Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit Hash Historic District

Rabbit Hash Historic District

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Merge with Rabbit Hash, Kentucky and provide link. I don't see enough here to justify a second article only on its designation as a historic district. I found it confusing. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC) (revised --David Tornheim (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - While I understand the confusion, the historic district within the town does meet notability guidelines for being a national heritage site. I would suggest adding hatnotes to each page to further distinguish the two. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the historic district is WITHIN the town. Why? Is thereWP:RS that says that? The Boone County Planning Commission says "As a Preserve America Community, the entire town of Rabbit Hash has been designated a National Register District and a local Historic District." [1]. Please also see my response below. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBUILD criteria #1 by virtue of its historic designation. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I didn't think anyone would vote to keep it. I can see an argument that it might meet the notability requirements (and arguments that it doesn't), but I don't see why we would want to have a second article even if it is notable. There's hardly anything in the Historic District article and can be completely encapsulated in the main article. And to the best of my knowledge the historic district encompasses most if not all of Rabbit Hash anyway. Yes, they are not exactly the same, but not far from it.

If someone was going to add more to the historic article, then that might justify it, but I doubt that will happen--the article is already 10 years old. Also, I don't think there is much WP:RS on Rabbit Hash's historic significance, which is why the article has stayed so short. My feeling is that most of the WP:RS out there on it is mostly WP:OR of oral stories, and sources like [2] or just brief mention in historical works of larger geographic regions. It was never a very large town.

Is there some advantage to having a second article, when anyone looking for information about the historic significance could simply go to the article on the town? --David Tornheim (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Jmertel2. - Scarpy (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my responses above. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. We can have multiple articles for overlapping areas like this and it doesn't hurt anything - Scarpy (talk)

Don't care - I think that I created this from a federal designation, and used the usual pattern for a Historic District article. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]