Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Reed 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Reed House

[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)

Unremarkable single-family home. No claim of significance or notability. –DMartin 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Nebraska. –DMartin 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: A designated historic landmark with several independent reliable sources should pass anyone's definition of
WP:BEFORE failure going on here. It seems they're trying to CSD/PROD/AFD several Omaha landmarks. Toddst1 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
- There are several hundred places designated as "local landmarks" in Omaha and over 96,000 on the NRHP. I do not believe these designations make the subject notable. –DMartin 08:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places disagrees. Q.E.D. Toddst1 (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does that Wikiproject determine what is and isn't notable, or does the GNG? –DMartin 08:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DMartin, what the other user is trying to say is that there have been discussions about notability at the WikiProject. We look at older closed AfDs, and there is a long-term precedent: sites that the U.S. national government considers significant for their historic register are significant enough for us to cover here.

ɱ

(talk) 15:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can pull up the relevant documentation from the NRHP, it's usually at least 10 pages long and very detailed. It's about some of the best coverage you could want for any listed heritage building. They don't just throw listings at anything and see what sticks; the sites will have been evaluated at the local level first by architectural or archeological experts before it can even be presented to the NRHP for consideration. It's a long and tedious process, it's almost a peer-reviewed journal history for the building. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I wouldn't extend the assumption of notability we grant to NRHP sites to local historic sites in general, in this case the landmark designation came with a substantial document that details the history of the house and explains its significance, which is enough evidence for me to consider it notable as well. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as NRHP designates its significant history. Document from @TheCatalyst31 furthers the argument. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although so far at the article page and here it has not been shown to be NRHP-listed. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the subject is not a NRHP site. The nom brought up NRHP for some reason. The nom bringing it up has distracted folks. Toddst1 (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I object to

wp:CANVAS

.

Right here, their statement says that the nom (which in this context means the nominator) "brought up NRHP for some reason. The nom bringing it up has distracted folks." That's FALSE, it was Toddst1 bringing up NRHP here, above with statement "Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places disagrees. Q.E.D.". In retrospect, that statement itself seems snide and inappropriate. Honestly, it rubbed me the wrong way that Toddst1 was assuming they could speak for me and other diverse NRHP editors that way.

It was Toddst1 who posted at wt:NRHP: "Something is wrong there:

wp:CANVAS

, a four-criteria behavioural guideline, as it is biased (suggestion "something is wrong"), it is partisan (selective/votestacking, in that it alerts only NRHP editors whom I think Toddst1 projects will react predictably, and not, say, WikiProject Nebraska or editors at the Omaha, Nebraska article, who could know the ground and could well be highly dubious about merit of these places, one of which is long gone, and the other not NRHP-listed for unknown-to-us reasons), and it is secret (it is stealth canvassing in that Toddst1 did not disclose here that they had posted the notice -- note if they had, it is likely that I or others would have taken steps to counter its evil, e.g. by posting notices at wp:NEBRASKA, by directly objecting to biased tone at wp:NRHP).

Also, it was Toddst1 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy C. Barton House making overstatements and personal insinuations, and calling for NRHP editors to come on over here, too:

A NRHP landmark with several independent reliable sources should pass anyone's definition of WP:GNG. It seems the nom is trying to (IMHO nuisance) delete several Omaha landmarks and doesn't believe NRHP registration has any effect on WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Reed House.

At first I did not identify all parts of this, and even if I had it doesn't add up to being the worst problem in the world, but it did make me uncomfortable at least. I chose to be polite and not call out Toddst1 specifically, and I rather chose to try to be sympathetic and a bit apologetic to the nominator, with my statement below. I suggested that they might feel the reactions of NRHP editors (including myself) here and in the other AFD to be a bit "clannish". Like, yo, i'm sorry we might come across that way sometimes, and here about the content....

Further, though, for my using the term "clannish", Toddst1 came to my Talk page to accuse me of "ad hominem" attacks upon NRHP editors! And went on with other nonsensical accusations that I can dish it out but not take it, etc. For one, I think Toddst1 does not understand I am very much an NRHP editor, that, if that was a dish, I was dishing it out against myself too. It is not abhorrent to use the word "clannish", which is broadly descriptive of the behavior of groups of like-minded people. It's not a bad word at all, and is really not a bad word like say the N word is, and even that word is allowed to be used by members of the group that is otherwise disparaged by the term when it is coming from others.

They chided me:

As I read it, your use of "clannish" was entirely negative. Unmodified, the NRHP project members are a positive group. By labeling them clannish - it implied to me that you thought they look out for and protect each other at the expense of other goals (aka prejudiced). Why label them as other than what they are? Comment on content, not on the contributor(s).

