Talk:Essex Historic District

National Register of Historic Places Related‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Related	This article has been rated as Related-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

development[edit]

This article may not need further development, because it documents the non-existence of a historic district. For info to further develop, however, try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Try, for National Park Service material: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Or develop from the sources already included in the article! Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued to know why things weren't pursued further by the NPS. When I researched the Salvation Army Headquarters in St. Paul (a similar phantom listing), it turns out the owner protested which caused an automatic disqualification. I wonder if historic districts can be similarly sabotaged by owner unwillingness. --Bobak (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've read of some proposed historic districts having a vote of owners which then imposed the decision to become NRHP-listed upon all. I am not sure of that recollection. I definitely have read of proposed historic districts where individual owners were allowed to opt out, leaving a gerrymander-shaped district to actually be listed. In New York State the correspondence including individual owners' letters stating their opposition is often available. Here, i have no idea what happened. :) --Doncram (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags were added to the article questioning its General notability and asserting there is Original research. I'm gonna remove the tags. Please discuss concerns here. About notability, there is documentation in the article of the existence of this district in the National Register's database (with status as not ultimately listed, as explained). And there are multiple webpages which can be found that refer to the district. I think it helps Wikipedia to have this article. About Original research, what is the specific concern. Not everything needs to be inline-sourced, especially if it is obvious and true. Is there any question about accuracy of anything here? --do ncr am 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]