Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis LaTour 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis LaTour House

Alexis LaTour House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nomination withdrawn Non-notable property. Contested prod. the article was written by a prolific (and frequently speedied) editor who seems be trying to create some sort of family archive on WP. The house is on the National Register of Historic Places but that doesn't in itself confer notability - it's a vast and rather indiscriminate list. No evidence of anything special about this house and nothing of encyclopedic value in the article. andy (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I'm adding

• Keep Delete. The main article doesn't have any
  biased author. "The LaTour House was the home of Alexis Étienne Grasset LaTour and Catherine Doucet, my third great-uncle." Who's third great-uncle? The author's? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) The rewrite is much better. The NRIS registration is more than adequate (I had a very hard time trying to get a link directly to the NRIS entry for the house). Great work, Dsmdgold. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep all, I would argue that listing on the NRHP does confer notability. The list is vast, but it is not indiscriminate. There are rather specific criteria that must met before aproperty can be listed. Listing on the NRHP requires extensive documentation and is vetted by preservation officials at the state and national level. Reliable sources that are independent of the subject do exist. Dsmdgold (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If kept, I would certainly tag this article with
  WP:N. Assuming the editor is not also a member of the NRHP selection committee, other people have also judged this property historically noteworthy. Let's keep the article for now and put out a request for a re-write and additional citations. --BizMgr (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - inclusion in the NRHP doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for notability at

WP:NN. There's a requirement "that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content" - most NRHP entries are so skimpy as to be virtually useless. Also "number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred" - NRHP is a poor quality source. NRHP selection criteria have been heavily criticised and certainly seem to be loose, indiscriminate and often partisan. For example the entry for V. R. Coss House simply states that it was "built for a locally prominent businessman" - i.e. quite possibly someone who isn't notable enough for a WP article! So NRHP can certainly imply notability but it doesn't of itself confer it. andy (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - alright, I'll agree with that. I still think NRHP should weight heavily enough to request additional citation before an AfD Nom. I'll see what I can find on the property before I have to get to work. I completely agree with you that the editor must discontinue authoring or editing articles in which he has clear COI. --BizMgr (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - HERE is the LA state review board's assessment of the historical significance of the house. It cites NRHP reason as being "locally significant in the area of architecture within the context of Evangeline Parish", then expounds. I know the next argument will be that local significance does not notability make, so I'll see if I can find any media or print coverage. --BizMgr (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I have rewritten
  ManhattanBuilding is kept it will need to be moved to Manhattan Building (Muskogee, Oklahoma). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - alright, most current coverage of LaTour house comes from its status as a NRHP. It became a NRHP property in 1987, though, and little of Louisiana's backmedia has been added to the web. I suspect someone with access to the Parish or state archives, or books on the state, would be able to support this article. I do not believe the lack of online coverage is a sure-sign of NN. That said, the article as written is a white-hot mess, complete with COI statements right in the article, imagery of questionable copyright, and plaigerism from the review board link above. So if the subject is kept, the article cannot remain as-is. I have also tagged the author's page requesting he abide by
  WP:COI. --BizMgr (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's my point. The house could be notable, as many NRHP properties are, but there's no evidence of it. And don't forget that the notable NRHP properties aren't notable because they're on the register - they're on the register because they're notable. andy (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find any additional coverage beyond mentioning the NRHP status. So I am changing my opinion to delete unless or until someone can provide additional citation, at which time this article can be revisited (with the aforementioned overhaul). --BizMgr (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I'm getting really frustrated with the author's continued editing of these articles, even after being warned to please refrain. See Special:Contributions/Harrisonlatour. --BizMgr (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's still at it. I've given him a level 2 warning. He just doesn't seem to understand how WP works. andy (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. And he's completely belligerent about it to boot. --BizMgr (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have now rewritten Alexis LaTour House based on the source mentioned above by BizMgr. Since the majority of the discussion here has been on the LaTour house, I would like more comment on the current condition of the four Oklahoma articles. I will be spending a few hours in the main Tulsa Public library on Thursday and feel that I probably can find additinal sources for those buildings. I doubt that the Tulsa library has much on Creole architecture, but I will look. I will also do a bibliography search and see what I can find on Creole architecture and Louisiana's hisorical buildings, that I might borrow via Inter-Library loan, but that will take several weeks. I would be very shocked if a building this old has recieved no coverage in other sources. I would like to also say that I have found this editor's behaivor frustrating, but I would like to see the articles evaluated on their current merits, not on their original author's actions. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to leaving the article to see what you can find on it, if you're willing to do that leg-work. Might partner with the WikiProject:Louisiana and see what resources they have available, too. Good luck.--BizMgr (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the the Tulsa Libray does have Creole houses: traditional homes of Old Louisiana by Steve Gross and Sue Daley, which seemed to be the most likely title in the Library of Congress catalog. I have reserved it and will pick it up Thursday. If that fails, I will do a more thorough search on WorldCat and see what I can find. I also may contact Louisiana Historical Preservation Office and get a copy of the NRHP application. Those have a bibliogrpahy, which I could follow. I will also see what the good people at WikiProject:Louisiana can come up with. Dsmdgold (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The National Register of Historic Places has much higher inclusion standards than WP. Everything they consider is heavily researched, scrutinized and fact checked to ensure that these are stand-out important and unique places. If it's notable there, it most certainly is notable here. --Oakshade (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As it has been rewritten. The original version should have been deleted. Concur with Oakshade on the issue of it being a NRHP property. This is touched on in the essay Wikipedia:Inherent notability (Of course it's not a guideline). Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry F. Miller House & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbeville Opera House are among a few notable prior AfD discussions on NRHP articles. Altairisfar_talk 05:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I added some material from on-line NRHP Muptiple Property Submission documents to the
  ManhattanBuilding article. For each of the four, like for all other NRHP sites, there exists a National Register of Historic Places "Inventory/Nomination" or "Registration" document, with accompanying photos, that consists of an inventory of the property, a description of its significance, a summary of history of persons associated with the site, and so on, which is often a 20-30 page document. These are usually written by professional historians and edited by National Park Service NRHP staff. For these 4 sites, the documents are not on-line (the ones I added are different NRHP MPS documents) but may be obtained by request from the NRHP. Any NRHP is notable and its notability can be verified by these documents. Per Oakshade, notability standard for NRHP is high. doncram (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Nomination withdrawn because of the rewrites. I'm totally unconvinced by the argument that NRHP=notability, but I bow to collective opinion. IMHO notability has something to do with being talked about by people whose opinion matters, and that's just not true of most of these properties. But whatever. Just promise me you'll keep a close eye on Harrisonlatour, whose main aim seems to be to dump every factoid he can find into WP articles. andy (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (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.