Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle-Friedman House


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 07:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle-Friedman House

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The fact that every section has a "may have been copied from somewhere" and that the top reads "written like a travel guide" say it all. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 05:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And what do you know, the creator is User:Tuscaguide. The place is in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and it's a travel guide! I smell a possible G12 or at least a COI! Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 05:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Any place that's included in the National Register of Historic Places is de facto notable as that agency has much higher inclusion standards than Wikipedia. Looking like a travel guide is an issue of re-writing, not deletion.  Besides, its only sections of this article that are possible copyright violations, not the entire article. --Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's listed on the National Register, which makes it notable.  As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't read like a travel guide -- it reads like a good description of any other house on the National Register.  Articles about historic houses should contain a brief description of the owner(s), the exterior architecture, and the interior details, and this article appears to contain all of them.  As far as the "appears to be copied from somewhere" arguments, I think we either need to identify where it "may" have been copied from, or assume good faith and presume that these aren't copyvios.  In fact, we should AGF on the article as a whole.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per National Register of Historic Places alone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Aside from being on the Register, and thus having the sources that all Register properties have, this has at least one print source (the Google Books reference) that's being used properly. The quality of the writing of the different sections makes me doubt that they're copied from somewhere; they're probably OR, perhaps even genealogical writing — note that the creator wrote plenty of other things on Battle family issues.  I've removed the problematic sections.  Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.