Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleet's Hall


 * 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. Content issues remain, but these cannot be resolved by AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fleet&

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

This is the first of a series of articles about locations on the Oyster Bay History Walk. The copyright issues in relation to the transcripts that make up part of the articles of the series have been dealt with (see WP:Copyright problems/2009_April_13). Some of the series just need cleanup and appropriate sourcing. Although there are issues with respect to promotional language and some trivia, these are not grounds for deletion. My main concern with this article is the notability of a building that has replaced a building that has replaced a building and looks nothing like the original structure. Nor does it have the same purpose. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A non notable building that has an article purely to promote a companies audio tape. -- Paste Let’s have a chat. 09:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The current building is certainly not notable. Tim Ross   (talk)  09:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Revisions Made 2009-04-14 Thank you for your comemnts. Some revisions were made to add new content and thresh the article out a bit more. Fleet's Hall indeed is an important place in Oyster Bay, even if it is no longer here in toto. The fact that a sitting U.S. President voted in a Presidential election here would seem to be enough. The added importance of being a major civic and social meeting place is also thought to be important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inoysterbay (talk • contribs) 12:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about the present building on the site. It is about the previous building on the site which is believed to be significant historically. Secondly, the comment about the "other Oyster Bay promo articles should be deleted". Just because these are part of an audio tour does not mean they are any more or less relevant than other published works. I actually believe the amount of research and development that went into producing these brief succinct tracks was of a higher and better quality than goes into most history works. Further, why should we not want to promote our historic buildings in Oyster Bay? They are a source of great civic pride. Ultimately, your suggestion would leave us with no sense of our history, and that is a reality I'm very uncomfortable accepting as someone who lives in this community. Why don't you visit this place before making sweeping assertions and judgments from afar? Inoysterbay (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: the fact that a sitting president voted in a building that no longer exists doesn't mean that the building that's now in the same location is inherently notable. This article (and most of the other Oyster Bay promo articles) should be deleted. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Give some time here for this article and related ones to be reworked.  This is a new user, by username "Inoysterbay" is clearly identifying with the town.  The development of the article is on his/her own, without benefit of constructive input of other historic-sites interested wikipedians such as are active in writing about other historic sites on Long Island and world-wide.  I myself find my way here by noting a different link appropriately added by Inoysterbay to a wp:NRHP article.  I'd like to help Inoysterbay by reviewing what are his/her documents available, and together defining some means to distinguish notability for some but not other Oyster Bay locations.  This can best be done not under the gun of an AfD process.  Some specific points:
 * Just because a building is gone does not mean it is not wikipedia-notable. There are many valid articles about buildings formerly listed on the NRHP, and other former buildings.  It's a matter of there being adequate documentation (and someone's interest).  In this case, it could be the former building that is more notable, and the article title/focus might best be transformed to describe the former site.  It is indeed a bit awkward to present.  But many examples exist of articles first being about a current building, on site of prior, e.g. Drake Circus Shopping Centre in Plymouth, England, is one i know about.
 * Promotional style tone can be revised. I think it is absurd to suggest that the person's interest is commercial, in terms of making his/her financial fortune from selling audio tapes of the walking tour.  Rather, I assume there is some local pride reflected, which is fine to have but needs to be toned down for a more encyclopedic article.
 * I advise Inoysterbay to enlist help from the Long Island wikiproject, from individual Long Island-based editors of NRHP articles, and from WikiProject Historic sites, about describing the criteria and developing articles about Oyster Bay sites. It is hard on your own to do everything right at first, to avoid the AfD process.
 * I say, give some room here! But, if this one article is deleted, it can be recreated when more solid sourcing and other practices for these articles are defined.  However, I think it is better to let this article be developed, rather than deleted and recreated. doncram (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I now observe that User:Tim Ross, User talk:Beeswaxcandle, and User talk:Paste kindly offered to help develop one big article on the walking tour, in notes at Inoysterbay's Talk page.  Sorry i did not see those before.  That could well be the best treatment, to cover the various walking tour sites in one article together in context.  For the less notable sites on the walking tour, that would provide some coverage but avoid having a weak article.  I would not be opposed to this article being merged and redirected to such a central article.  