Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harriet Tubman Grave

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. Of note is that the nominator changed their !vote (the nomination) to merge in a comment in the discussion. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Tubman Grave

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this may meet WP:GNG as both sources are routine databases. Laun chba ller 23:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1999." Bearian (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep NRHP database is rather selective and all NRHP-listed buildings are presumed to be notable according to WP:GEOFEAT.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harriet Tubman#AME Zion Church, illness, and death or delete I concur that this doesn't meet GNG due to lack of reliable third-party coverage. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply ~~WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE~~ Did you mean that NRHP database is not reliable or independent?@SNUGGUMS:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree, the NRHP is a pretty solid notability factor here. I would also notify the WP:NRHP project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NRHP listing has been defined as subject to inclusion; notify the WP:NRHP project.--Pubdog (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another reliable source. [1] Now that we have two good sources, it passes WP:GNG, and the nomination should be withdrawn.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be withdrawing this. Not only would withdrawal have no effect due to the existence of non-keep votes (including one merge vote - see below), your statement that two sources is enough to satisfy WP:GNG is, to my mind, complete bollocks since I have been discussed thoroughly in two sources and mentioned in others (see my userpage) and you will notice that, rightly or wrongly, I do not have an article. --Laun chba ller 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 01:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listing on the NRHP is indicative of notability, and the nomination form is not a "routine database" but a document specially prepared to explain the history and significance of the site. Additional sources can be found in the bibliography of this document. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOW KEEP. [2]--Jersey92 (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Harriet Tubman There's no doubt that as an NHRP site this enjoys some degree of notability; the article makes clear, however, that that notability derives entirely from her fame. And even in its extreme brevity, it still comes across as rather padded. It makes much more sense as a couple of sentences and an infobox in her article. Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Changing my vote, as nominator, to merge.--Laun chba ller 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An NRHP listing means that the documentation that establishes notability is out there to be retrieved although it may be off line. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out this was used as a citation for the grave but was only the website's mainpage, therefore it can't be counted as coverage. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search easily found a more direct cite for the 1999 listing. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With only one brief mention within a list, that page isn't sufficient coverage. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The document and the research paper listed above give the level of coverage far beyond a passing mention. More sources can be found through a google scholar search. @SNUGGUMS:--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.