Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niagara Public School (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  08:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Niagara Public School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous AfD closed as no consensus, but only on the borderline. None of the sources cited in the article provide significant coverage of this former school building. The article contains original research that attempts to make a link between the notability of the building and that of the area it is located in. Though sources were promised, they have not been forthcoming. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. IMO this 2nd AFD should not have been started without someone first obtaining the Canadian historic sites organization's documentation about the historic district, which probably covers this building quite sufficiently to satisfy anyone.  The deletion nominator and I participated in the previous AFD as well as a simultaneous NOR noticeboard No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_36.  As covered in the first AFD:


 * It is a historic building that is old enough and interesting enough to have substantial coverage, including it being subject of at least one published painting.
 * It is included in a historic district, and it is reasonable to believe it is the equivalent of a contributing building in a U.S. historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. We have numerous articles about buildings that are contributing properties in U.S. historic districts.
 * Characteristics of the building are consistent with the stated themes of the historic district, including that (from memory)
 * the area of the historic district extends in from the Niagara waterfront to include the block that the school is on, and not facing buildings across the street, as if the school is targeted
 * the historic district focuses on two-story five-bay masonry structures dating from a certain period (1815-1859), like the school, built in 1859. The stated period itself seems to me like it may have been extended to include the school, which was built later than other buildings closer to the waterfront.
 * the historic district focuses on properties that are well-preserved, and that exemplify the activity of historic preservation itself
 * It is reasonable to expect that specifics on this building are included in the Canadian historic sites organization's nomination documentation about the historic district. During the 1st AFD I made a request (perhaps both by telephone message and by email?) for copy of the documentation, but I did not in fact receive any reply, and I do not know if the Canadian historic sites organization offers the service of providing copies.  Libraries in Niagara are another likely source for copy of that material.
 * We "Keep" articles where we believe there exist substantial reliable sources covering the topic, whether or not we have those sources in hand. If the document had been obtained and it turned out the school was not regarded as significant, then a second AFD might be justified, but that has not happened.  I am willing to try harder to obtain a copy of the documentation myself, but that could have been suggested at the Talk page of the article.  wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP.
 * -- do ncr  am  19:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I did ask on the article talk page, . There was no reply. You apparently requested these documents months ago, but they haven't been forthcoming. The article is more than four years old. At some point, we needed to reassess whether the sources establishing notability exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The deletion nomination exemplifies WP:IMPATIENT, one of the defined reasons to avoid during deletion discussions. In several back-and-forths I responded fully at Talk:Niagara Public School about seeking the documents.  I expect I can get the documentation sometime in person in Niagara-on-the-Lake or in Gatineau, when I will be in one of those areas, but that is not required.  We know well enough that the school is notable and offline sources exist:  that is enough to end this AFD by "Speedy Keep", frankly.  I know well enough, even if you don't, that the documentation covers the school.  The discussion at Talk is getting close to simply whining that the obviously helpful documentation has not been obtained and used.  Well you could have gotten it yourself, and wp:THEREISNODEADLINE.  I will respond less to further comments. -- do  ncr  am  21:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You responded only after I started this AfD! If four years is being impatient, then how long should I wait for sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no need to "get the documents". The school is included in the historic district as the reference says. The ref is published by the "Canada's Historic Places" web site, which is jointly published by the Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments of Canada. The top two levels of government in Canada agree that this is an historic building, and I think we should too.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , are you talking about this source? I can't see the school mentioned there and would appreciate clarification. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. The school is within the historic district, so it gets inherited notability. I know you ar eprobably going to say no to that, but think of Angkor Wat, for example. It's a World heritage site/district. Everything inside it is notable.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, . Yes, I am guided by WP:NOTINHERITED here and think that the building itself needs to be notable - otherwise being part of a district could be an argument for having articles on buildings for which zero sources exist. I respect your opinion, though, and at least there is some coverage in this case. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I added two decent book sources that mention it in terms of its historic value. I also found another ref for Janet Carnochan, the first principal and added that. (Note that in doing so, I spotted and removed some copyvio that was added in March as it perfectly matches the "come, Bright Improvement" ref). All in all, there are decent sources for something this old, which together establish notability. There does seem to be a bit of WP:OR and possible COPYVIO, but that's not a reason to delete an interesting and notable article, but rather a reason for cleanup. I like the painting as a reference-- it's a clear and notable historical reference to the school in visual form.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The article now has adequate sources.  I am not qualified to judge the significance of the building.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - appears to be properly sourced. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The Brancliff Inn, which the school was converted to, has gotten a smattering of coverage in tour books such as this one: . It also placed 6th in Trivago’s Top 10 Canadian Hotels list in 2016, which got coverage by a few sources:. This is far from the best-sourced article I've ever seen, but I think the various sources that have been found are enough to establish notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:56, 29 June 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.