Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historic properties in Williams, Arizona


 * 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. Lourdes  03:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

List of historic properties in Williams, Arizona

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page should be deleted because it contains nothing of value in addition to what is/can/should be included in NRHP-listed Williams Historic Business District, NRHP-listed Williams Residential Historic District and Williams, Arizona. This is duplicative, and as far as I can tell only has been created to allow for original research to be added, potentially, about properties that the article creator might want to make publicity about. In no other state besides Arizona are there any articles like this one. I don't know why, but the article creator seems to want to work outside the framework which works well for covering notable historic properties everywhere else in the U.S. Doncram (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, the creator wishes to cover buildings that they personally deem to be historical. They are willing to note "However, not all of the individual structures qualify as historical within the district. This is due to the fact that most are owned by private owners who have the undeniable right to demolish or change the façade of the structure for commercial reasons if he or she so desires." Which is basically correct, that owners can opt out of NRHP listing. However, if the property is not NRHP-listed, and not deemed historical by any other body, then IMHO it is not Wikipedia-notable. We are not well served by lists of properties deemed notable solely by one Wikipedia editor. --Doncram (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep- I'm surprised how fast you were in nominating this well written article for deletion. It is not the first time that you have attempted to have an article which I have written deleted, why is that?. As a matter of fact by the tone of the nomination it seems as if you have something personal against my contributions. I go through a lot of trouble visiting the towns in Arizona to take pictures and document historical structures.


 * 1. This article is not about the Williams Historic Business District per se. The particular structures pictured in the Historic Business District section were not deemed historical by me. They have been recognized as historical by the Camp Verde Historical Society and have plaques provided identifying them as such. Some are also individually listed in the National Register of Historic Place,


 * 2. I do not work outside of the framework nor have provided original research as claimed. The sources in regard to the properties are included, among them the National Register of Historic Places forms. Of course I have dedicated the series to towns and cities in Arizona, because that is where I live.


 * 3. As stated above I am not the person who deems the mentioned properties as historical. Even though the properties are within the NRHP historic district not all with the exception of those listed are historical. These building are mentioned in the National Register of Historic Places form.


 * 4. The houses in the article are also considered as such in Williams Residential Historic District National Register of Historic Places form. Wikipedia does not have an article about the Williams Residential Historic District.


 * 5, Included in the article are the places listed in the National Register of Historic Places within the Williams Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest, because that section of the forest is in Williams and the Williams Ranger District Office also.


 * 6. Nominator, please do not add your personal POV comments to the article.


