Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warden's House (Alcatraz Island)


 * 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. Tone 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Warden's House (Alcatraz Island)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent notability. Horrendous sourcing. Qwirkle (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  06:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  06:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep A historic building per America Preserved: A Checklist of Historic Buildings, Structures, and Sites. Andrew D. (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How does that address the question of independent notability? Qwirkle (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Violated WP:Before. Meets WP:GNG.  WP:I don't like it is not a policy based reason to delete.  WP:Not paper.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary, though taking a look at that article, it seems that most of the information here is already included there. The sources currently in the article are certainly lacking - the blogs and personal ghost-sighting websites are definitely not reliable sources.  The book that Andrew brought up is also inadequate, as its merely a listing of buildings and locations, without demonstrating independent notability.  That really only leaves that small paragraph in the "Alcatraz" book, and the travel guide, neither of which are particularly significant or in-depth sources specifically on the house  169.232.162.112 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Independent notability is already demonstrated by the sources that are now in the article. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, the sources in the article included commercial ads, essentially, and self-published works, all of which centered on the building, just as the good sources do, in terms of its relation to the Federal Penitentiary. Nothing else about it mentioned was notable. A boringly common architectural style? can’t establish independent notability. Obviously inaccurate claims? (Franklin stoves were out of production for about a century when this was built, you know.) Can’t establish notability. To have this, you need multiple in-depth sources about it purely as itself, not as an adjunct to Alcatraz Island, Fort Alcatraz, United States Disciplinary Barracks Alcatraz, Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary, or Occupation of Alcatraz. Qwirkle (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. If the information fits nicely on the main page, so be it.  If not, a spin off article is the proper course to hold the information.   D r e a m Focus  16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, don't merge. Per . Britishfinance (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2019 (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.