To Toddst1, take that to heart yourself, and a) don't make ad hominem attacks against Dmartin or other nominators this way, b) don't sneak around to round up opposition who might join in your negativity, and c) don't assume NRHP editors as a group are stupid and act in lockstep and are so assinine and predictable as you suppose they are. (To be clear, to spell it out for you, I am not suggesting that any of the NRHP editors here or elsewhere are assinine. People in general, including me, can sometimes be prompted to show up and say things or go along with things which seem to give assent to actually abhorrent behavior. When we would not if we saw what was going on. And NRHP editors here, while perhaps having been invited (manipulated?) to show up, have actually been discussing content and their views, civilly and appropriately.

In response to your several exhortations to me such as "You're better than that" and "I (incorrectly) assumed your skin would be thick enough to deal with the direct feedback", well, I say to you, consider this feedback to yourself here.

To others, I apologize that this extended comment is off track to the direct topic of the Mary Reed House. Although I hope you understand my feeling I should say something in response. I asked Toddst1 not to post further on my Talk page, although invited them to take one last shot if they wished, and I suppose they could do so here too. Otherwise, I would prefer further discussion of inappropriate behavior here (including if ppl think mine is inappropriate) take place at a more appropriate forum such as

wp:ANI (although I truly hate that place). –DMartin, if there is continuation of a pattern of attacking you, let me know (elsewhere), and I myself will open there. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Doncram: I agree that Toddst1's behaviour was inappropriate, I decided to step away and think about it again once this process was settled. Thank you for your confidence. –DMartin 22:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Threats of Ani are bully tactics. Either do or don't but AFD is not the place for this mess. Toddst1 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed from "Merge" --01:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)). I think editor –DMartin is not wrong to question, and to put clannish editors in one WikiProject to task. I was gonna say "Keep", but actually i feel I could/should go further to support DMartin. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say Keep first because it's a significant work of notable architect
F.A. Henninger
, and it appears I started the Wikipedia article about them more than 10 years ago, but maybe Dmartin would not be impressed.
Okay, Keep, second, because it is a
wp:ILIKEIT
is not valid at AFD.
Hmm, well how about what TheCatalyst says, that in this case the local landmark designation document shows significance. Actually this exactly suffices, IMHO.
But, further, actually the document looks a whole lot like a NRHP nomination document, and it costs money and effort to create such, and then I wonder whether it was nominated but did not achieve NRHP listing (which could happen). Is it not well preserved, or was it never that great (it is kinda plain), or is it in some other way deficient, and not worth memorializing in a Wikipedia article? Well, I actually suspect it is NRHP-listed, as are the 30 Henninger works in
F.A. Henninger article (probably by me). 503 S. 36 St. (or S. 35 St?) is not even close to any those. But mentioned in the Henninger article is also the NRHP-listed Gold Coast Historic District (Omaha, Nebraska)
, which is "roughly bounded by 36th St.", and this Mary Reed House article says it's in the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast Historic District (Omaha, Nebraska) article should jolly well include already a NRHP nomination document reference which would directly answer, but does not. Maybe that shud be fixed? I bet the house is included in that district, which fact can further support its significance.

If that is confirmed, though, I think it highly reasonable to argue it doesn't need a separate article (Dmartin's point). It should be covered in the HD article. Buildings which are

contributing resources

in a NRHP HD are definitely entitled to wear a "listed on the NRHP" plaque, and sometimes they have a separate wikipedia article. But if there's not much more to say than is in the current Mary Reed House article, or no one is choosing to say more, then all of it surely can be shifted over to the HD article, perhaps in a row in a new table which would improve that article. If some Omahan(?) really is developing, they could split it out to a separate article when warranted, in the future. If it is not too long though, it is actually more informative for readers for an item to be covered in a list-article, so it can be seen in context relative to others (spatially and otherwise), and the reader can accurately uhderstand and infer more about the one place.

And there's another merger target possibility: the list of works in the H.A. Henninger article. Why not expand the info provided in its row, put in an row anchor (by use of id="Mary Reed House"), and redirect

F.A. Henninger#Mary Reed House

?

So I am going with "Merge", either to a section or row in the HD article, or to its already existing row in the Henninger article. The current article is not something to be proud of, and merging would be an editing improvement. Arguably anyone could just boldly merge it even without an AFD. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The house is not in that historic district. There is a link to the nomination in the infobox, and maps can be found online. This house is a few blocks east of the HD.

ɱ

(talk) 17:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Ɱ, and I was wrong in my supposition. I figured out later the house is not included, and realized I had kind of been betting against my previous self, i.e. that I would have missed identifying the house as NRHP contributing, when I had struggled to round up works for the Henninger article. I just added a full NRHP document reference to the HD article. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: locally listed landmarks can be and usually are just as notable as NRHP sites. The in-depth designation report linked above shows that. There are other sources to be found, like the below: $ɱ$ (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--

ɱ

(talk) 16:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, changing my !vote, thanks. I'll take your word about those articles (behind a paywall, could be accessed through newspapers.com which I have not lined up). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:00, 16 January 2023 (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.