Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida)

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 and renominate. OK, it seems like this turned into a "trainwreck" - too many disparate topics under the same header. The NRHP sites have consensus to keep, the other should be renominated as individual AfDs Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida)

I am also nominating the following related pages because [they all seem to be created to circumvent the WP rules on non-promotion by B&B owners, possibly as a result of the YouTube instruction video I referenced for Pink House AfD recommendation]:

I just used Categories to find similar items, and there are literally thousands of entries... and this is just Florida [1] Most may not be B&B's but every one I looked at has basically no references so there seem to be a global WP:Notability issue here. This is beyond the manual AfD process capability! RobP (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This category[2] provides a smaller set which are all B&Bs which I used to find some of the articles listed above. RobP (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Business advertisement RobP (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across a YouTube video training B & B owners how to try to circumvent the WP rules on non-promotion - and it is brazenly named: Getting Your Business on Wikipedia! I did a quick search on B & B and came across this article which seems to fit the bill of an article on a business with no particular WP:Notability that may be connected. I wonder how many others there are? [3] RobP (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This says it's also known as “the Walter Brown House” but I can't find anything for it under that name, either. If it truly is historic there would be some such designation -- but no sign of that, either. ~~Delete.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a bundled nomination when I had !voted. It was changed after. Striking thru. Any nominated properties on NRHP or with a state heritage designation should not be deleted, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Subjects ~~isn't~~ aren't notable. Although Moses J. Taylor House, Bishop-Andrews Hotel, and Fairbanks Houseare all registered historic buildings, WP:GEOFEAT requires "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" which seem to be lacking. Admittedly, the paid editors are busy at work and they've been staying a step ahead of us. If the consensus is delete, I'd ask the closing admin to put Fairbanks House (Fernandina Beach, Florida) into my userspace so I can rehab it. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Fails WP:NOR; I don't find anything about the house on newspapers.com, google books, etc, although in theory such an article could be useful, per XKCD:Constructive. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my !vote, which was made before the AfD included multiple articles. I still don't find anything about Pink House, but certainly a number of these are perfectly suitable buildings for an article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 08:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Old Town Manor. It seems to have enough sourced detail to pass the WP:GNG. Some of the sources are not properly formatted and do not include sufficient bibliographic detail to easily verify, but I think hter is enogh here to keep and improve. Failing that, draftify while refs are checked and filled in. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for all NRHP sites: All the sites on the NRHP are inherently notable. I created the NRHP articles over 10 years ago, and be assured I am not affiliated with any B&B (individual or organization). --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 06:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partial keep: NRHP-listed sites generally meet the GNG - the NRHP documentation alone usually contains a wealth of historical information. Any advertising, of course, should be stripped out permanently. The non-NRHP-listed articles don't appear to meet the GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partial keep Any of the properties on the NRHP are notable; the standards for listing a property on the NRHP are higher than Wikipedia's standards of notability, and part of the nomination process involves compiling a list of references that can be used to support our articles as well. Besides, most of those articles aren't even promotional, they're just short; of course, being promotional isn't inherently a reason to delete something, since AfD isn't cleanup. No opinion on the others, though the lack of WP:BEFORE for the properties on the NRHP has me leaning toward a procedural keep for those as well. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I believe 7 of the 10 are NRHP listed and therefore notable. The remainder should be individually renominated after a thorough WP:BEFORE if they still appear not to meet GNG. MB 06:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep (some) for those on NRHP; delete the rest. I am slightly dubious as to whether WP needs articles on all NRHP buildings. In UK, we do not allow articles on all listed buildings, though being listed may swing us to keeping in doubtful cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all NRHP sites - they are all extensively documented, with sources, generally by professional architectural historians and then approved by state level and then federal level bureaucrats. Some only need very short articles, e.g. a 1750 log cabin where nothing much happened, but it is considered the best preserved of its type in the state. A very few might not be considered notable, e.g. German style iron crosses in North Dakota cemeteries (North Dakota is pretty loose in defining "historical"). The notability is for the historic structure, not the b & b. But the bnb website sometimes can be used as a source. I'll note that a lot of these buildings might be torn down if they weren't converted into another use, so I don't object to bnbs saving them, nor to a 1 line note that they are now bnbs. Perhaps Centre Mills might be a good example of this. It's about as far out in the boonies as you can get in Pennsylvania. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all NRHP sites, per Users MB and Smallbones. Those that aren't on NRHP should be examined as local historical sites, and probably kept as well. