Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodson Farmstead


 * 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). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 01:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Woodson Farmstead

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTE and WP:NOTDIR. According to the reason to remove my PROD for deletion, being part of the National Register of Historic Places is supposedly reason to have an article. From the NRHP wiki page: "Of the more than one million properties on the National Register, 80,000 are listed individually. The remainder are contributing resources within historic districts. Each year approximately 30,000 properties are added to the National Register as part of districts or by individual listings." So going by that logic we ought to have a million articles on obscure and old local buildings in the USA with no assertions of any notability or significance. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. Yes there are "citations" in the article to "cite" the description of the building, but there is nothing to assert significance. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  11:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep For a property to be listed on the National Register, a nomination form must be submitted explaining the historical significance of the property, complete with a bibliography. The federal government must then approve the nomination and designate the property as historically significant, using a higher standard than Wikipedia's standard for notability. If a property is significant enough to pass the standards of the National Register, it is certainly significant enough to pass the WP:GNG. (In the case of this article, see page 9 of reference 2 for an assertion of the significance of the property.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 11:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I see nothing but "Water is Wet" statements in its assertion of notability. Half of the filing is an autobiography of the family, nothing about the historical significance of the place. Some mentions of "Agriculture" significance is because supposedly it was a farm for 150 years. I'm sure there have been tons of farms that have been around for 150 years. Heck, many many buildings in the Northeast or even Europe are 100+ years. Pretty much every house in my town when I lived in Massachusetts was over a hundred years old. we'd might as well make an article for them, except for the fact that those people didn't think to file something to the NRHP. Then the filing goes to say it is notable because of it's "unique" Victorian eclectic style housing, which is unusual for the area, but then contradicts itself by saying it has historical significance as it's architecture (which the NRHP lists earlier on the form as the only claim it accepted) "exemplifies" the typical farm through the eras. How something can be unique and exemplifies the area astounds me. OF COURSE old buildings "exemplify" their times, because they were built during that particular time, and there are COUNTLESS such buildings in the US, to say of the world. Again, there are OVER A MILLION houses in the NRHP, of which over 30,000 get added every year. I sure didn't know that 30,000 old houses in the US suddenly became notable every year just because someone filed them. Only a SMALL portion of the NRHP are considered landmarks, and I'm fairly certain that imho, only a small portion of that million have any significance or notability. Might as well just create a bot job to parse every entry in the NRHP database and create an article if that's what's considered "notable". I guess WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't matter anymore, or undue weight on US old houses for that matter since being included in the NRHP, which is a US listing, supposedly qualifies one for notability. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  11:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator may be confused about the process for listing a property. It's an exacting process that involves historians and architects who are experts in their field.  Not sure why nominator is concerned about WP:NOTDIR: I fail to see how this article about a single property is a directory, which necessarily has multiple entries.  Not sure why nominator is concerned about WP:INDISCRIMINATE, because being listed on the National Register of historic Places is by definition discriminate.  --GrapedApe (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the filing, I saw water is wet statements, explained as above. If you feel that it is notable because it is "in the NRHP", then so be it. So is millions of other places, and I guess if Wikipedia policy has changed to such a point, then someone ought to write a bot program to just copy data from NRHP and other registries because those millions of places are all obviously notable just like countless other old houses that have been around for 150+ years and oh, just happen to have architecture that represents the era they were built in (aka pretty much any old house). It'll be a great day for wikipedia since you'll have a million new articles. Whatever, I'm re-retiring from Wikipedia. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  12:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you don't think an encyclopaedia should have articles on buildings considered notable enough to be individually (not as part of a group) listed on a national (not local) list of important buildings? Interesting. What do you think we should have then? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think maybe there may be some misunderstanding of how the NRHP works and the difference between an individually listed structure and a contributing property in a historic district. I've never seen anyone say that every contributing structure in a historic district should have their own article and in fact, I believe the consensus has been that they should not unless they are notable in some other way on their own or are also individually listed. There are NOT over a million individually listed structures on the NRHP - and the number given of "yearly additions" clearly indicates that it is not the number of individual structures, but includes those in historic districts. Ultraviolet (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if this past week and the week before are representative, then there are about 25 listings per week, for about 1300 new listings per year (rather short of 30,000). And we have relatively few articles that are simply contributing properties (Ben's Chili Bowl is the only one I am immediately aware of). Chris857 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Property is listed on National Register of Historic Places, a designation of significant importance that speaks to the historic nature of the building.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. "So going by that logic we ought to have a million articles on obscure and old local buildings in the USA with no assertions of any notability or significance." No, not at all, since this is one of the 80,000 buildings with an individual listing. We do not generally have articles on buildings that are simply listed as part of a district. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreeing with Necrothesp right before me I would just add that it makes no matter for WP how many articles might be created or not. WP has tens of thousands of articles to baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, tennis, and many other sports players inclding lower and semi-professional leagues, for instance, or tens of thousands of article of politicians most of us never heard of. It just is as it is. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. There has been some discussion at WT:NRHP (and elsewhere) about the viability of very short stub articles that do little more than name an NRHP-listed property and provide a bare reference to its NRIS listing.  This article is not one of those, however; it provides context and direct links to supporting material that demonstrates the notability of the subject.  The long, consistent consensus is that such articles should be kept (see recently, for example, Articles for deletion/Sackville House), and that consensus is right.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow keep, especially as the family history appears to have been removed. NRHP listing confers notability.  (A listing on the National Register of Historic Pine Trees, on the other hand, would conifer notability.)  (Sorry.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep WP:NOTDIR applies to content within an article, not to articles themselves. By the nominator's logic on that, every Wikiproject and the entire categorization system would be null and void. Notability is shown by the existence of reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic in detail.  An NRHP nominating document fits that.  I see no reason to continue this and would ask that the next uninvolved editor that comes by close it as a keep. John from Idegon (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like Arxiloxos, I expected this to be a substub that never should have been created in the first place, and while this isn't great, it cites multiple reliable sources and has (in the bibliography of the NRHP nomination form) listings of further reliable sources.  This clearly passes WP:N and would even if it hadn't gotten a historic designation.  Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A property has to have some notability BEFORE it's even considered for listing in the NRHP. There is a very stringent vetting process at both the state and federal levels before a property is listed. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:54, 15 November 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.