Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sackville House


 * 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. WP:SNOW. Agree that this is pretty obviously a bad-faith tit-for-tat nomination, and a trout for the nominator accordingly. The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sackville House

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most of the references do not exist, or are to wikipedia articles. The ones that are real are not notable - one is a memo saying the house was removed from the National Registry, another is a list that simply has "Sackville House" with no explanation or context, and the last is a single newspaper article from more than 30 years ago which is about how the house is not notable enough to save from demolition. There does not seem to be any notable references at all in Google. This is simply local trivia. Otp15301 (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC) — Otp15301 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As this well-executed AfD is your first edit to WP, can you please tell us who this account is a sock of?--Oakshade (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The former NRHP listing indicates that documentation establishing notability exists, even if it is offline. As for demolition, notability is not temporary and it does not expire . • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:N requires "Significant Coverage," there is none. WP:NRV says The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest... This was of short-term interest decades ago according to secondary sources. WP:NTEMP says While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion... Now's that time. Please provide verifiable references and sources to support notability as defined by WP:N.
 * Short-term interest? The Federal government designated this a historic place.  "Historic" is the antithesis of "short term interest."--Oakshade (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The NRHP (part of the National Park Service) has paper documentation on this site (they're slow to digitize removed properties), and the Observer-Reporter is not trivial coverage. Chris857 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Page 17 of the newspaper, on the same page as a grilling recipe, is trivial, especially considering this edition of the paper is 33 years old. If the only source is this, it fails WP:N. It doesn't belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otp15301 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 33 years old? Notability is not temporary. If it was notable then, that's enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. All NRHP properties (de-listed or not) are presumed notable due to the associated documentation, which combined with the local newspaper coverage is more than sufficient. Camerafiend (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are over 88,000 listings in the NRHP], only a subset of which are on Wikipedia. The only way the Sackville House is related to it is that it was delisted. It's not a badge of notability on its own in any way. There are no references in Google Books, and the mention on Google Search is for a house in the UK. Otp15301 (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was de-listed because it was demolished. That doesn't make it any less notable; notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The presence/absence of articles for other NRHP sites is irrelevant and not indicative of notability. Camerafiend (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - All HRHP require extensive documentation to exist.  The Observer-Reporter has extensive coverage too.  That some of the coverage is "page 17 of the newspaper, on the same page as a grilling recipe" is totally irrelevant to WP:GNG.  It could be on page 117 next to a cupcake recipe and still be a reliable source that's sufficient to GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only item under WP:GNG this meets is Independent resource - there's one that's referenced. It is supposed to meet all of the guidelines, and it's not even close. Please do the work to meet the definition of WP:GNG. I think it's impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otp15301 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It has very significant coverage from "Independent" reliable sources including the NRHP and the Observer-Reporter to establish meeting WP:GNG. Not sure what your point is as we're not sure why you nominated this except maybe to retaliate against a user below who created this article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - So far beyond reasonableness (it passes WP:GNG several times over), this must be a !joke nomination.--GrapedApe (talk)
 * Given the nom's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT insistence that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, I'm beginning to think this is a troll. Also given that the nom is an SPA familiar with WP terminology and procedures, I think it's also an established user doing the trolling. --Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a well-referenced article about a property designated as a historic place by the federal government, a designation which requires a higher standard of notability than WP:GNG. I have a suspicion that this is in response to this AfD, where the article's creator and the IP who nominated this page had a difference of opinion. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep In order to even get a structure nominated for the NRHP, you must produce documentation quite like our reliably sourced reference requirements, and in enormous amounts.  By definition, in order to be on the NRHP, sufficient referencing exists to show notability.  Possibly the nominator is not aware that existence of references is the only requirement.  They do not have to be on the article.  As several other editors have stated, once something is notable, it stays that way.  It is never not notable again.  Even if it ceases to exist, its existence is still notable.  This is a no brainer keep.  Lincoln's dead, and all the first person accounts of his life are almost 150 years old.  Does that make him any less notable?  Nope, and it doesn't this house either.  To the nominator:  Please, when the government opens for business again, go look at any  NRHP nomination document and then tell me sufficient sourcing does not exist. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Thankfully, Pennsylvania's put most of its National Register nominations online, including the one for the Sackville House, so we don't have to depend on the federal budget for this house. You can see that you'll get relevant information from the nomination form, which was produced by locally reputable authors, and the fact that it gained national recognition means that historic preservation officials in Harrisburg and DC approved the work that the locals did.  Meanwhile, note the top of the fourth page: there's additional relevant information in a book put out by MIT Press in 1969.  Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 18 October 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.