Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destroyed heritage of the United States


 * 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 no consensus. There has been substantial discussion but no consensus has been reached. Perhaps a rename or move as suggested by some keep participants will help find consensus about how to deal with this content area. If not, this can always be renominated at some point in the future to see if consensus can be found then. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

List of destroyed heritage of the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced and subjective list: fails WP:LISTVERIFY and no explanation is given as to what "heritage" means or how we could list it in a NPOV way without original research. buidhe 22:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Criteria for inclusion added. If you think the topic does not belong in Wikipedia, why haven't you proposed List of destroyed heritage for deletion? As for verification, the articles for the buildings provide referenced information on the details, but I will change this if that is the consensus. I'm also perplexed as to why this couldn't all be handled with some suggestions, as I believe the review process is supposed to work? Instead of just throwing the article to deletion (which the reviewer above first tried to do without discussion, even). Keepcalmandchill (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is just a list of buildings of some cultural significance that were demolished. Buildings get torn down all the time, a too-common fate that is too broad a criterion for a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of lists in Wikipedia that are impossible to ever be fully inclusive. I don't see how this is any worse than any other of the lists of buildings and structures. Should we also delete list of bridges? Or list of walls? Nevertheless, I've added Template:Dynamic list on top of the page, and also notability in the inclusion criteria.Keepcalmandchill (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, then it fails WP:LISTN. Find a source or two that lists demolished American buildings. Being demolished is not a listworthy criterion. "heritage" is rather hazy too. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty such sources. A narrow definition of destroyed U.S. heritage could be, say, places listed as National Historic Landmarks (a high level of historic designation) that have been destroyed and hence delisted.  For example, it is a bummer that the Edwin H. Armstrong House was destroyed in 1983.  Seems like some should be interested in participating in Talk page discussion about intentions for this list.  Not for AFD, though. --Doncram (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is the term "destroyed heritage", which can mean so many things, e.g. paintings, sculptures, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Being someone who lives in Detroit an sees the crime and fear caused by abaondoned buildings used as bases for crime and hide outs to rape school girls on their way to or from school, the inclusion of a building that sat as an abaondoned eyesore for over 15 years on this list is a set of situations showing some people care more about outward historical appeal than the safety of school girls, at least when those school girls are African-Americans. Lists like this are one sided and advance a narrative that causes real hurt and pain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What???? Is there some specific incident being alluded to here, about bias or racism or whatever?  Of one or more Wikipedia editors???  Whatever this comment is about might possibly be relevant for addressing elsewhere, like if there are BLP attacks or other gross conduct going on somewhere, but I see no relevance to this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deletion nomination apparently has concerns which might be relevant for editing, or tagging; they should probably participate at the article's Talk page.  I see no valid reason for deletion;  clearly, destroyed heritage, like endangered heritage and like preserved heritage, is a huge, valid topic, is covered hugely, and there can be a list of examples. --Doncram (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An obvious way that this list is important is in reminding readers/America/the world of what has been lost, with precautionary implications about what else may be lost due to war, religious strife (Buddhas of Bamyan come to mind, carelessness with respect to fire safety, unhindered commercial development, etc. This idea is obvious and has been pointed out repeatedly to the world, and IMHO doesn't require very specific sourcing to justify having this as a list. However there surely do exist published lists of this type, which would usefully be referenced.  For example there have existed numerous published lists of Seven Wonders of the Ancient World type, which are directly relevant on the world-level scale (published widely in the 1800s?), and I rather imagine there must be a similar history of United States-specific lists (though even if not, it is still obviously fine to have a U.S. section split out of the world-wide list-article). --Doncram (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Offhand, I think the list should be developed with explanation of the _importance_ of listed items.  However it does appropriately include some very important items, including Pennsylvania Station (1910–1963).  That was an important building, and its destruction was controversial and arguably spawned the historic preservation movement in the United States.  It contributed to the formalization and great growth of the National Historic Landmarks designation program in 1960 and following years, growth of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the 1966 passage of the National Historic Preservation Act, and arguably directly led to the creation of the National Register of Historic Places in 1968.
