Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niagara Public School


 * 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. Borderline, as the keeps look rather thin to me, but we don't quite have consensus.  Sandstein  21:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Niagara Public School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a former school turned B&B, making and sourcing no strong claim of notability under our inclusion standards for buildings. The "sources" here are a deadlinked page on a local tourism directory, a biographical sketch of a former principal of the school on the personal web page of one of her own descendants, and a photo of a historical plaque devoted to that same principal — but the school doesn't inherit notability just because it once had a principal who might be notable herself, local tourism directories don't assist notability even if the links are actually still alive, and there's no strong evidence that either the school or the B&B has ever been the subject of enough reliable source coverage in its own right to be eligible for an article. For added bonus, this was created by an editor with a direct conflict of interest. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  21:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  21:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:GNG, WP:COI, and WP:INHERIT, as was mentioned by the nominator. An article about a business with no notability masquerading as an article about a public school with no notability. A Google search turns up more results concerning the public schools in Niagara, Wisconsin than it does this particular building. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added info about how it is a contributing building in the 2004-declared Niagara-on-the-Lake National Historic Site of Canada.  It is a significant building which, by multiple criteria, conforms to the defining historic and architectural character of the district.  Unfortunately the Canadian Register of Historic Places are not nearly as well covered yet in Wikipedia as the corresponding U.S. historic sites, so this importance wasn't clear (and should be developed in the article, using registration documentation equivalent to that of U.S. historic sites, but not yet available on-line).  I doubt anything about the principal is very important;  the building's architecture and preservation are more significant is my guess.  There are many articles in Wikipedia about B&B's/buildings listed on the U.S. historic sites list;  being a B&B is part of how it has been possible for these buildings to be preserved. The B&B's get a free external link from their Wikipedia article, not much reward for all the work that has gone into their preservation and sharing of their history. -- do  ncr  am  04:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Being a registered historic building would be an important notability claim,, but I can't see where the building is mentioned in the source you have cited for these edits. Could you clarify? I don't see how you can justify that material about the building's architecture if the building is not mentioned in the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is informed interpretation of the source which describes the historic district. From experience working on many U.S. historic district and other historic site articles, and some Canadian ones, I have learned a lot.  By its address and Google maps I determine that the building is within the historic district's area, on the slope from Front St. up about four blocks.  It is fairly common that a local person would use a local name such as "Old Town" for the district, while the name chosen for the historic district is set from a higher perspective, hence the actual district name is "Niagara-on-the-Lake".  Also Google Street view for this location shows the building clearly.  It is not original research to observe from the street view that this building is indeed a 2-story building with a central doorway and employing a recognizable architectural style, etc.  It was already in the article that the building dates from 1859, which is the last year of the date-range defined for buildings deemed to contribute to the historic character of the district (i.e. contributing buildings) and it is a reasonable guess (as an aside here, not put into the article) that the date-range was chosen to include this specific building.  If this were just a few miles away across the U.S. border, we'd have online version of the documentation, like we do for Deveaux School Historic District, High and Locust Streets Historic District, and Chilton Avenue-Orchard Parkway Historic District out of historic sites in Niagara County, New York.  Wikipedia practice varies on individual buildings that are contributing resources in historic districts in the U.S.: there can be a separate article for it, it can be covered as a list-item in a historic district article (Manlius Village Historic District is one example listing its buildings briefly), it can have a separate section in the article on the district.  Here, I can say for sure that it is a "contributing building" within the district.  Given the existing article, but without the actual detailed documentation of the district and school building in hand, I can say that I strongly believe it is worthy of a separate article...that the documentation exists...but I can't say there absolutely has to be one.  Other B&B's within historic districts usually do get separate articles, I believe.  There is not an article about the historic district separate from the article about the larger town, else I would suggest merging it to a section or mention within the historic district article.  I would not have started a separate article on it myself without the documentation, but since there is an article I would AGF that the article starter is informed enough (even if they have COI) to judge that it has merit, and especially given its general compatibility to the district-type info, I would keep it.  Also it is a small service to B&B-interested readers to allow them information on this B&B of historic interest.  