed simply for sake of removing from AFD open list of items, if there is substantial ongoing discussion / outstanding issue about a real resolution. Offhand, I would judge from the discussion that the closest to consensus here is to redirect/merge. It seems to me that multiple editors here agree that creating the substub article perfunctorily was a mistake, given view that it would be better covered within the existing neighborhood article (at least for now, and perhaps permanently, depending on what there is to say about the historic district when an editor actually chooses to seriously develop the topic). The main content currently is a nice map prepared in 2016 by User:Ipoellet which would go to the neighborhood article. This would be a different outcome than my own preference; it's not a big deal but I happen to assume that a separate full article will be justified, and therefore think that it should not have been redirected at all, that redlinks should have been left in the NRHP list-article and in the neighborhood article (thereby leaving invitations for someone to develop an article on the topic), and I proposed by the MFD that I opened and then by this AFD that it should be deleted outright to restore those redlinks. --Doncram (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the redirect was appropriate. The historic district was mentioned in the neighborhood article. But now we have a standalone article, which you admit is justified, but you still want to delete the article? This is a terrible use of AfD and editors' time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there was quite a lot of discussion, there is not yet clear consensus where to keep as is or to merge/redirect. As Doncram says, it seems counterproductive to just close this and move the discussion to the talk page if more discussion can be expected here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 19:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. location is notable, even if there's overlap in other articles. - Scarpy (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the subject is an historic district on the National Register of Historic Places it Passes WP:GNG & WP:GEOLAND. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: It needs to be finished here. I am all about history and NRHP but creating a stub just to turn a red link blue is not appropriate. I don't feel "just" being on a NRHP list should be a guarantee for an article. Results of AFD's (according to the lead) can be: "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.", which gives broad latitude, so this does not need to be "kicked down the road". An AFD might be needed to override local or even project consensus that may not be aligned with the more broad community consensus so we shouldn't try to hamstring the process. It is already far easier to create many substandard stub articles while far harder to get them deleted. Wikipedia is inherently inclusionist by nature but many things just do not belong in an encyclopedia. Otr500 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, just to clarify, the page was not created "just to turn a red link blue". The page was (appropriately) created as a redirect way back in 2010‎ and serves a purpose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I didn't look that far into it, and was a main reason I commented instead of !voting. I just know that many articles have been created for the purpose, and I have seen closings where the can was, to me and according to the above possible dispositions, inappropriately "kicked down the road". An admin closing not long ago was "keep" to discuss possible merging on the article talk page because AFD was not the place. That That blew my mind. The good news if kept is that there may be 111 contributing buildings giving room to expand. Otr500 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets WP:GEOLAND; a suitable stub at this point, I don't see that a merge would improve either article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: !votes merely mentioning "NOTPAPER" or the fact that a historic district is notable should be disregarded, in my view. We know that already for this and 26,000 redlinks sitting in NRHP list-articles. I welcome updates by any such !voters which actually address the issue here, that this is a perfunctory article which actually does not serve readers (they may be tricked now to come to this article, which has nothing/little more than is at the NRHP county list-article). The substantive comments above are about how this topic is better treated in the neighborhood article, which provides meaningful context at least for merged minimal discussion of the historic district topic. We don't need to have a separate article broken out from the neighborhood article. --Doncram (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to South Portland, Portland, Oregon This isn't a notability issue. It's a question of whether future expansion is likely better separate or joined. Discussion of architecture, history, and prominent parks or buildings are all better in a joined article on the larger neighborhood. Daask (talk) 19:17, 29 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/South_Portland_Historic_District&oldid=857388758"