Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James S. Thompson 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. Tokyogirl79 now seems satisfied that this is indeed an NHRP property, and I assume that Jimfbleak would be,too, if he had come back to this AfD. Thanks to Generic1139 for the referencing and other work on the article. Deor (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

James S. Thompson House

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this page as a speedy deletion as hoax, but a search does bring up evidence that the house exists. The article does make claims that the house has been the focus of coverage, but I can't find anything to really back this up and I can't really see where this house is on any historic registry. I'm bringing this to AfD since it doesn't really fall under any of the speedy criteria and because I also want to see if anyone else can find anything to show that the house might pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The only thing that does kind of give off hoax vibes is that the GPS coordinates on the image does not show this house. Other than that, I can't really prove that this is anything other than your typical old, non-notable house. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My home is already listed in this article, and is on the national register of historic places. I just wrote this article since my home was already here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Mercer_County,_Illinois

I did all the research for this, and it's almost impossible to cite resources as NONE of them are electronic. The photo is also mine and I updated the above article with the picture.

Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josys36 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I accept that it not a hoax, but it appears to be WP:OR, and totally lacking in any sources. I would have thought that a link to the national register of historic places was minimum requirement Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So then if I post this,

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregsearchresult.do?fullresult=true&recordid=0

Will that work as a link to the historical register?

Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josys36 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have the registry number? That could help with finding the house on the registry since the second link did not work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The links work for me just fine. The number is 02000846

Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josys36 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm looking at the registry listing but it does have some issues, notably the lack of a picture. It also has a different address as the one at National Register of Historic Places listings in Mercer County, Illinois, as the address on that page comes up with 804 North St. and the Registry has the address as 408 E. Jefferson St.. A Google street view also comes up with a different house for the listing that's on the registry. This is a step in the right direction, but we still have conflicting information here that would need to be resolved. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

All,

The house was placed on the national register in 2002 when the address was 804 Street. The address is now 807 north street New Boston IL due to address number changes. I agree that the historic register has that as a problem, but I don't see anything related to 408 E. Jefferson Street. Jefferson street is a street in New Boston IL, but has nothing to do with my property. The link that I posted above does not have a picture no, but that's not my fault per say. They also list the house as being built in 1867 which I later proved false. I proved that false by spending 13 months going through newspaper microfilm at the Mercer County Historical society. Even google maps does not exactly put you in the right place. My home is slightly further south then it will put you. That is due to the address change.

Josys36 (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Jason
 * The issue though is that the only house listed as "James S. Thompson House" on the historical registry comes up with a different address. If it was on the same street or had your picture on the site then there might have been some wiggle room, but this is another address entirely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that this must be frustrating, but you have to see it from our viewpoint: we have a house that isn't really discussed anywhere but a forum and the only source that is available with the same name has a completely different address than the one you're given. We can't really go forward with that since it's so drastically different. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is an issue with the registry then it's something that likely only you can fix with them since odds are you were the one who called them to get the house on the registry. (You'd also likely have the proof that they'd need to prove the house is legit and all that legal wonderfulness.) In other words, it is possible that this is a case of the registry making an error with the updated address and because of that, it's something that you will have to fix since you're the legal home owner. What I'm willing to do, if you're open to this and another admin is willing to close this (, - I'm pinging some admins that would be likely to be OK with this if you're OK with this suggestion), I'm willing to move this to my userspace and when/if the registry listing is fixed to give the right address, we can move the article back into the mainspace and fix whatever issues are left. The registry listing would make the building notable per Wikipedia and the rest is all pretty much trying to make it fit the writing style guidelines.  Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just don't see a difference of 804 and 807 NORTH street being such a difference to warrant the article being deleted.

Josys36 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Jason
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's try this link,

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced&selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library&referenceNumber=02000846&natregadvancedsearch=Search

I've had problems bringing this site up before for some reason. From here there is a link to the record for the house, and then you can see there that they had the address listed in 804 NORTH street. As I stated the current address is 807 which is 3 address records different. If I go to google maps and search for 807 North Street New Boston IL you can clearly see my house a few feet south of where google maps places you. Google maps is by NO means accurate all the time! If you do a street view you can see my home, and also the amount of trees I cut down that summer! Plus Zillow has the house listed at 807 North street. LOL. I'm just not sure what else to do at this point as getting the historic registry listing changed is going to take months. I don't see why that should hold back this article since I don't reference that anywhere on this page, and I also only did this article since it was listed in the Mercer County list of historic places. How in the world did you verify that article? Did you check it as well as this one since the link I posted above is in that article?

Josys36 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Jason
 * Now this is weird. When I looked at it at work the address came up as completely different, but now with the link you gave me it shows up with the correct address. I'm willing to accept this as proof and have someone close the AfD, but I would really recommend getting the National Registry to look at the page since it came up as a different address. That has to be the strangest thing I've ever seen. Sorry about that- this is quite possibly the strangest AfD I've had in a while. I'll see if I can find the page again and if I do, I'll save a screencap for you so you can send it to the National Registry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Heck, I'm going to contact them myself. I just can't figure out what I did on my work computer that brought up that different address. You have my sincere apology for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note that we have a page, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues, that collects many database errors and ambiguities of this sort. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Arxiloxos! I'm definitely going to report this because if the page had worked right the first time, this poor homeowner wouldnt have had to go through this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't feel to bad. The same thing would happen to me, but for me it would not produce the results. I would not see a different entry, just that there was no entry. I was having the time of my life trying to figure out what you were seeing.

Josys36 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Jason


 * Here is the actual National Register of Historic Places registration form, with a photo and a 804 North street address. It appears to match the photo supplied by the owner.  I'll rework the article using this info as a reference with the usual NRHP project cites and such, then you can take another look.  And the GPS coordinates from the database are not always house-accurate, sometimes they come from paper maps in UTM, then get translated to an old lat/lon standard.  If you look with google, you don't always get the right house.  Tweaking of the coordinates in the article is usually done when the nris data is off, with suitable checking to make sure the right house is pictured. Generic1139 (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. I think the article now meets the standards for notability based on its being listed on the National Register of Historic Place, and now has proper citations. Generic1139 (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I made several changes to the article and am no longer a disinterested third party, I'll just recommend keep for the reasons above - it is now referenced and marked as are most other NRHP articles - rather than close this myself. Generic1139 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2015 (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.