Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voting 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Voting house

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails the general and building-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Kentucky,  and Virginia. UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Politics.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  03:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge Seems like it could be a sentence in Polling station. Reywas92Talk 15:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge into polling station It's a good stub, but it probably works better as an article section than its own separate article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 18:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't merge, the two sources are primary and don't support most claims in the article, not worth transferring to another article as it stands. Fram (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't this technically a list article, since it provides navigational links to notable voting houses? SportingFlyer  T · C  12:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note to patrollers/closer: see User talk:Rechtman and Requests for undeletion for comments from User:Rechtman (main contributor to the article), who has not commented here, and others' responses to them. DMacks (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Found at least one article on the concept: along with primary sources showing the building of a voting house was a "municipal improvement." Also serves as a navigational aid to notable historic voting houses. Probably keepable. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep per User:SportingFlyer, but without User:Rechtman's concept of Voting Rights Acts or other racial access, since there is no source. The title phrase is generic, and the RS ref SportingFlyer found is about a WPA project specific to Rowan County, Kentucky and with the goal of expanding voting access overall (and maybe for political aims). Other refs (some of which might be circular citation):
 * and those are the type I added to the list of examples based on WP articles with this topic-name.
 * Contrast that Rechtman's topic, which is instead (despite being described as a general situation) is in Virginia (per article refs, such as ). As User:UtherSRG notes on Rechtman's talkpage and despite VRA/racial-voting topics being important, WP by policy is a follower based on RS not a leader to RGW. I would propose adding a DAB token to the article title (Voting house (WPA project) or Voting house (Kentucky)?) to clarify the topic and prevent drift. DMacks (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Upgading my !vote for mostly TNT'ing the generic stuff and instead having an article on the WPA meaning. I just found that the set of Rowan County voting houses built by WPA is itself NRHP-listed.
 * Doesn't matter to me if we want to say "delete the current article without prejudice for writing a new article on a slightly different specific topic with the same name" vs "rewrite the current to focus on that specific topic". DMacks (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MERGE with polling station to delete would be a mistake as there is good information here just not enough to justify a whole article. LegalSmeagolian (talk)
 * LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter to me if we want to say "delete the current article without prejudice for writing a new article on a slightly different specific topic with the same name" vs "rewrite the current to focus on that specific topic". DMacks (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MERGE with polling station to delete would be a mistake as there is good information here just not enough to justify a whole article. LegalSmeagolian (talk)
 * LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

*Merge with the polling place article Fine,Delete unless a merge target is agreed upon. The basic fact is this article is about a type of polling place, not about the buildings themselves. One has to go and read newspapers to get any info about this type of polling place. Doing so, reveals they were not all built by the WPA, so please don't add WPA to the title. Many of them were built in the 19th century and those actual buildings may be notable. Also, I could not link this polling concept to any black history relevant thing, and even the articles themselves don't mention it or have any sources about it. In fact the only thing I did see was that white people voted in them. So I think that maybe some original research is occurring around that, The timelines don't seem to add up either. Furthermore, These places were built in the rural areas of many states, due to a lack of voting infrastructure. So please Don't add Kentucky to the title. Basically, these are polling places and your not going to have an article about a type of polling place that isn't going to significantly overlap with the article on polling places. So just merge it.James.folsom (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * does the WPA concept of "voting house" seem notable enough for an article? There seem to be three (at least) meaning of the term (VRA, WPA, general building), of which 'WPA' is the one for which some RS have been found despite our article not currently being focused on that variant. So is no meaning viable for an article, or only the article we have not about a viable meaning? DMacks (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I'm having difficulty with what your asking. So I'm, going to share my thoughts about that article and maybe we will figure it out. I don't know what you mean by "the WPA concept of voting houses". What I know is that the WPA was basically a welfare program that provided money to hire unemployed people to work on public works projects like building voting houses. The WPA didn't have concepts of things, I don't think. They just built stuff that needed building. Administrative officials at the local level dictated the projects. The article that we are discussing isn't even about the voting houses, they are trivially mentioned. The actual subject of the article is about the political history behind their construction as a way to understand the evolution of the new deal built environment (whatever that means). So yes, reliable and primary source, but no on significant coverage of the voting houses. I also haven't seen any secondary sources that would be needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. Maybe you can clarify your question if that wasn't what you were asking.James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would strongly oppose a merge. The polling place article is about polling places in general and is UK-centric at this time. This article is about a building built specifically to be a polling place as part of municipal works in a regional part of the United States. The polling place article should provide a large-scale international view of the subject, the level of detail required to describe this novelty would be inappropriate, though we could include a link there in a sentence somewhere. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is not based on those WPA voting houses. That article you posted is just one example of how and where these were built.James.folsom (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The current article is indeed about...I'm not quite sure what. Refs have now been posted here that are about something in particular (the "WPA" meaning). The article isn't specifically about that. My question was whether you think the WPA meaning, for which we now have refs, is sufficient for an article? Are you !voting against the current article itself, or is there not even a viable topic if we WP:TNT and write anew on that ref'ed meaning? DMacks (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that the voting houses should be mentioned somewhere in and article about places that people vote. But, if there is no redirect target then this article should be deleted because it isn't notable enough to have an article about it. I Think the WPA article has nothing to do with this because it is not significant coverage of voting houses. James.folsom (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 15:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * comment Could it be useful to merge this with the 3 articles about specific voting houses? It would then be an article that would discuss the remaining ones under page.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to polling station with slight merge. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep I also found the documents SportingFlyer and DMacks posted, and as SportingFlyer said the article serves as a navagational aid to the sources used for it, the majority of which seem to be old newspapers and so unlikely to be digitized. A search on the National Register of Historic Places ("voting house" as a search term in the table) also shows 10 different listed voting houses,          the statement of significance being that
 * (the other statemesnts just change the name of the place)
 * To me that suggests that the concept of being a voting house is part of the reason for listing and so would count as significant, or at least that being buit by the WPA and used as a voting house is. Shaws username  .  talk  . 19:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been going through the papers from newspapers.com (through the wiki library) and there are a lot of hits, some of it is debates about if the city/county should have some, and who should build it announcing it as the location for polls, (e.g.   ) There's also one from 1939 Wake County, North Carolina proudly announcing theirs on the front page and wondering if they might have the only one in the country . A lot of it is fairly WP:ROTM (elections here) but it does show the spread and ubiquity of them. If people would like I can link more, otherwise it would get a bit WP:REFBOMB.  Shaws username  .  talk  . 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist. I've read through all of the comments here and while it's been a very interesting discussion, I don't see a consensus here yet. So, I'll try one final relist rather than closing as No consensus in case editors who commented early have a change of opinion. Just a note, this is not a discussion on the concept of "voting house", this conversation is specifically focused on this particular article and whether or not it should be deleted, merged, kept, redirected or renamed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Comment We are not discussing if a particular voting house is notable, we are discussing whether polling places called "voting houses" are notable or are just a polling place that can be mentioned in article about polling places.James.folsom (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I expanded and added some color based on assorted sources. I believe this is a notable vernacular American building type, but I'll leave it to the community to determine. jengod (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The article is greatly improved over what it was, I like Jengod's approach on this. Let's let it live and mature now.James.folsom (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of major improvements, including sourcing.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Ipigott and james DarmaniLink (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as per @Bearian Mr Vili   talk  00:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep From what I can tell, the article seems notable enough, and it has multiple references supporting its inclusion. The article could, however, use some improvement. 20 upper (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2024 (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.