It can be tagged for needing more referenced development. -- do  ncr  am  00:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Informed interpretation", "observe from the street view" and "I can say for sure" all sound like original research. If you can provide a source that establishes that the building is an important part of the historic district, then I will reconsider my opinion below. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A building happening to be located in a registered historical district is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability — if the building itself does not have an independent historical designation in its own right, and isn't the subject of any significant reliable source coverage in its own right, then it does not get an inclusion freebie just because of where it happens to be located. If you have to guess that it's probably a "contributing building" to the historical character of the district, because reliable sources aren't explicitly saying that it is a contributing building to the historical character of the district, then that's original research. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - the historic district is no doubt notable, but notability is not inherited and no sources have been provided that demonstrate that the building is itself notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that editor Cordless Larry in this edit has removed substantial material from the article, on stated basis that it is OR. I think that is not reasonable.  It is not OR to "interpret" photos of the building to state factually that the building has 2 stories, that it has a peaked roof sloping to front and back, that it has 5 windows/doors along its front.  Maybe if one is not familiar with what a bay (architecture) is, one could think an expert is needed?  All that is needed is to count to 5, an expert is not needed to make simple observation that is not contested. :(  It is also not OR to read the summary of historic district definition and find those facts (and it having been built in 1859, info from elsewhere) are among the defining characteristics of buildings deemed to contribute to the historic character of the district. -- do  ncr  am  10:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Claiming that the subject is a "contributing building" and that "it reflects the conservation movement in Canada by its restoration work 'sympathetic to the original appearance and character of buildings built during the 1815 to 1859 period'" when the source doesn't even mention the building is OR, I'm afraid. If you want to describe the building based on Google Street View, then fine, but your additions were original research and synthesis in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See No original research/Noticeboard, which is perhaps a better place to discuss this. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The article has been developed by an IP editor and myself and now includes more references. In the deletion nomination it was asserted that the article creator (who is editor  has a COI, with possible implication that the article is positively biased about the subject.  I don't see evidence of COI or bias., could you please explain?  If it cannot be supported, then that assertion should be disregarded in the closing judgment.  In any event, the article as developed by creator through 15 May 2012 seems short and factual, and the article has since been modified to a significant degree. -- do  ncr  am  21:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would disregard the COI issue anyway - an article written by a COI editor can always be rewritten to be neutral. Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced about the subject's notability. Few of the sources cited mention the building, so there isn't significant coverage, and as has been argued above, notability isn't inherited from the historic district. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the sources that you added (Directory of Designations),, is a broken link, which makes me wonder how you verified it? Was it working earlier? I've tagged it as dead for now. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I used the Canadian Register of Historic Places page about the historic district at http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=14623&pid=0, which I found originally as footnote 8 in Niagara-on-the-Lake article. I had no luck with the broken link either, which is given in footnote 7 at that article.  My best guess is that it was a general search on "Niagara-on-the-Lake" like this current one, but it is/was not important, you confirm it is dead, and so I am deleting its mention in the article now.  Thanks. -- do  ncr  am  00:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The creator's edit history also includes a (now-deleted) article about a subject — I won't give the full name here because WP:OUTING, but it's not hard to find if you need to know — whose surname matched the creator's username, and who was claimed (but not sourced) as the namesake of the B&B that now occupies this school building because it's owned by that article subject's father. I can't presume to judge whether the creator is that article subject himself, the father or the other brother whose name was reportedly portmanteaued with that article subject's to create the B&B's name, but it was quite clearly a member of the immediate family of the B&B's owner. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explanation. So it may be like many articles on historic buildings, in that it was started by an owner or occupant, and then developed, which is fine. -- do  ncr  am  00:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as being sourced enough to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I ask which sources you think constitute significant coverage, ? As mentioned above, I am concerned that one of the sources doesn't actually mention the building. The others only seem to mention it briefly. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2016 (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.