 * I've sort of now tried to open some discussion at the Talk page of the AFD subject list-article about list criteria. This AFD should never have been opened, IMHO, without discussion there, which no one attempted.  Further discussion about list criteria and other matters of development should go on there. --Doncram (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of destroyed heritage. It's a useful list, but I fail to see why this WP:REDUNDANTFORK is required at this point. That article is not too long that some more entries cannot be added to it successfully, which is where the current content of this article should go. Also need to be mindful of the WP:BIAS that WP focuses too much on the United States as it is. StonyBrook (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:LISTPURPS and WP:LISTCRIT. "Cultural heritage" has a specific meaning and an internationally-agreed definition and "destroyed" is fairly self-evident. The problem with merging to  List of destroyed heritage is that the latter is already too long and it would need be split out again.  Buildings are, indeed, lost all the time but the buildings that are eligible for inclusion is much less. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Destroyed heritage" is a made-up designation that nobody uses for lists, because it is so vague and wide-ranging, so this fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR. Heritage sites, yes. Buildings, yes. Sculptures, I suppose. More tightly focused lists are fine, but this (and the other destroyed heritage lists) are poorly thought out and indiscriminate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Every list is a "made-up designation". That's how language works and pointing it out is not a valid argument against LISTPURPS, LISTCRIT, or LISTN. How is this list any less "made up" than List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1985? (a featured list, BTW). As said previously, UNESCO has an internationally-agreed-to definition: What is meant by "cultural heritage"?
 * The term cultural heritage encompasses several main categories of heritage:
 * Cultural heritage
 * Tangible cultural heritage:
 * movable cultural heritage (paintings, sculptures, coins, manuscripts)
 * immovable cultural heritage (monuments, archaeological sites, and so on)
 * underwater cultural heritage (shipwrecks, underwater ruins and cities)
 * I have left out intangible heritage because determining when or how that is destroyed is impossible. We have no trouble with determining if tangible international cultural heritage, say, the Buddhas of Bamyan, were destroyed (March, 2001, for clarity's sake).  Applying that to heritage in the United States should be no harder than international heritage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia lists in general don't use "made-up designations"; that goes against LISTN. There are numerous lists of films considered the best, for example. I have been unable to find any lists of "destroyed heritage" or even "destroyed cultural heritage". Are you seriously saying we should have one gigantic list of all those things you listed above? How many culturally significant buildings alone were lost in say the Great Chicago Fire or the 1906 San Francisco earthquake? Multiply that by a couple of centuries of natural (and unnatural) disasters in all the cities, towns, villages, plantations, etc., and it is clear that the scope of this list is unmanageable. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See below but again, pure red herring. There is no need to pretend that every building anyone liked is "cultural heritage." We use RS.  If RS describe a destroyed building as significant, there's no reason we can't have a list that includes them.  And BTW, we do have a "gigantic list of all the things [I] listed". The project doesn't seem to have collapsed under its burden. As even WP:OTHER recognizes: ...the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.  There is no way to honestly frame a consistent rationale why a list of international cultural heritage that has been destroyed is acceptable but one for such things in the United States is not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk about your red herrings. I specified "culturally significant buildings", not "every building anyone liked". Dozens, if not hundreds, must have been lost in the two disasters I cited. I also said that IMO those other "destroyed heritage" lists deserve to go too. Besides, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Finally, as I have repeatedly asked, when has anyone on the "outside" grouped "destroyed heritage"? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, but what exactly fits these definitions? Very much a matter of opinion and OR, especially when it comes to many buildings that are just buildings to some people but important heritage to others. buidhe 16:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a really easy way (actually, ways) to tell "what fits": National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmark, National Trust Historic Sites, etc. The research has already been done and is not "original". