Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freimann Hotel Building


 * 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. BD2412 T 02:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Freimann Hotel Building

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Removed prod. Someone put a Historical Marker on the building (there is no evidence whom, possibly the owner). So it is in a historical marker database and in the database of the Wisconsin Historical Society (according to their site, they have 140,000 entries in their database). But it has not be recognized as historic by any actual authority and searching finds almost nothing - so it does not meet GNG. MB 18:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 18:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MB 18:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Green Bay's oldest commercial establishment is notable whether it has a historic designation or not.
 * WHS
 * WSG
 * Landmark Hunter
 * There is more WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These are all just directory type listing. There needs to be in-depth sig coverage in RS to meet GNG. The above prove it exists and is about 120 years old, like lots of other buildings. Implying there are actual sources without showing them is pointless. MB 20:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete . I'm not seeing the claim as the oldest commercial establishment in Green Bay, only "one of the oldest continuing establishments".  I've looked, with a friendly predisposition towards old brick buildings and Midwestern towns both, and I don't see anything that needs its own article.    --Lockley (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please check out the article's improvements when you get a chance. It is a work in progress and i have begun to improve the article. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - you've done good work on the article, it's now cogent & well-organized & convincing.  Unfortunately I must be honest and say that your work hasn't improved the notability of the hotel itself.  But that's only my opinion, I've been wrong before, and this goes with best wishes to you.  --Lockley (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to a new section in Fox River State Recreational Trail. It is indeed on the trail, I checked, the trail's northern end is at CityDeck about six blocks north along the river.  I change my !vote because the hotel is still not notable by itself, IMO, but surely this material is savable somewhere, why waste the constructive energy?  --Lockley (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I always find it to be bad form for a nominator to constantly diminish the article during an AfD. Please stop. and allow the AfD process to complete. It is clear that you favor deletion so diminishing the article to favor your desired outcome is not good form. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Lockley. The added sources are largely just database-style entries (some of which don't even mention the building itself, just the restaurant that is there now) or sources that are non-reliable for establishing notability (i.e., the website for the restaurant that is the current tenant).  There is no actual WP:SIGCOV regarding the building itself, and being really old does not mean that it gets a free pass on not needing to pass the WP:GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep They do mention the building. WP:Not paper.  Meets WP:GNG.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? Care to point out where, in this source that any information that the building the restaurant is located in is mentioned?  Or this one?  Or how either of those, or this, or this could be considered significant coverage?  The only source that actually has any real coverage is this one, and the site is WP:UGC and thus inadmissible as a WP:RS.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I am adding newspaper entries from the 100+ years of archives. Just added Sturgeon Bay Door County Advocate. I will continue to add more.
 * I appreciate the effort you are putting forth in finding sources, but they are all pretty much just mentions, oftentimes in questionable sources. The Sturgeon Bay Door source you mentioned, for example, is an advertisement, which cannot be used to establish notability.  Having WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources is pretty much the foundation of establishing notability on Wikipedia, and there really does not appear to be that for this building.  Rorshacma (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per WP:NBUILDING. I think that the historical marker designation is significant, and certainly not a surprising designation given the building's age and importance to the community. A number of sources to back this up have been added, and I expect there will be more if local history books are consulted. It can be built up over time and shouldn't be deleted at this point. Patiodweller (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NBUILDING says "they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". This is lacking. The historical marker designation is not significant because it is not a RS - it may well have been put there by the owner of the building to raise its value. Anyone can buy those. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 21:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * KEEP Historical subjects may not get the coverage that popular culture articles get, however this is an encyclopedia.  D r e a m Focus  18:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D My Son  04:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP Historic bdlg w/ state designation.Djflem (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per 7&6=thirteen and Patiodweller.  Royal broil  00:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Being " listed in the Wisconsin Historical Society Register" seems enough for me, I think all historical buildings (that have some kind of proof they are historical) should be kept as notable landmarks. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , did you notice the Wisconsin Historical Society says their register has "records on more than 140,000 historic buildings, structures and objects throughout Wisconsin". Are you saying we should have 140,000 articles on old buildings in Wisconsin alone? There are only about 70,000 articles on places on the NRHP that covers the entire country. <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 17:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hence the week keep. NOTPAPER means we can have 140,00 entries. Through I am open for a wider debate if the WHS's register is reliable and sufficient for establishing notability. See WP:MAPOUTCOMES which is kind of unclear on lower level listings. But while I am well aware WP:ITSUSEFUL is a bad argument overall, I think that listings of such tourist attractions meets the educational purpose of encyclopedia quite well, and it is useful for tourists and scholars. So I lean keep here, despite being more of a deletionists those years... --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep-- this article has multiple, active contributes. It seems likely to improve in the near future; also note that the Wisconsin Historical Society Register listing qualifies it for having an article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2020 (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.