Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register Information System


 * 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 procedural close; see my explanation at the bottom. Please see Articles for deletion/National Register Information System (2nd nomination). Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

National Register Information System

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence is given in the article that the NRIS is notable apart from the National Register of Historic Places. The only reference is a link to the database itself. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. It's a new article with several references already, created by me just recently to address a known problem.  See Template talk:NRISref and wt:NRHP where discussions mention the need for this article.  And there are about 40,000 or more references in Wikipedia itself, and many more elsewhere, to the NRIS database.  It is an obvious Keep.  I am sorry to note that the deleting nominator is a named party along with myself, in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Proposed decision, where a leading proposal is for an interaction ban between the nominator and myself.  I personally consider this nomination to be biased and to represent poor judgement by an involved party in arbitration.  And, I don't see reference to any deletion criteria at all, much less any valid reason, in the deletion nomination. -- do  ncr  am  23:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Per my gut feeling. I might bring up some more arguments later. Ryan Vesey 23:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with National Register of Historic Places. Some of the material in this article verges on WP:NOTHOWTO; the rest should be in the NRHP article.  Unless there's some kind of controversy involving the NRIS specifically, it seems unlikely that there'd be enough material on it to sustain an independent article.  A merger would allow material on NRIS to be accumulated and, if enough builds up to justify it, spun off later as its own article.  Ammodramus (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - looks like there are 9 refs there now. I think a small article on a big (but pretty non-controversial) database makes sense. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep References have been provided to indicate the database's notability. Databases can be notable independently of the organization that runs them (the Geographic Names Information System comes to mind), and most of the refs appear NRIS-specific. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference, as I see it, is that the GNIS is a stand-alone database, documenting the United States. The NRIS isn't stand-alone -- it's just a part of the National Register. The NRHP is definitely notable independently of the National Park Service -- the NRIS is not notable independently of the National Register. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep While I can understand the desire to merge it into the organizations article, and I can see how this article needs a good strong edit, I think the references and extent of the database's use supports a separate (better) article. dm (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment (sk is no longer timely) Speedy keep  WP:SK The nomination is missing a rationale for deletion, as notability is not defined by articles on Wikipedia, and articles with reliable primary sources with notability arguments need both evidence of an attempt to find secondary sources and analysis as per WP:ATD to explain why the reliable material cannot be merged and the topic redirected.  In this case the nominator is an administrator, and IMO administrators should show leadership in following the WP:BEFORE guideline.  In addition, less than nine hours elapsed between the creation of the article and the filing of the AfD, so the nomination appears to be premature.  Further, this is not a "high priority" topic where the AfD should continue even without community preparation in the nomination.  This nomination needs to be closed today, March 11.  Such a closure should be with no prejudice to a speedy renomination in three to seven days by any editor.  It also seems likely that a speedy closure would tend to protect the SOV/Doncram parties from criticism by ArbCom.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At the time I nominated it, there were no notability arguments ("the NRIS includes the items on the National Register" isn't an argument for notability) and there was exactly one primary source in the article.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What policy or guideline says that articles need notability arguments? (Answer: not WP:N.)  Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to National Register of Historic Places. Many of the references appear to be published by the NPS itself, and I question whether they properly establish notability. The existence of the NRIS is bound up in that of the National Register, and treating this as a section of that article seems like the best way to describe it for the time being. For a similar case, consider Chemical Abstracts Service; we don't try to maintain separate articles on that organization and its two databases. Choess (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To quantify things: the article as of this writing has 9 footnotes (presumably, the "9 refs" to which Smallbones refers above). One of these (note 6) is an explanatory note with no source given.  Four of them (notes 1, 2, 3, and 7) come from the National Park Service.  Two of them (notes 4 and 5) describe searches that were conducted in the database, but don't discuss the database itself in any detail.  Note 8 is general material about the NRHP, with brief instructions for the use of NRIS to search for properties, but not going into any detail about NRIS.  Note 9 is a library-catalogue entry for NRIS.  None of these meets the WP:GNG standard of significant coverage in independent sources: the significant coverage is in the NPS sources, which aren't independent; the independent sources don't provide significant coverage, either individually or in aggregate.  Ammodramus (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * merge to National Register of Historic Places which hardly mentions it. This is really an administrative aspect of the NRHP and I don't think we can say much about it beyond what we should be saying in the main article anyway. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no difference between this and the National Bridge Inventory, which is the comparable list of bridge for the Federal Highway Administration. 25or6to4 (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These cases are not entirely parallel. NRIS doesn't entirely embody the register, but it is very much an implementation of it. The there's no "registry of bridges" that the NBI implements; it is the listing and its implementation in one. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to National Register of Historic Places. There doesn't appear to be any significant notability apart from the NRHP. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep NRIS is a critically important federal database used for historical research, as established by the references. It's notable as a stand-alone article. --GrapedApe (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed with no prejudice. In other words, no judgement of the nominator, page can be renominated again by someone else at any time, no judgement of the creator, there's no encouragement for someone else to renominate it at any time, etc — basically, please pretend that this AFD never happened.  This is purely because of the rather awkward situation that's developed — since the creation of this AFD, the nominator and creator have been made subject to an interaction ban with each other.  How could we have a proper AFD when the creator can't defend his creation and when the nominator can't explain why the page shouldn't remain?  By the terms of the interaction ban, others may attempt to get this deleted, merged, etc. if they want, while if they do that, the creator will be free to defend the page; neither is practically possible with this AFD.  Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2013 (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.