Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Wenner 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. Just because it's not on Google doesn't mean it's not notable, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wenner House

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

Fails google test, lacks context. I dream of horses (T) @ 17:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be the same "Charles F. Wenner House" listed in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties, but could find no other coverage of it. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw my !vote. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree. DeletePostcard Cathy (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, definitely not the same as the house in Maryland. See this database record showing it's on the National Register (the one in MD is not) and in Illinois. — Ipoellet (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the author recently uploaded a photo of the same site, this appears to be the Charles Wenner House which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Galena, Illinois; I added some basic context and a source to reflect this, and I'll expand the article soon. Given that new context, the subject is notable, as any site on the National Register has met a higher standard of notability than the one Wikipedia uses. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the right house. It doesn't look like the poor photos in the nomination form. It says that it was demolished, but the photo was taken a few days ago. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the photo was taken of the former site of the house, after it was demolished (and apparently replaced with a new house). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the former site is now part of a cornfield. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am far from sure that we need an article on every building on NRHP. We certainly do not allow one on every UK listed building, as there are 1000s of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:NRHP's approach does indicate a rather vast number of potential articles - there are 90,000+ individual listings on the National Register. However, I would suggest that editors interested in UK historic preservation are being too modest. Sure it's a big goal, but why wouldn't each Listed Building or Scheduled Ancient Monument be worthy of individual coverage? Surely the listing process generates documentation sufficient to meet the general notability guideline? (These questions are rhetorical. This discussion surely isn't the most appropriate place to dig into the answers.) — Ipoellet (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are over 374,000 listed buildings in England alone! At the moment we generally only assume that Grade I and II* buildings (about 8% of the total) are inherently notable, but many Grade II buildings do have articles and it's certainly a contributory factor to notability. I have actually seen very few Grade II listed buildings deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming this house was NRHP-listed. Do we have access to the nomination form? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we do. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, then, case closed (imho). Seems this could be a short article to expand and promote to GA status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The description in that document does not remotely match the photo in the article. The description says it's made of solid limestone but the photo shows wood, etc. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of the image in the article says it's from the site of the house in September 2015. I don't trust it since the subject building has been demolished and photos are available in the NRHP nomination document. With the documents available, I'd go with them. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How many of the "delete" voters are familiar with print research? Google yields nothing much, but that's because the sourcing is a mixture of deep web and print resources. Illinois has set up its state historic preservation website in a way that's not friendly to search engines, so you'd never find the nomination form with a Google search. The nomination form provides information about additional sources, including an 1870s book about the county, of a sort that was commonly published at the time with extensive text and imagery for rural farmsteads. While relevant census records are primary sources, not stuff we'd depend on, they're listed as being in the county library's historical collection: major buildings, like this farmstead was, will be covered in county histories and similar locally published documents that, while reliable, won't be the kind of thing indexed by Google. National Register sites are always notable, not because the NR designation makes them notable, but because the National Register's documentation requirements for listing are significantly higher than our documentation requirements for notability. This may be different from UK listed buildings; I don't know what's involved in the listing process. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, note that the article provided essentially no context at the time the AFD was created. The entire contents were "The Wenner house has been demolished after the walls collapsed, site now part of a cornfield according to township officials." Perhaps I shouldn't have been so hard on the delete voters; both Rwxrwxrwx and Postcard Cathy voted before TheCatalyst31 expanded the article and added proper sourcing. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The general idea of the "Google test" is that it is a sufficient but not a necessary means of establishing the notability of a topic. Therefore, failing the "Google test" does not demonstrate that a topic is not notable. In the case of the National Register, in certain time periods and certain states, the records of the administrative action of adding a place to the NR are held almost entirely off-line. (Other states may have their NR records almost entirely on-line, so it varies.) So even though Google doesn't return any internet results, there may be other documents available via the research methods of my youth that do establish notability. For National Register properties, the administrative process leading to listing ensures that source documents meeting the general notability guideline are created and available by some means. TheCatalyst31 has provided exactly the necessary document above. — Ipoellet (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems acceptable from what I see. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can imagine most structures on the NRHP have enough sources to justify their inclusion, whether on the web or in print. This is no exception, and the article as it stands is a good stub. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:33, 1 October 2015 (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.