Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New York State Historic Markers in Monroe County, New York


 * 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. Closing this discussion is difficult because the majority is counter to the policy. In this case, editors are applying policies based on the title of the policy rather than the definition. I specifically disregard the last two !votes. WP:DIRECTORY lists many criteria and I'll go through each. 1) These topics are specifically defined: historical markers, 2) Not genealogical, 3) Not a yellow or white page, 4) Not a sales pitch, events, schedules, products, or patents, 4) Not a sales catelog, 5) Not changelogs or release notes, and 6) Not cross categorization. This last point is disputable, however, I would consider historical markers to be culturally significant.  Next up is WP:INDISCRIMINATE: 1) Not a summary description of works, and 2) Not lyrics, and 3) No statistics. So these two arguments are not based on policy. That leaves me with two other arguments: the nominator and the keep !vote. The nominators argument fails because primarily because of the analogy they themselves made. Historical markers are culturally significant in comparison to common mile markers and significantly rarer. There is no requirement that a list (or article) be complete. As a wiki, it is the expectation that any list will forever be in development. That leaves me with the strength of arguments provided by Jclemens and postdif. There are sources for the information including at the New York State Museum for this list. v/r - TP 16:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

List of New York State Historic Markers in Monroe County, New York

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Sadly, I believe articles such as these are not tenable. First, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While I would love to have a comprehensive list of historic markers in New York State, I don't believe it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to attempt to collect them, any more than an encyclopedia should try to list all road signs or barber shops or accident sites. More importantly, however, this list is destined to forever be incomplete. There is no definitive or comprehensive source that even claims to list every historic marker; the list can therefore never practically be completed. There simply doesn't exist the references required under our verifiability policy to ever create a complete listing; the list, then, is not suitable for inclusion. Powers T 17:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. The comparison is inapt at best, and downright disingenuous at worst: historical markers are both substantially rarer and substantially more encyclopedic in value than road signs.  List articles are not required to be complete, but even if they were, it is physically possible to photograph each such historical marker, which would be a rock-solid verification for the entire, completed list. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But you could never actually know that you've photographed each historical marker, and doing so would be original research even if you could. There are no sources available that could ever confirm the completeness of this list, and a list that is destined to always be incomplete is not a good subject for a list.  Powers T 02:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "...a list that is destined to always be incomplete is not a good subject for a list." Why, exactly? That's not a consensus view, nor one supported by any practical considerations I can imagine. See Template:Dynamic list which is maintained for exactly such never-to-be-complete lists. So long as we do not inaccurately claim something is complete that isn't, there is no problem with it being incomplete. But given that this was an organized state government program, and that the New York State Museum maintains "archives of that program, as well as the records of over 2,800 historic markers across the State", we should expect a comprehensive record of these markers to exist (and it seems this is such a comprehensive record). So even if incomplete lists were a problem, we should be able to make these complete to the full extent of the museum's records. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The museum's list constitutes only a tiny fraction of the historic markers across the state. I would guess that the actual number is at least an order of magnitude higher than 2,800.  Even the most casual survey of markers along major roads in a given town would show that there are many more markers not listed than those that are.  Furthermore, this list is at the moment nothing more than a copy of information on the museum's web site; that makes it a potential copyright violation (especially with the full texts of each sign being listed).  I simply do not like the idea of presenting (in this case) 42 markers as if it is anything close to a complete accounting of the hundreds of markers in the county.  It is not useful to anyone in such a state, especially since it simply duplicates information available elsewhere.  Powers T 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The copyvio claim is a nonstarter because the Museum has not made a creative compilation of these signs, but is instead simply presenting factual information--this exists here and this is what it says. If there is any copyright to be concerned about, it would be whatever state agency or other entity authored each sign, for which you'd have to determine case by case that the sign text is of sufficient length to be copyrighted ("John Smith slept here" ain't gonna cut it), and that it complied with necssary copyright formalities (e.g., had a copyright notice if pre-1977, registered and then renewed that registration, etc), which is doubtful for signs of this kind. And even then, worst case scenario we could just list it by location and stating factually why it's there, without copying its text verbatim. postdlf (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit it's not a slam dunk, but that's why I said "potential". Regardless, it's not the main thrust of my objection.  Powers T 17:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per WP:NOTDIR. This article could have some value, but not enough to satisfy our policy. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DIR; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:14, 23 July 2012 (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.