Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Memorial City Hall and Auditorium


 * 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, it's snowing. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Lynn Memorial City Hall and Auditorium

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm pretty sure that a city's City Hall is not notable in and of itself. Lynn's City Hall appears to be a historical location, though, so i'm not sure. Opinions? Firestorm (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so that should justify its notability. Swampyank (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment It very well may be notable because of that, I just don't know what the current consensus is on historical locations and city halls. I'm not voting on this AFD; I just listed it to get a consensus. If it appears that its historical status is enough to justify an article, I have no problem keeping it. Firestorm (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep NRHP locations are pretty much always kept. See Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Walker House, Articles for deletion/Alexis LaTour House, etc. (I can dig up more examples if necessary.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The National Register of Historic Places has higher standards for inclusion than Wikipedia does.  The nomination form states, "The Lynn Memorial City Hall and Auditorium building is architecturally and historically significant as a landmark civic center that is the focal point of City Hall Square. Built in 1948-49 on the site of the previous city hall, the building combines Art Deco and Early Modern exterior features with an advanced and unique mid 20th century interior plan."  In fact, the nomination form tells quite a lot about the history of the building, so it should be incorporate into this article.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Elkman. NRHP has much higher inclusion standards than WP.  --Oakshade (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places means a building is notable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as NRHP listed building per Elkman. The RS coverage to expand this stub eventually is proven to exist. It is a matter of retrieving that documentation. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Elkman and others. --Lockley (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Recommend withdrawal or speedy keep as this clearly qualifies. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:55, 10 January 2009 (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.