Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit Hash Historic District


 * 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. As SportingFlyer notes, a merge can be considered outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Rabbit Hash Historic District

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Merge with Rabbit Hash, Kentucky and provide link. I don't see enough here to justify a second article only on its designation as a historic district.  I found it confusing. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC) (revised --David Tornheim (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC))
 * Keep - While I understand the confusion, the historic district within the town does meet notability guidelines for being a national heritage site. I would suggest adding hatnotes to each page to further distinguish the two. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You say that the historic district is WITHIN the town. Why?  Is thereWP:RS that says that?  The Boone County Planning Commission says "As a Preserve America Community,  the  entire  town  of  Rabbit  Hash  has  been  designated a National Register District and a local Historic District." .  Please also see my response below. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:NBUILD criteria #1 by virtue of its historic designation. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strange. I didn't think anyone would vote to keep it.  I can see an argument that it might meet the notability requirements (and arguments that it doesn't), but I don't see why we would want to have a second article even if it is notable.  There's hardly anything in the Historic District article and can be completely encapsulated in the main article.  And to the best of my knowledge the historic district encompasses most if not all of Rabbit Hash anyway.  Yes, they are not exactly the same, but not far from it.
 * If someone was going to add more to the historic article, then that might justify it, but I doubt that will happen--the article is already 10 years old.  Also, I don't think there is much WP:RS on Rabbit Hash's historic significance, which is why the article has stayed so short.  My feeling is that most of the WP:RS out there on it is mostly WP:OR of oral stories, and sources like  or just brief mention in historical works of larger geographic regions.  It was never a very large town.
 * Is there some advantage to having a second article, when anyone looking for information about the historic significance could simply go to the article on the town? --David Tornheim (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If the entire town is included in the historic designation, I'd be good with a merge too. That being said, the main article states that Rabbit Hash proper was designated in 1989, while the historic district was designated in 2003, which sounds like there may be a purpose to having both articles. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks agreeing on the advantage of a merge. The 1989 date for designation is for just the store, not the entire town--a typo by me which I just corrected. Sorry for the confusion.  The town was added to the register in 2003 as you noted. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree with Jmertel2. - Scarpy (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see my responses above. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. We can have multiple articles for overlapping areas like this and it doesn't hurt anything - Scarpy (talk)
 * Yes we can and do, especially when both articles have significant coverage and significantly different scope and focus, neither of which is the case here. It's a question of what reason there would be two have two articles, when one articles does the job, and, in my opinion, more effectively.  As a user of the encyclopedia I found it both confusing and inconvenient.  I was about to add the info. about the fire that destroyed the main historic building, only to find it was already covered in the main article for the town.  Why maintain both? If both articles were immature and one could envision them expanding later in different directions, sure it would make sense, but that is not the case either.  I see no real advantage of the extra work of maintaining two articles if there is no obvious benefit to users.  Can you give a reason to justify the redundancy? --David Tornheim (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't care - I think that I created this from a federal designation, and used the usual pattern for a Historic District article. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and explanation. That's what I had assumed. Do you know if there is any advantage in terms of indexing or searches in having a separate article for a historic district rather than incorporating the material as a subheading of another article, especially if one or both are relatively small in length?  I haven't looked at how other historic districts like these have been handled.  I believe most historic districts will have as little WP:RS as this one.  I figure you might have more experience with any drawbacks to merging and the typical fate of these stubs.  I was hoping someone with such experience with chime in.  Otherwise, I probably would have just done the merge without asking first.  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this would have been better done as a merge request instead of an AfD. I do agree it should probably be merged and redirected with the main Rabbit Hash article. The only sources on the page we're discussing are WP:PRIMARY or are directory listings, whereas the Rabbit Hash article has more information on the historic district itself, and there's no need for a split. SportingFlyer  talk  01:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. You are probably right--I had forgotten that option.  Twinkle certainly makes it so easy to send here with a merge as a common result. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2018 (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.