Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenement at Gdanska Street 9, Bydgoszcz


 * 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Tenement at Gdanska Street 9, Bydgoszcz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reason is given for considering this building at all notable (other than a photographer who had his studio there & a shop which was there: WP:NOTINHERITED). Sources do not give reason for notability either. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another not very notable building in Bydgoszcz. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * delete Some decent research into the history of a minor building, but that's not what we do here. The primary sources used proclaim the lack of notability. Seyasirt (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or merge to Gdańska Street, Bydgoszcz. I'd be curious to learn what is said about the building in Ulica Gdańska. Przewodnik historyczny; if it is covered there it may be notable. Currently, however, this printed source is cited only as "further reading". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. A concisely-presented, five-paragraph write-up with six photographs illustrating, among other aspects, the building's historic architecture which harkens back 147 years to its use as commercial space in 1868 and the completion of its construction 140 years ago, in 1875. There are thousands of 18th, 19th and 20th century European edifices listed at Category:European building and structure stubs, as well as related categories, and these should be considered in perspective on a wider scale as to the standards of documentation which would satisfy Wikipedian consensus, rather than singling out this particular entry for elimination. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The average large city has thousands of buildings dating from the 19th century. Why would we need articles on all of them? Note that the Polish government does not list this building as a protected heritage building, despite Poland being more than generous in its heritage listings (twenty other residential buildings on the same street are listed). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Officially designated heritage entries are, of course, already expected to be properly sorted under Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register and/or Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register and type and numerous subcategories thereof. Those seeking additional historic buildings as well as recent constructions would be researching under Category:Buildings and structures, Category:Buildings and structures by country, etc and further subcategories. Various structures found within some of these categories have not received official landmark status but, judging by the work of contributors who took the time and effort to prepare these entries, retain sufficient historical significance to claim notability and, thus, possibly/presumably a Wikipedia entry. Users from other Wikipedias appear to consider English Wikipedia to be so predominant that they may overlook or disregard entering their own language's article in favor of posting an entry on the subject here. New articles delineating various subjects may seem to be, or are, posted haphazardly but, having been posted, each such entry deserves an in-depth appraisal as to the merit of its historical claim. The appended photographs suggest that this building's age, history, sculptural adornments and capacity for surviving World Wars and other conflicts indicate unique values which go beyond the "one out of many", on-the-surface, comparison to other structures on this street and in the city of Bydgoszcz taken as a whole. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely the salient factor is that the country's own national heritage register did not consider it significant enough to list! Some buildings are significant enough on their own merits whether heritage-listed or not, but this is simply a bog standard 19th century apartment/commercial building. Nothing whatsoever distinguishes it from the hundreds of thousands of other such buildings in the world. I have visited Poland a number of times, mainly to look at its architecture; every single large city has hundreds of buildings like this. Many of them are heritage-listed, although even that doesn't give them a presumption of notability, only of possible notability. This one is not deemed significant enough even to be listed. That has to tell you something. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although, in a wider sense, this discussion may be classified under the rubric of familiar inclusionist/ deletionist arguments, by narrowing the focus, we may arrive at a more-detailed examination of criteria applicable to structures.
 * Considering a few random examples — fairly recently only "notable"/"prominent" films/TV series/Olympians/politicians were accepted into English Wikipedia. Now, every film or TV series ever made, anywhere in the world, anyone who ever represented his country in the Olympics and every legislator who represents, or ever represented, any of the world's constituencies are, for the most part, finding unchallenged entry as English Wikipedia stubs/articles.
 * Taking into account that WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS and that nonsensical, promotional and otherwise-unacceptable entries and hoaxes are being submitted on a daily or nearly-daily basis, we can start with criteria acceptable to WikiProject Historic sites and proceed to consider continued existence of buildings which are at least a century old. While in the United States, especially in the cities, such structures are relatively rare, European locations present a much richer selection. Despite the wartime leveling of such historic cities as Warsaw, Berlin and Dresden and the destruction of smaller ones, such as Saint-Malo, with the Asian front producing equally great human and cultural loss, particularly in Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many treasures managed to survive, and we can all appreciate that the descriptions of those that did not, the lost and recreated ones, both architectural (Monte Cassino) and other (Amber Room), are available for easy reference in Wikipedia.
 * Finally, to the topic at hand. While the standards required for films/Olympians/politicians appear to be very low, with simply a link to a site such as IMDb, Sports Reference or Biographical Directory of the United States Congress generally accepted as sufficient, requirements for buildings, in the absence of such widely-accepted reference links, must be higher, but not so high that only structures such as the Listed building (South London's Stockwell Garage) depicted in "Today's featured picture" on the Main page would qualify.
 * Without, as yet, making a WikiProject argument that every structure, upon reaching its 100th anniversary, is eligible to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, each such already-submitted entry deserves to be considered on its own merits. If a local historian, tour guide or architecture aficionado devotes the time and effort to a well-documented (with photographs) entry which delineates a structure, with unique architectural features, that has stood for 140 years, then the least that can be done is to appreciate such effort and provide it with a fair opportunity for Wikipedia existence. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:47, 11 August 2015 (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.