Wouldn't that best be covered by a merger proposal, though, rather than an AfD? doncram (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Doncram that a destroyed building can still be notable because of what is was. I do feel though that the present structure is probably not notable and should be described only in passing for the purpose of locating the site. It would be better to try to salvage the article rather than just to scuttle it. clariosophic (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have also started articles regarding destroyed buildings, which are often still officially on the National Register of Historic Places.  If it was notable when in was there, it's still worth noting, IMO. Lvklock (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete in its current form. The confusingly written article does not make it clear what "Fleet's Hall" is (a house? a hall? a hut?), and do not provide references to reliable sources that cover it in any depth as required per WP:N. The first external link is dead.  Sandstein   06:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The dead external link must have been dropped. There's only one external link now, which works.  On the negative side, the remaining external link gives as its entire "Bibliography" the wikipedia article about Oyster Bay (hamlet).  I hate to see wikipedia citing webpage citing wikipedia.  It would be better if the webpage mentioned that as a "See also" type of link, as I think that the wikipedia page was not in fact the source.  But, given the citation of wikipedia, I think the external link is not a reliable, independent source.  Happily the current article does not seem to depend upon it. doncram (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep per recent edits, now cites a few useful sources.  Sandstein   16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Verifiable, and has historic significance. Needs work bringing into the style of Wikipedia historic building articles but this can with the assistance of editors familiar with writing about historic buildings. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Doncram has made a good point, but I also tend to agree that the current building is at best of uncertain notability; we should probably modify the article so to make it centre on the former building.--Aldux (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's well-referenced, the references indicate that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is sufficient to establish notability per WP:N. Antony-22 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Response
 * In re Doncram's addendum: The idea of merging came after the AfD - I hadn't thought of that possibility until Tim Ross suggested it on Inoysterbay's talk page - unfortunately at that point real life intruded and I was unable to follow-up until now.
 * I have just discovered that User:Inoysterbay is the Executive Director of the Oyster Bay Main Street Association, having been appointed to the position in March 2008. This means that it is his job to promote Oyster Bay and its history as widely as possible. This puts some context around his protestations about civic pride. It also suggests serious potential WP:COI issues. I see that he was notified of this by Smartse on 10 April, 2009 - before creating this series of articles.
 * If the close decision on this article is keep, I would ask that this be without prejudice to merging into the, yet to be written, article History of Oyster Bay (New York). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewrite as History of the Town of Oyster Bay, just as suggested. This will be a good solution. Obviously, if any of these places are in fact listed lanfdmarks, then they get articles. I think the National Register does a pretty good job of discrimination for subjects of this nature, and we should normally follow it, as a reliable authority. More reliable than us here, at any rate. DGG (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly correct. The National Register does not go out and look for historic places. They register the ones that someone writes up and submits to them. There is no reason that many of these places are on the register instead of another property except that someone took the time to do the research and submit it to NRHP. And my understanding is that to be on the register the property must be standing because their mission is to record existing properties. Other entities record places that are not still standing such state historical marker programs, or Historic American Buildings Survey. If we limit ourselves to National Register properties then we will be missing too big a slice of history. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some addtional comments: I agree with FloNight about National Register listings. Also some property owners refuse to let their properties be listed because they (rightly of wrongly) fear governmental interference with their use of these properties. Also Fleet's Hall has been edited to focus on Fleet's Hall itself while deleting material that detracted from that. I submit that the article in its present form should be kept. clariosophic (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. In many instances, the properties are researched and added to the Historic Register in an attempt to preserve the property from destruction or to influence zoning laws. These issues are not directly related to the historic significance of the property, so if Wikipedia solely relies on NRHP to decide our content inclusion criteria then we allow political reasons to unduly influence our articles. I agree that NRHP does a reasonably good job of recording properties that have local historic significance. And often the property will be representative of a broad historically significant concept that has globally or national meaning. But it is legitimate to question whether Wikipedia needs an article on every example of the historic concept, similar to it being legitimate to question whether whether Wikipedia needs to write an article about every book that every notable author wrote. My opinion is that there is value in having people write about each property on NRHP, but I can understand why others might disagree. Back to the main point of this discussion... Despite its destruction (making it ineligible for inclusion), Fleet's Hall has more historic significance than many properties on the NRHP, so using NRHP as a guide really does not work well in this instance.  FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:42, 20 April 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.