Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Col. Adelbert Mossman 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 conditions of WP:SNOW clearly met, keep, non-admin closure Beeblbrox (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Col. Adelbert Mossman House

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

Needs reliable sources to show it meets the general criteria at WP:N. Very few ghits for "Adelbert Mossman House" -wikipedia. The author contested the WP:PROD by stating: I object to deletion because the House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and therefore prima facie notable. (diff). However, to be notable surely there needs to be in depth coverage in multiple sources? JD554 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Any property on the NRHP is covered by multiple sources: all NRHP properties are well documented, and plenty of information can be found. See here to find that the author and I aren't the only people who believe that all NRHP properties are notable.  Perhaps you could contact the NRHP wikiproject?  Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.   --  TravellingCari  15:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep on the NRHP and see here for a number of sources amid false +, appears to have a number of different names. Valid stub. TravellingCari  15:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep all NRHP properties are notable. Tovian (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep par user:Nyttend Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. That NRHP listing means that the historical documentation is out there to be retrieved. Nominator's search term was too restrictive. NRHP lists it as "Mossman, Col. Adelbert, House". Besides, WP:GHITS is a poor test for historical topics. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep with a big BUT I understand that consensus is that NRHP locations are all notable, but lately there has been a massive influx of essentially useless stubs on these locations. There seems to be an obsession with creating as many articles as one can, without any thought as to the quality of those articles. Just letting us know a place exists and is "historical" without providing a single detail on why it is historical is not really helpful. The phrase information is not knowledge comes to mind... Beeblbrox (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep: The concept that certain things are prima facie notable is long established on Wikipedia and is amply established as an alternative to WP:V by all notability criteria. I'm quite surprised that a veteran editor with 9000 edits under his belt hasn't before seen additional notability criteria.    Ravenswing  16:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Keep with a promise(?) to try to do better Although I myself have created many stub NRHP articles, I want to concede that Beeblbrox has a point. This stub and many others in Massachusetts were recently created by User:Swampyank working off lists of Registered Historic Places in Massachusetts, and cutting and pasting from a stub NRHP article generator tool.  It does seem to be getting ahead of the capacity of locals to absorb and develop articles.  But, the NRHP site is still notable.  Whether the sources have been added yet or not, they exist and can/probably will eventually be added.  Lengthy NRHP application text and photo documents are available by request from the National Park Service.  Perhaps some mention of that, and how to obtain them, should be included in any new stub articles.  I will raise this for more discussion over in wt:NRHP.  It could end up changing the suggested output from the stub NRHP article generator tool. doncram (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (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.