Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suydam 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. Nominator withdrawn, no opposition. (non-admin closure). John from Idegon (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Suydam House

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not believe this article is notable, unless something very important is missing from the article (like why this place is notable to anyone who isn't local?), it is not WP:NOTABLE compliant. Its basically a house/tourist attraction A Guy into Books (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC) additional comment. it appears that this article is part of a set. I cannot "personally" see why NRHP buildings are notable but their equivalents in others countries are not. I am from the UK, where Grade II listed buildings are not considered notable, and most museums are not notable either. I think that a wider look at what is notable in relation to buildings of historical interest but no great fame is in order. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 1.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - can you be a bit more precise in your nomination? In particular, can you explain how you carried out WP:BEFORE and what you found (or didn't find)? Also, I think that generally NRHP buildings are kept, do you believe this should be an exception? Smmurphy(Talk) 02:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it true that Grade II listed buildings aren't considered notable? I'd guess that all would pass WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and could be covered under WP:GEOFEAT. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

the details are scant, it says not yet digitised. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/AssetDetail?assetID=b2f708c0-a76f-4265-a61c-ca3cc7b58bf3 there is more information about the system access on this page: https://www.nps.gov/nr/research/ also the state has open data on it, which is less useful, at: https://data.ny.gov/Recreation/National-Register-of-Historic-Places/iisn-hnyv A Guy into Books (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am a fan and creator and editor of many articles on NRHP-listed houses and other sites.  There are much worse NRHP articles to suggest for possible deletion that don't have any NRHP nomination document information included in them;  this one was developed and links to an NRHP nomination document.  But in this one (and quite a lot of others) the information provided in the article does not explain any importance of the place.  "No assertion of notability" is a Speedy Deletion reason, although technically not a valid argument in AFDs. -- do  ncr  am  03:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Commment. A NRHP listing that documentation for the property exists to be retrieved, even though the information may be off line. For Wikipedia's purposes, such documentation nearly always establishes likely notability.  NRHP stub like this one have long been a point of contention, but we almost never delete them. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I think NRHP stubs this long, with an NRHP nomination document included as a source, have never really much been contested for their notability, though there has been other contention about them, and shorter NRHP articles with just NRIS database source have been nominated for deletion. The link for the NRHP nomination document source here, from New York State, like most New York State ones, doesn't work though, so it is not easy to immediately improve this article using that source.  The least substantial NRHP articles are listed by a bot at User:NationalRegisterBot/Substubs, including currently 1848 short (<325 byte text) articles having no inline citations besides to the NRIS database.  I don't know if a campaign to delete them all would help;  any individual article can just be improved in immediate response to a specific AFD. -- do  ncr  am  14:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The usual view has been that NRHP sites are notable. The fact that this one is apparently a museum seems to confirm notability, but I do not really know.  We have shied away from allowing articles on every British Listed Building, which is an equivalent.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The standards for listing a property on the National Register of Historic Places are higher than Wikipedia's standards of notability; getting a property listed requires both extensive research and the preparation of a list of references about the property. This house appears to be no exception. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability and fame are not equivalent. Keep per TheCatalyst31 above.  NHRP requirements being met are prima facie evidence that WP:GNG is met. John from Idegon (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep NRHP nomination process includes a well-researched nomination followed by vetting at the state and national levels. Einbierbitte (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:TheCatalyst31, User:Einbierbitte, User:Pubdog, User:John from Idegon: does anyone know how to access the New York State system in general, or the NRHP document for this specific site? It is arguable that the article does not assert notability;  this could be addressed by developing some claim from the NRHP document, if anyone could see that (the current link from the article doesn't work). -- do  ncr  am  14:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, the National Park Service provides scant info about New York State listings, which used to be fairly well covered by a New York State system which had permalinks to NRHP documents and photos, but the permalinks were all killed. The WikiProject NRHP's help page at wp:NRHPHELP provides a link to the current NYS system, in which you can bump around to eventually get to the NRHP nomination document.
 * The document states "The Suydam house is architecturally and historically significant as a distinguished, largely extant example of settlement period domestic architecture on Long Island that recalls the early growth of the town of Huntingdon. Built circa 1730, this New England style saltbox (with eighteenth century wing) is one of the oldest remaining houses in the village of Centerport.  It is similar in plan, construction and design to many settlement period dwellings in Huntingdon (Town) such as the John Woods House (circa 1704) and the Ireland-Gardiner Farm (circa 1750).  Like these and other seventeenth and eighteenth century dwellings in the Huntingdon (Town) Multiple Resource area, the building exhibits characteristic architectural features of early construction practices on Long Island, including heavy hewn timber framing, original wrought-iron hardware, and an overall lack of decorative ornamentation." etc.  This is assertion of notability, not really reflected in the article, but available in source. -- do  ncr  am  20:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep even though i actually started this Afd i now believe this article should be kept. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, then, and with the nominator !voting "Keep" there are no outstanding "Delete" votes and this AFD could be closed by anyone. -- do ncr  am  12:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep' - When even the nom is !voting to keep this, I just want to increase my AfD consensus stats. Well, also it's a NRHP location which even just the NRHP by its own rules has extensive coverage somewhere, online or hardcopy. --Oakshade (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2017 (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.