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If there were such a list as List of destroyed National Register of Historic Places sites, that would be a different story, but this isn't that list and it doesn't have any objective criteria in its current form. Just to pick a random example, who says Hudson Terminal is cultural heritage? This list would have to be completely deleted and rewritten to comply with NOR. b<b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 17:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is being made out to be much harder and more controversial than it really is. We should do with this list what we are supposed do with everything: follow the sources.  To imply that there are no independent, reliable sources describing tangible cultural heritage is just silly. Pennsylvania Station, for just one example, is reliably and indisputably described in terms that fulfill the definition of tangible cultural heritage: "...the original Pennsylvania Station...elevated the mere activity of entering and leaving the city into a  momentous occasion." "...the original Pennsylvania Station was one of New York City's grandest landmarks, a palace in the middle of Manhattan." Its destruction created the modern historic preservation movement: "Its demolition is the stuff of New York legend, an act of architectural vandalism so unspeakable that it gave rise to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, saved Grand Central Terminal and upended the city’s development priorities." The Singer Building is another indisputable cultural landmark that has been removed: "The lobby had the quality of "celestial radiance" seen in world's-fair and exposition architecture of the period, as the author Mardges Bacon described it...In his 1963 inventory "New York Landmarks" (Wesleyan University Press), the preservationist Alan Burnham classed the Singer Building with the Woolworth, Metropolitan Life and other buildings now considered very important." The only grounds for deletion is the stoic insistence that this kind of research is somehow impossible and we are therefore doomed to accept every passing editor's version of importance.  This is a red herring. The above trivially-sourced citations are not, I once again emphasize, OR. This is what we do on a regular basis to build the project.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems like some editors in this AfD are most concerned with the word "heritage" in the title. If it was called List of destroyed historical sites of the United States or List of destroyed cultural landmarks of the United States, would that clear up the issue with the list? Sites, buildings, landmarks — any of these words can be added to clarify what the list is about, since it's mainly about historic buildings. The meaning of the word "heritage" is a bit less recognizable in comparison. I personally think the content of the article and subject is notable enough for a separate list, no matter what it is called. And I don't think the name being up for debate should be the reason for the deletion of an article. But it seems like the word "heritage" in the title is what people are most bothered by, so I thought I would point this out as a potential solution. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP Perfectly valid list article, plenty of blue links, clear definition for inclusion.  D r e a m Focus  04:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete How the hell are you supposed to define "heritage?" It's a subjective definition and as such this fails WP:LISTVERIFY. In terms of moving this to a different title, how do you define "historical sites" or "cultural landmarks?" Even these open up a WP:NOTEVERYTHING problem, as they are also subjective (history happens everywhere, one person's cultural landmark is another person's Veterans Stadium. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Could be partially merged to List of destroyed heritage which has the same problems but I agree with buidhe and SportingFlyer that there are no inclusion criteria here. It seems to merely be a list of old buildings that no longer exist, without anything establishing them as "heritage". They were early skyscrapers? They had subjectively interesting architecture? Per Clarityfiend, stuff not lasting forever is just how things work, and what makes this department store any more "heritage" than the malls being abandoned today? A president lived at Ulysses S. Grant Cottage; is the original of Lincoln's reconstructed log cabin destroyed heritage? I'd think Hotel Seattle would fit here but what about the Kingdome? "Having blue links" is not and never has been criteria for keeping an article. Reywas92Talk 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep A perfectly valid navigational list of blue links. The critera are simply that a building satisfies WP:NBUILD and has an article, and that it has been destroyed. The "heritage" word in the title can easily be removed or changed to reflect the specifics of NBUILD. The critera could alternately also be tightened to include only those buildings that third-party sources refer to as e.g. demolished landmarks. Whichever way the article is developed, there are no grounds for deletion. <strong style="color:#555555">Pontificalibus 13:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly valid list as long as it only features blue links. Rename to List of destroyed heritage sites of the United States or something similar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to destroyed heritage sites/buildings etc. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.