Talk:Ewalt House

Notability
I tagged this article for notability. It seems to be falling under circular logic, where the page was used to rationalize acquisition of historic designation, but the process of requesting historic designation is used to rationalize this page's existence. --100.6.59.176 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The notability of this house (on Wikipedia) does not hinge on whether it is declared a city landmark or not but on sourcing. The notability guideline you linked to lays out the criteria for notability of buildings: "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources". Properties with historic designations are usually considered notable because a large amount of documentation is required to obtain the historic designation, and this meets the requirement of significant coverage. In this case, there is coverage in several sources: (1) the city landmark nomination, which is fairly exhaustive and includes six pages of text specifically about this building, (2) the NRHP documentation, and (3) coverage in the local press. In my opinion this is more than sufficient to prove notability. Camerafiend (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's also the issue that searching for "Ewalt House" primarily brings up a different property in Kentucky except with the news coverage of the supposed historic designation occurring in the last few months. --100.6.59.176 (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It meets WP:NBUILDING guidelines. In addition to the current sources I found more: 1, 2 (and corresponding video), 3. The second link from February in addition to landmark nomination research that took much longer than a month or so to write shows the circular logic argument isn't valid. This page was created on May 25th.  APK   whisper in my ear  16:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comment is accurate. This house was posted by people trying to support historical validity. The house was torn down because the process violated the owner's civil rights not because of its poor condition. The fact is Mr. Ewalt was a slave owner who violated the civil rights of people and should never have been revered for his house. In addition, the house was in poor condition and didn't meet the criterion of historical significance (again supporting your rebuttal comment). The corrupt politicians, who also sat on the board of the nonprofit that applied for historical preservation, are the ones that pushed it through for their own personal gain. In the end, justice was served! 2600:4041:360:F700:F4D3:91EE:1B3E:4B48 (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)