Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy C. Barton 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Guy C. Barton House

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unremarkable single-family home. No claim of significance or notability. –DMartin 08:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Nebraska. –DMartin  08:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: There is a claim of significance - listing on a federal government register of historic sites. NRHP sites have long been considered inherently notable. This was a well-documented historic house that can see a much larger article here. I can help make that happen as well. ɱ  (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: A NRHP landmark with several independent reliable sources should pass anyone's definition of WP:GNG. It seems the nom is trying to (IMHO nuisance) delete several Omaha landmarks and doesn't believe NRHP registration has any effect on WP:GNG.  See Articles for deletion/Mary Reed House. Toddst1 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note There are over 96,000 listings on the NRHP. Regardless, the subject of the nominated page has been removed from the register.  –DMartin  09:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Removal from the register doesn't remove notability. Removal usually happens when a building is demolished or destroyed, which is what happened here. And WP:N is clear that notability is not temporary - even demolished historic buildings are notable. ɱ  (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable single family home with a strong claim of notability, in that it was registered in the NRHP. Even more important now that it's been de-listed, as it's no longer an existing structure. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep All sites on the National Register of Historic Places have a nomination, which typically includes a description of the site, an explanation of its historic significance, and a list of references. (The exception to this rule is multiple property submissions, but that's not relevant in this case.) In this case, the nomination is available from the National Archives, and all of the above are present. The process of getting on to the National Register both sets a higher bar than GNG and produces a substantial source in its own right, which is why sites on the National Register are typically considered notable. The house being delisted doesn't change that, since notability is not temporary. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as listed in NRHP, like previous commenters have pointed out. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, although deletion nominator –DMartin was not wrong in questioning this, and "Keep" !votes above ring a bit hollow IMHO. The house is not important because it was NRHP-listed; rather some importance of the house likely has contributed to published coverage about the place and to its NRHP listing. Note that NRHP listing usually but definitely not always signifies that substantial documentation will exist in the form of a somewhat lengthy NRHP nomination or registration report.  Such a report, if it exists, would likely provide substantial detail and assertion of importance of the house.  Shouldn't that jolly well be rounded up, though? I have made some edits identifying sources; it would be nice if "Keep" voters would do penance by contributing a bit in development of the article from those sources. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * AfD isn't clean up; if I spent my time updating all the articles that pass through here, that's all I'd be doing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Penance is done in repentance for sins committed. !Voting "keep" is not a sin and implying so is downright bizarre. Toddst1 (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2023 (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.