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the NRHP sites. And for clarity, the following are NOT NRHP sites: Old Town Manor, Hoyt House (Fernandina Beach, Florida) and Pink House (Melbourne Beach, Florida). Regarding Old Town Manor, the article states that it is on a register of "Historic Homes". I don't know what this is, but it certainly isn't the same as the National Register of Historic Places. And although it is located in the Key West Historic District, the file on that district at the NRHP site shows that the Old Town Manor wasn't used to support the district's application for historic status. Similarly, the article on the Pink House states that it is an "historic house" and links that term to an article that would lead a reader to assume that the house is on the NRHP. But that's a false implication. As for the broader question of whether each of the approximately 100,000 listings on the NRHP should be deemed inherently notable, I tend to think that they are. But I'm much more certain that the question should be debated in a forum that is more general than this AfD nomination. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Do we have any evidence that the non-NRHP sites are Florida Historic Landmarks, or on local historic lists? Also I was going to suggest reformatting Old Town Manor as a contributing property to the Key West Historic District, but you mentioned that it wasn't used to support the district's application for historic status. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Chiming in here as I nominated these articles: note that this is only the Florida list. I have to wonder how many other B&B articles for places across the US or world are hiding in plain sight by misrepresenting information, perhaps as suggested in a training video like the one I referenced. RobP (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before responding to the unsigned question from DanTD, I'll provide the links that I should have provided in my first comment. These are the links to the NRHP listings for the Key West Historical District: the 1971 application and the 1983 application (the 1983 listing appears to be for an expansion of the 1971 district). I searched both listings (and for both listings, both the applications and the photographs) for mentions of "Old Town Manor" or "Eaton Lodge". Neither showed up. As to DanTD's question, I don't know whether the Old Town Manor is on any non-Federal list. But consider this -- the NRHP has a bit less than 100,000 listings but, if the list were expanded to include all of the "contributing" properties within the historic districts, that list would run to about a million. And if we add non-NRHP sites that are deemed "historic" at the state or local level, how many would we have? Two million? Five million? Ten million? I don't know, but even one million is far too large a number for us to have a separate stand-alone article for each property. And so, without evidence of notability that goes well beyond a mere listing at the state or local level, we probably shouldn't be considering non-NRHP buildings. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My not signing my message was an accident, and I apologize. In response to your concerns for one agree that we shouldn't write about every site that's an NRHP contributing property or every single local historic site. But keep these facts in mind; the NRHP template does have provisions for both and more (Template:Infobox NRHP), and other historic sites that are not individual NRHP sites are allowed here. I strongly recommend some New York City Landmarks, which includes both NRHP and non-NRHP sites. I also recommend articles such as The Old 76 House, Saint James General Store, St. James (LIRR station), Southampton (LIRR station), Shinnecock Hills (LIRR station), Mamaroneck (Metro-North station), and plenty of others that fit into these categories. If the old houses that were converted into Bed & Breakfasts that aren't on NRHP don't fit any criteria, I can gladly accept merging them somewhere. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here's Florida's page related to historic sites. I'm still trying to navigate that thing so I can figure out whether the non-NRHP sites are registered with either the state, or cities like Melbourne Beach, Fernandina Beach, Key West, etcetera. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the NRHP properties for the reasons stated above. Einbierbitte (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it is fair for these articles to be nominated for deletion, although I am an author/editor and fan of NRHP articles myself. I added a bit to the Moses J. Taylor House article just now, and think it is okay to keep. It was one of 780 NRHP articles in Florida that had been created long ago with very minimal content and was never developed, although NRHP nomination documents have become available online and could be added by any NRHP editors or others interested (see wp:NRHPHELP for guidance). It was tagged as one of WikiProject NRHP's most minimal articles in 2013. I think deletion of the other NRHP articles would not lose any substance that is not already included in the corresponding county-level NRHP list-articles. It would be better to develop the articles, perhaps, but that has not happened for 10 years! I have myself shown up for many AFDs over the years arguing that "NRHP=notable, so Keep", as have other NRHP editors who were rounded up to comment in this AFD, but it would be fair for others to say the NRHP editors should fix up their articles or let them be pared away. Again, all the substantial info (location, name, photo, other) is already included in county list-articles, and external links which are included should actually be deleted anyhow as not providing anything substantial. --do ncr am 17:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NRHP properties. Renominate the rest. It is a bit disconcerting, that after nominating an article with good chance of deletion while the discussion already had started and people !voted other articles where added to the nomination, which do not fit the same profile´. Agathoclea (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2017 (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.