138:. Generally NRHP structures are considered automatically notable, although I don't know of a specific rule to that effect. The National Register is a peer-reviewed process that requires extensive research, documentation, and argumentation at the state and federal levels. These are properties that are deemed notable for historical, cultural, or architectural reasons. Just because there is a limited amount of information doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article. According to the summary nomination
177:(or similar bodies in other countries) then it's passed a far more stringent process of checking than a quick google by a few wikipedia editors so I would think by definition it's notable by our standards. It doesn't matter if there's 80,000 of them, wikipedia is not paper. Let's remember that the National Register of Historic Places is the United States government's official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects worthy of preservation. What more do you need?
125:, along with about 80,000 others. After searching around for a while I have found nothing else about it, except that it continues to serve as the headquarters of Mr. Miller's architectural firm, and it is evidently not open to the public (it was very briefly when it was first built, according to our article). I would be delighted if someone could come up with more and this article would be kept. But as it is, with the NRHP listing as the only verifiable fact, I don't see it.
145:. Offline sources certainly exist (such as the full NRHP nomination or local historical/architectural materials) and there were probably architecture magazine articles from the period as well, which are unsurprisingly not available on the internet. Caution is often warranted when subjects are historical (i.e. from before the present era). --
203:
So don't write an article about your house then Chick. No-one's saying all 80,000 have to have articles, but if the US Government thinks Henry F. Miller House is notable enough to be protected then I think that should be good enough for
Knowledge (XXG). QWhy is your house on the list? Maybe your
158:
I agree with your last sentence, though I'm not sure about automatic inclusion; ultimately we don't have an article if we don't have sources (not hypothetical ones). I am trying to locate an article from the New York Times, "Architectural Trend Still Stirs
Passions," published August 26, 2001, by
213:
Well, my point is that the NHRP's standards for inclusion aren't uniform. My house, for example, is on the list because it's a structure within a historic district (different list, though, I guess). Anyway, I'm still hoping to render this whole discussion moot by finding some actual, usable
227:, and not the dreaded non-contributing counterpart, I still wouldn't consider an individual property within a district notable. The district should have an article, but individual properties would have to seek their own notability. (I also live in such a house.) --
254:-- although that's a multiple property submission.) The documentation for this house isn't available online, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As far as the actual nomination process is concerned,
274:
per
Dhartung. The processs to get on the NRHP is long and very research oriented. Far more than Wikipedias inclusion standards. We don't decide if something is notable, "the world" does. --
258:. The problem with the Henry F. Miller House article is not that it isn't notable, but that the article doesn't cite its sources. That can be fixed. With that in mind, my opinion is to
52:
for providing me with a New York Times article about the house. One final point, though--notability should never be the only question here. We need sources for an article.
114:
159:
Richard Weizel. I don't have access to the Times
Archive at the moment (though I will later this week), but I'd appreciate assistance from anyone who does.
87:
82:
91:
74:
174:
122:
49:
17:
293:
36:
48:. Thanks to all for an engaging discussion about the National Register, which I enjoyed, and thanks particularly to
278:
266:
235:
218:
208:
190:
181:
163:
153:
129:
56:
78:
250:
The documentation for this house should be available as a
National Register nomination form. (As an example, see
292:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
139:
224:
70:
62:
142:
121:
This is a bit of a test case for notability, I think. This house has an individual listing on the
232:
150:
141:
it was listed because of its architectural qualities, apparently as a key representative of the
205:
178:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
215:
187:
160:
126:
53:
275:
228:
146:
108:
263:
256:
these are the guidelines from the
Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office
255:
251:
186:
One reason this gives me pause is that my house is on the NHRP list. . .
286:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
252:
this nomination form for the Great Camps of the
Adirondacks
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
296:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
204:house is more interesting than you know!
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
175:National Register of Historic Places
123:National Register of Historic Places
24:
173:per Dhartung. If it's on the
1:
313:
289:Please do not modify it.
279:17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
267:14:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
236:06:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
219:05:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
209:05:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
191:05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
182:05:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
164:05:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
154:05:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
130:03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
57:18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
225:contributing property
71:Henry F. Miller House
63:Henry F. Miller House
50:Richard Arthur Norton
223:Assuming you have a
143:International Style
262:this article. --
304:
291:
112:
94:
34:
312:
311:
307:
306:
305:
303:
302:
301:
300:
294:deletion review
287:
85:
69:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
310:
308:
299:
298:
282:
281:
269:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
196:
195:
194:
193:
168:
167:
166:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
309:
297:
295:
290:
284:
283:
280:
277:
273:
270:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
248:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
221:
220:
217:
212:
211:
210:
207:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:
192:
189:
185:
184:
183:
180:
176:
172:
169:
165:
162:
157:
156:
155:
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:
134:
133:
132:
131:
128:
124:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
288:
285:
271:
259:
206:Nick mallory
179:Nick mallory
170:
135:
120:
45:
43:
31:
28:
216:Chick Bowen
188:Chick Bowen
161:Chick Bowen
127:Chick Bowen
54:Chick Bowen
214:sources.
46:withdrawn
276:Oakshade
229:Dhartung
147:Dhartung
115:View log
88:protect
83:history
264:Elkman
92:delete
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
272:Keep
260:keep
233:Talk
171:Keep
151:Talk
136:Keep
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
113:– (
231:|
149:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.