Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jusay Ancestral 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 Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔  00:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Jusay Ancestral House

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, only primary sources available as far as I can see. Mabalu (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔  17:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep. Based on the creator's edits, I have the impression that the house might be an official historic structure in the Philippines.  There is an apparently incomplete list of listed houses at this site.  It's one of just two articles edited by the creator.  It needs work, but nomination for deletion is not the way forward.  Let's not bite the newbies. -- do  ncr  am  01:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any evidence that it was officially listed. What sources I saw seemed to be demands for attention for the house's cause organised by its owners, nothing official. Since then, this source (which seems to be a Wikimedia project) seems to have popped up. As the article itself says - "The heiress, Melody Jusay, is planning to sell the house after completing all the necessary documentary requirements" - I can only conclude from statements like this that this article is actually a form of advertising/promotion trying to make the house sound more important and significant - which having an article on Wikipedia seems to confer, even though the only real sources seem to be interviews with the lady trying to flog her house and a Wikiproject. Are we estate agents now? Mabalu (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt this is self-interested promotion to facilitate a sale. Absurd, really, to think that creating an English language Wikipedia article like this would be high on the "To Do" list of a real estate agent in the Philippines!  Instead, it sounds rather more like this property is being documented in preparation for full listing on a historic registry.  It might or might not have some preliminary or "nominated" listing status, but evidently at least some persons feel that it merits nomination or listing.  Analogous to how we handle historic registries for other countries, it may be good to include articles for sites in the nomination process, or in the end maybe only ones that have achieved listing should automatically get separate articles.
 * I am more sure that this is an early Wiki-editing experience of several persons, and some for whom English is not their first or second language. For example this diff has erased a couple categories that I added, rather than refining them;  not the sign of experienced editors.
 * Thank you for finding link to this WMF project about creating documentation on "all cultural properties in the Philippines", as specified by the Philippine Cultural Heritage Law. That seems like exactly it. It would be much better to contact the editors and to help with their process of bringing their works into the English wikipedia.  And to document the historic site nomination process and sort out which levels should be deemed automatically wikipedia-notable, vs. not.  This discussion/development is a natural project of WikiProject Historic Sites and/or of wp:Philippines.  I will start discussion at wt:HSITES to try to recruit historic sites editors from other countries to help, and will post also at talk page of Philippines wikiproject.


 * Move to close on procedural basis, that an AFD on one article created is NOT the way to start dealing with what sounds like a great new initiative that should be supported and channeled, not battled. Hold off on this AFD and don't start new AFDs, please. I volunteer to keep track of a list of new articles of this type created, so that they could all be improved together, and so that "deletionist"-inclined editors don't have to worry that a few articles might get through (I'll keep track at wt:HSITES).  Anyone so concerned would have time to come back to dispute any, later.   An RFC could perhaps be helpful, about what criteria required for separate Philippine historic site articles, but we're not ready for that, either, we need to make productive contact, first. -- do  ncr  am  16:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to hand this over to you to deal with. For the record, it came up as a long-unreviewed page on Page Curation that had gone without attention for a long time, I kept coming back to it and debating how to handle it because regardless of what you may think, I'm actually not really a deletionist. I did look for sources, as I wanted to see that this was notable, but really couldn't find them. Clearly it took an AFD and over a week up for deletion before anyone even noticed and cared enough to kick up a stink about it, so mission achieved. Over to you now. :) Mabalu (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks!! I will try, have started posting at wt:HSITES.  Glad you struggled with how to deal with it, and that AFD maybe has worked then.  And that you found way to GLAM-wiki project link.  What I'll try to add is connection to similar treatment of historic registries in other countries.  What I hate in many other sets of AFDs is that it can become apparent there is a group of similar articles that ought to be dealt with somehow -- not in AFD -- but wp:BATTLE mentality can come into play, and a process better than AFD can't really be tried, and newbies and/or experienced editors get bashed with negative deletions.  Hmm, i see that Page Curation is apparently a replacement for New Page Patrol.  Okay, again, Thanks. -- do  ncr  am  17:03, 19 May 2014 (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.