Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston Heights Woman's Club


 * 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Houston Heights Woman's Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any significant notability. Most potentially notable aspect is the historical listing of the building but that is supported only by reference to the listing itself. The rest is largely self referenced with no independent robust and reliable sources. No doubt a very worthy and well intentioned organization, but not notable as defined by Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 04:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. National Register of Historic Places. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment being on the register of historic places does not, of itself, confer notability. It still requires robust, reliable and independent sources to establish notability. If being an historic place was

the claimed notability, then the article would need to revert to the original stub.  Velella  Velella Talk 06:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 *  Keep. The Entire Page. Until I am given specific details on what to change about this page I do not believe it should be deleted. --- Ellietycer  ( Talk ) 11:04, 20 February 2016
 * To address the notability of the page, as of now the Houston Heights Woman's Club is not the most "notable" subject, but it is a growing club in the city of Houston which is one of the largest cities in the world. I personally have had many people ask me what the club was, which is why I chose it as a topic to edit. This topic may not be the most notable topic on all of wikipedia but it is CERTAINLY noteworthy enough that it should not be deleted.  --  Ellietycer  ( Talk ) 11:17, 20 February 2016  —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Another Believer. Perhaps the article could stand rewriting or reworking; I've not had more than a cursory glance at it, so I can't comment.  But it should not, at any rate, be deleted. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 07:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep. Nominator apparently failed to do WP:BEFORE. Some quick web searching results in a news item that claims that "The club is the longest lasting continuous Heights institution" and links to a digitized book called The History of Houston Heights, which leads in turn to more sources, if a researcher wanted to dig through library archives for historical news coverage from 1912. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Properties on the National Register of Historic Places are considered notable, not because of the designation itself so much as that any listed property has been extensively researched and documented in its nomination form, complete with a list of references; the NRHP's threshold of acceptance is higher than Wikipedia's standard of notability. (The nomination form for this particular site doesn't appear to be online, but it can be requested from the National Park Service.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 17:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per TheCatalyst31. However, this article is an example of a problem/ambiguity that afflicts lots of articles related to the National Register of Historic Places: the distinction between a building (i.e. "historic place") and the institution that occupies or formerly occupied the building, especially when the building and institution share the same name. Even if, hypothetically, the club institution weren't notable the building still would be - in which case the article would need to focus on the building with a secondary discussion of the club. In this case, other commenters have made a case that the club institution is notable, so it's not editorially unreasonable to cover both institution and building in the same article. If the club were to vacate the building, and especially if another occupant were to move into the building, the two topics very likely would need to be teased apart somehow. &mdash; Ipoellet (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I could not have said this better myself. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:44, 21 February 2016 (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.