 * Nominator, please do not make this nomination a personal issue and stop following and harassing me about my work. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. (ec to edits revising their reply) About me nominating this promptly after your creation, that is nonsense. You linked to one or more articles that I created, so it showed up on my watchlist, and based on previous stuff I knew this was likely dreck (IMO) that should be deleted. The prompter the better.
 * We (Wikipedia editors) have a framework, in which we cover notable historic properties in the U.S.: we list them within articles about NRHP-listed historic districts. And we make links to those articles from articles about towns/cities/counties, from sections about their history. We don't go on about places that we personally think are old and interesting, without sourcing. There is no reason to have a new, separate series of list-articles going outside of the existing system. Wherever you mention houses/buildings that are listed in a NRHP historic district, well they should be covered in that list-article instead. Wherever you mention something else, as you have in others in your personal series of Arizona list-articles, it basically should not be covered. In your reply you mention places covered by a Camp Verde Historical Society, I am not sure about those. Are those covered in a NRHP historic district? Is it an independent, valid source? If there are notable such places, not NRHP-listed, why not just mention them in the Williams, Arizona town article's history section? I seriously, deeply, do not understand your quest to create a different structure in Arizona. It seems egotistical and inappropriate to me, duplicative where you agree with NRHP or other historic district listing, and inappropriate/non-encyclopedic wherever it is based on your personal judgments. --Doncram (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Your statement "It seems egotistical and inappropriate to me, duplicative where you agree with NRHP or other historic district listing, and inappropriate/non-encyclopedic wherever it is based on your personal judgments.", seems as if you are getting a little personal. You state here "The prompter the better", that seems to me as pushing your POV on this nom. As I have stated my article is about strctures per se which have been sourced. You state "We (Wikipedia editors)", I don't know, but I have been here and editing for, let me see. 15 years with over 700 articles under my belt. Anyway my friend, let's discontinue and put an end to this discussion and let the community decide the fate of the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Not Fair - To all the editors who read this, the nominator has taken it upon himself to use my work (Intellectual work) and images, which he is criticizing here, and in a state of "plagiarism" has posted and copied them exactly word for word on the Williams Historic Business District article. see: . Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work. Use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. He did this before a decision on this article's fate could be reached. This inappropriate act in turn could have affected the decision of the voters and the outcome of this nomination. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 12.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Offline 19:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is no reason this article should be nominated for deletion. The subjects fully pass WP:GNG. Skirts89 21:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History -related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge & Redirect, subject of this stand-alone list article falls within the scope of the article Williams, Arizona. That article does not yet meet WP:TOOBIG, as such I am of the opinion that a sub-article or stand-alone list article, would be at this time best as an embedded-list within the Williams, Arizona article. When the parent article becomes too large, this article can be re-created as a stand-alone list as a sub article.-- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 20:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Some kind of annoyingly complicated merge/split up - Here's the thing. Doncram has taken a strangely hostile approach to this AfD for some reason, and copy/pasting the material this article contains without attribution (while arguing to delete the original content he copied [!?]) is a bad enough copyvio that it could probably go to ANI (lest he take care to promptly remedy the situation). Ultimately, however, the underlying point is more or less sound. That is, what is a "historic property" and why do we need a stand-alone list of such properties apart from the NRHP pages, the pages about the properties within those NRHP-listed districts, and the page about the town? There's no need to delete here, as there's more than a little bit of usable content. The problem is that it was compiled in this page, rather than in the pages that already exist... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - The article is an excellent one and should be a stand alone informative article as it is. I suggest that instead of merging this article, that the following Williams Historic Business District be merged into Williams, Arizona. Antonio Martin (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Doncram, I respect the quality of the work you have faithfully produced here year after year about historic sites and, being a history fanatic, also admire the thoroughness of the contributions you have made, but I respectfully disagree with your position in this case. Let me explain why.


 * In analyzing, I see there are 2 arguments against the List article: (1) Duplication of contents/internal WP copyvio, and (2) Non-notability/OR. So it's really 1 argument: Duplication of contents (if the property in Tony's list is already in the NRHP) and Non-notability (if the property isn't in the NRHP). -- sort of a catch 22.


 * If we have articles about roads in AZ and then we make Lists of roads in AZ. We have articles about rivers in AZ and then we make a List of rivers in AZ. We have articles about museums in AZ and then we make a List of museums in AZ. So, clearly, if we have articles about historic places in AZ, then why not make a list of historic places in AZ (or particular cities for that matter, like this one)? So the argument goes "because the Williams, AZ, list contains places that aren't listed in the NRHP". But, to me, that's a non-argument because not all roads in the List of Roads, rivers in the List of Rivers, nor museums in the List of Museums need to have an article written to be listed in those 3 respective lists. In fact, the opposite is generally true, that someone will write a List article about, say, Mountains in Alaska, before other editors will write the article about each mountain. Morale: Not having and article written yet, isn't a requirement for road/river/museum to be listed in their respective list article. In fact, notability, which is a requirement for an article subject, isn't a requirement for the individual members listed in a list article.


 * There's nothing sacred about the NRHP; they are only a guide, they are not the law of the land. It doesn't matter that the NRHP selects and lists places, because, for example, the Sierra Club has their own listing of great hiking trails, but we don't limit ourselves to writing articles about trails listed in Sierra Club's lists. It's a free country; we don't need to limit ourselves to go only by what the US Govt (via its NRHP list) says are historic places. We can do our own (they don't need to be backed up by the Gov't; they only need to be backed up by RS). And, no, that's not OR if there are entities, other than the NRHP, that consider the site historic. And we certainly don't need to limit ourselves to go only the NRHP list if there are others places that are equally historic but that NRHP doesn't list for reasons that have everything to do with money and nothing to do with history.


 * If, however, Tony's list contains any copy violations, then certainly those needs to be deleted or paraphrased ASAP. Or if his List article contains any places listed without any cites to back it up (say, Tony's grandmother's house or what have you), then that needs to be corrected. But copyvios, if any, or the lack of cites, in and of themselves, aren't reason enough to DELETE the entire List article.


 * If there is something in Tony's List that isn't in the NRHP list and isn't historic and you can point it out by name(s), then we can look at specifics, but for now, since we are dealing in generalities only so far, this is how I vote. Mercy11 (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2019 (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.