Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical buildings and landmarks in Portland, Oregon

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical buildings and landmarks in Portland, Oregon

List of historical buildings and landmarks in Portland, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Contested prod (no reason given). Article was created through

• Keep The topic passes
  WP:LISTN. For example, see An Architectural Guidebook to Portland; Best of Oregon and Washington's Mansions, Museums and More; Wicked Portland: The Wild and Lusty Underworld of a Frontier Seaport Town; Only in Oregon: Natural and Manmade Landmarks and Oddities; Portland's Lost Waterfront; &c. The suggested alternative of National Register of Historic Places listings in Multnomah County, Oregon is a ludicrous title and, if it covers the same ground, should be merged into this one. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment I'm confused by the comment that National Register of Historic Places listings in Multnomah County, Oregon is "ludicrous" as it is part of a long-standing NRHP listing scheme that has been carefully maintained for at least ten years. It seems odd to suggest the info from the long-standing article be merged into this new one. Note also that I did not suggest it as an alternative title, it was just one example of one page where the info in the article being discussed here already existed. Valfontis (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the point in calling the title ludicrous is that many people might not know what county Portland is in, or might be looking for NRHP sites by city. This article might still be suitable for deletion, but there might be value in an objective list of NRHP sites within the Portland city limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrofreak92 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are five such lists:

global context, and it's really great to think about our potential readers, but a quick search* using a browser that allows global English searches shows that the Portland NRHP lists come up as the top 2 or 3 hits.** Valfontis (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC) *for historic buildings in Portland Oregon. **So if the issue is reader searching and navigation, I think we have that covered. Valfontis (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

For the record, the discussion re: naming the NRHP lists is here. Valfontis (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested title isn't "ludicrous', it follows standard naming conventions.

p 05:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• The rival list doesn't follow our standard naming conventions which are
  not invented here. Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And that problem can be solved by redirecting.
  p 14:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What alternate title would you propose for a list of National Register of Historic Places-listed items in the county? Note that it's not attempting to be a city list; it's all of the sites in the county, regardless of whether they're in the city or not. Whatever title we pick must be able to include all National Register-listed locations while excluding all types of historic sites that aren't on the National Register. Believe me, if you can come up with a better title, WP:NRHP would like to hear of it. In the mean time, you should note that
  National Register of Historic Places listings in Portland, Oregon is a redirect to the section that discusses Portland's sites. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete 1) This list has no criteria for inclusion, 2) In theme, it's a duplication of the superior NRHP in M County article linked above, and maintaining both is a waste of project volunteer time.
  Townlake (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. List has no criteria for inclusion; they have been chosen subjectively and the title is misleading (there is no way to list all notable buildings in Portland). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is obviously possible to make such lists because we have plenty of them for other cities such as list of Chicago Landmarks. In particular, we have the list of buildings in Seattle — a very similar city to Portland — and that page has existed for over seven years. There doesn't seem to be much difficulty finding sources, as demonstrated above, and there are organisations with a special interest and resources for the topic — see Individual Historic Resources and Landmarks and Portland History & Preservation. Andrew D. (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just some context. It's possible this is an "

other stuff" argument. I note that pretty much the only active member of WikiProject Washington (someone who has taken hundreds of photos of historic buildings and carefully maintained the Washington NRHP lists) questioned the inclusion criteria for the Seattle list back in 2007. And the Chicago list has inclusion criteria in a hatnote right at the top: "Chicago Landmarks designated by the city government". Valfontis (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Yes , it is indeed an
  WP:OSE, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Andrew D. (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Nominated the Seattle list for deletion, as the criteria for inclusion appears to be "buildings we think are notable that nobody else does". :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to either
  p 05:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a needless fork, in addition to the NRHP in Multnomah County article cited above, each of these landmarks seems to have its own WP page — including the Burnside Bridge, which I was a bit concerned about. The NOTGUIDEBOOK proscription would seem to apply. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's so illogical that it seems necessary to go into detail. The page is a list and so the existence of separate pages for the entries is expected per
  WP:REDUNDANTFORK states, "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". Andrew D. (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment The lack of objective inclusion criteria is a problem that could be solved if a list that was to be in addition to the existing NHRP list were to be restricted to official historic landmarks designated by the City of Portland. See Individual Historic Resources and Landmarks for more detail. List of Chicago Landmarks is an example of such a list restricted to city designated entries. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is easy to fix; the question is whether it's worthwhile to fix it when a perfectly good parallel article already exists. Having two lists of Portland historic sites strikes me as a waste of time; 90% of the M County historical sites are in Portland.
    Townlake (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Per Andrew's really excellent suggestion above, I've made it clear in its article that

Townlake argues, it's probably a waste of our time to try to maintain another separate list with 703 entries. Valfontis (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Skidmore Fountain is a good example because it appears in the list in question and seems to be quite a notable landmark in Portland. Getting the facts straight about it may therefore be helpful in understanding the more general issue. The table of historic landmarks maintained by Portland's Historic Landmarks Commission indicates that it has not been listed in the national register. The NRHP source which Valfontis recently added to the Skidmore fountain article is a nomination which does not seem to have been accepted and that nomination is for the "Skidmore/Old Town Historic District" which is a more general area of some 57 properties. The description in the NRHP nomination only mentions the fountain briefly and so I'm not sure that this would count as an entry, if it had been accepted. I am therefore not convinced that the NRHP is a sufficient source or basis for coverage of the topic. Note that the fountain doesn't seem to appear in the corresponding NRHP list in Wikipedia. The closest entry seems to be number 94 in the National Register of Historic Places listings in Northwest Portland, Oregon. That took some digging to find because it's buried deeply under the county list and doesn't mention the fountain or link to it.Andrew D. (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NHLS/75001597_text, a revised version of the Skidmore/Old Town HD's National Historic Landmark status:

• Pages 24-25 show that it's a contributing property and comment about its local designation
• Pages 63-64 provide extensive documentation of it
• Page 78 notes that it was the namesake for the district

So yes, it's definitely included on the Register, although not individually listed. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, because as is noted above, what makes something historic enough for this page? If it's official local designation, the comparison with Chicago Landmarks is reasonable, and the article will need to be reworked extensively, because it doesn't give any indication of that. If there's no specific criterion, this is too vague to retain. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And what would stop us from doing this extensive reworking? Deletion would stop us — that's what. Hasty deletion of an article that has only just emerged from Articles For Creation would obviously be quite
  preserve content: "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Everything would need to be redone. When we've got 700 entries, descriptions this size cannot be retained: can you imagine a page 78 times this length? The only possible way to present the local designations is to give just a list. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  p 14:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

For the record, this emerged from AfC in June. Valfontis (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, other pages cover the topic with clearer criteria for inclusion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge what is being lost in the above discussion that 1) the NHRP tables do have a "description" section, 2) many/most of those descriptions are blank, and 3) this article offers such descriptions. There is no need for two articles on the same subject, of course, but there is also no need to throw away perfect good descriptions due to this. The one source->multiple targets situation creates a complicated merge situation, but one worth doing. (See WP:Copying within Wikipedia for instructions.) Pinging @SFK2: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had already notified SFK2 of this AfD on their talk page; they haven't edited since July. Valfontis (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; I agree with Valfontis. Neutrality^talk 06:33, 15 February 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.