Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry F. Miller 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The result was withdrawn. Thanks to all for an engaging discussion about the National Register, which I enjoyed, and thanks particularly to Richard Arthur Norton for providing me with a New York Times article about the house. One final point, though--notability should never be the only question here. We need sources for an article. Chick Bowen 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Henry F. Miller House

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a bit of a test case for notability, I think. This house has an individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places, along with about 80,000 others. After searching around for a while I have found nothing else about it, except that it continues to serve as the headquarters of Mr. Miller's architectural firm, and it is evidently not open to the public (it was very briefly when it was first built, according to our article). I would be delighted if someone could come up with more and this article would be kept. But as it is, with the NRHP listing as the only verifiable fact, I don't see it. Chick Bowen 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Generally NRHP structures are considered automatically notable, although I don't know of a specific rule to that effect. The National Register is a peer-reviewed process that requires extensive research, documentation, and argumentation at the state and federal levels. These are properties that are deemed notable for historical, cultural, or architectural reasons. Just because there is a limited amount of information doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article. According to the summary nomination it was listed because of its architectural qualities, apparently as a key representative of the International Style. Offline sources certainly exist (such as the full NRHP nomination or local historical/architectural materials) and there were probably architecture magazine articles from the period as well, which are unsurprisingly not available on the internet. Caution is often warranted when subjects are historical (i.e. from before the present era). --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last sentence, though I'm not sure about automatic inclusion; ultimately we don't have an article if we don't have sources (not hypothetical ones). I am trying to locate an article from the New York Times, "Architectural Trend Still Stirs Passions," published August 26, 2001, by Richard Weizel.  I don't have access to the Times Archive at the moment (though I will later this week), but I'd appreciate assistance from anyone who does.   Chick Bowen 05:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dhartung. If it's on the National Register of Historic Places (or similar bodies in other countries) then it's passed a far more stringent process of checking than a quick google by a few wikipedia editors so I would think by definition it's notable by our standards.  It doesn't matter if there's 80,000 of them, wikipedia is not paper.  Let's remember that the National Register of Historic Places is the United States government's official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects worthy of preservation.  What more do you need? Nick mallory 05:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One reason this gives me pause is that my house is on the NHRP list. . . Chick Bowen 05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So don't write an article about your house then Chick. No-one's saying all 80,000 have to have articles, but if the US Government thinks Henry F. Miller House is notable enough to be protected then I think that should be good enough for Wikipedia. QWhy is your house on the list?  Maybe your house is more interesting than you know! Nick mallory 05:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my point is that the NHRP's standards for inclusion aren't uniform. My house, for example, is on the list because it's a structure within a historic district (different list, though, I guess).  Anyway, I'm still hoping to render this whole discussion moot by finding some actual, usable sources. Chick Bowen 05:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming you have a contributing property, and not the dreaded non-contributing counterpart, I still wouldn't consider an individual property within a district notable. The district should have an article, but individual properties would have to seek their own notability. (I also live in such a house.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The documentation for this house should be available as a National Register nomination form. (As an example, see this nomination form for the Great Camps of the Adirondacks -- although that's a multiple property submission.)  The documentation for this house isn't available online, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  As far as the actual nomination process is concerned, these are the guidelines from the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office.  The problem with the Henry F. Miller House article is not that it isn't notable, but that the article doesn't cite its sources.  That can be fixed.  With that in mind, my opinion is to keep this article.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dhartung. The processs to get on the NRHP is long and very research oriented. Far more than Wikipedias inclusion standards.  We don't decide if something is notable, "the world" does. --Oakshade 17:27, 28 May 2007 (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.