707:
that existence of references is the only requirement. They do not have to be on the article. As several other editors have stated, once something is notable, it stays that way. It is never not notable again. Even if it ceases to exist, its existence is still notable. This is a no brainer keep. Lincoln's dead, and all the first person accounts of his life are almost 150 years old. Does that make him any less notable? Nope, and it doesn't this house either. To the nominator: Please, when the government opens for business again, go look at
732:, so we don't have to depend on the federal budget for this house. You can see that you'll get relevant information from the nomination form, which was produced by locally reputable authors, and the fact that it gained national recognition means that historic preservation officials in Harrisburg and DC approved the work that the locals did. Meanwhile, note the top of the fourth page: there's additional relevant information in a book put out by MIT Press in 1969.
706:
In order to even get a structure nominated for the NRHP, you must produce documentation quite like our reliably sourced reference requirements, and in enormous amounts. By definition, in order to be on the NRHP, sufficient referencing exists to show notability. Possibly the nominator is not aware
217:
Most of the references do not exist, or are to wikipedia articles. The ones that are real are not notable - one is a memo saying the house was removed from the
National Registry, another is a list that simply has "Sackville House" with no explanation or context, and the last is a single newspaper
687:
662:
insistence that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, I'm beginning to think this is a troll. Also given that the nom is an SPA familiar with WP terminology and procedures, I think it's also an established user doing the trolling.
186:
218:
article from more than 30 years ago which is about how the house is not notable enough to save from demolition. There does not seem to be any notable references at all in Google. This is simply local trivia.
360:
While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion...
581:
this meets is
Independent resource - there's one that's referenced. It is supposed to meet all of the guidelines, and it's not even close. Please do the work to meet the definition of
472:
per above. All NRHP properties (de-listed or not) are presumed notable due to the associated documentation, which combined with the local newspaper coverage is more than sufficient.
418:
Page 17 of the newspaper, on the same page as a grilling recipe, is trivial, especially considering this edition of the paper is 33 years old. If the only source is this, it fails
682:
This is a well-referenced article about a property designated as a historic place by the federal government, a designation which requires a higher standard of notability than
292:
272:
139:
180:
503:
551:
has extensive coverage too. That some of the coverage is "page 17 of the newspaper, on the same page as a grilling recipe" is totally irrelevant to
620:. Not sure what your point is as we're not sure why you nominated this except maybe to retaliate against a user below who created this article. --
146:
350:
The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest...
396:- The NRHP (part of the National Park Service) has paper documentation on this site (they're slow to digitize removed properties), and the
112:
107:
116:
499:
315:. The former NRHP listing indicates that documentation establishing notability exists, even if it is offline. As for demolition,
244:
99:
17:
201:
601:
438:
240:
168:
760:
162:
40:
659:
75:
494:], only a subset of which are on Knowledge. The only way the Sackville House is related to it is that it was
741:
720:
698:
672:
629:
605:
568:
533:
515:
481:
458:
454:
442:
409:
382:
328:
304:
284:
263:
227:
158:
81:
254:
As this well-executed AfD is your first edit to WP, can you please tell us who this account is a sock of?--
521:
756:
597:
529:
524:. The presence/absence of articles for other NRHP sites is irrelevant and not indicative of notability.
511:
477:
434:
236:
223:
36:
208:
362:
Now's that time. Please provide verifiable references and sources to support notability as defined by
729:
589:
426:
103:
652:
593:
507:
430:
232:
219:
194:
71:
716:
695:
668:
625:
564:
520:
It was de-listed because it was demolished. That doesn't make it any less notable; notability is
450:
405:
378:
259:
612:
It has very significant coverage from "Independent" reliable sources including the NRHP and the
737:
324:
300:
280:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
755:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
174:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
525:
473:
728:
Thankfully, Pennsylvania's put most of its
National Register nominations online, including
354:
95:
87:
648:
64:
57:
53:
712:
683:
664:
644:
621:
617:
582:
578:
560:
552:
401:
374:
344:
255:
733:
556:
320:
296:
276:
449:
33 years old? Notability is not temporary. If it was notable then, that's enough.
133:
498:
It's not a badge of notability on its own in any way. There are no references in
419:
363:
338:
711:
NRHP nomination document and then tell me sufficient sourcing does not exist.
352:
This was of short-term interest decades ago according to secondary sources.
555:. It could be on page 117 next to a cupcake recipe and still be a
749:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
373:
place. "Historic" is the antithesis of "short term interest."--
369:
Short-term interest? The
Federal government designated this a
547:- All HRHP require extensive documentation to exist. The
491:
691:
647:
several times over), this must be a !joke nomination.--
129:
125:
121:
193:
317:notability is not temporary and it does not expire
686:. I have a suspicion that this is in response to
293:list of Architecture-related deletion discussions
273:list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
763:). No further edits should be made to this page.
342:requires "Significant Coverage," there is none.
690:, where the article's creator and the IP who
207:
8:
291:Note: This debate has been included in the
271:Note: This debate has been included in the
643:- So far beyond reasonableness (it passes
290:
270:
60:a bad-faith tit-for-tat nomination, and a
7:
24:
492:over 88,000 listings in the NRHP
730:the one for the Sackville House
70:for the nominator accordingly.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
694:had a difference of opinion.
742:01:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
721:00:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
699:00:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
673:00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
630:01:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
606:23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
585:. I think it's impossible.
569:22:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
534:23:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
516:20:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
482:18:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
459:18:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
443:18:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
410:17:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
383:22:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
329:16:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
305:16:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
285:16:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
264:22:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
228:15:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
82:02:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
559:that's sufficient to GNG.--
780:
506:is for a house in the UK.
400:is not trivial coverage.
752:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
422:. It doesn't belong.
616:to establish meeting
502:, and the mention on
245:few or no other edits
56:. Agree that this is
577:The only item under
247:outside this topic.
692:nominated this page
48:The result was
660:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
614:Observer-Reporter
609:
592:comment added by
549:Observer-Reporter
446:
429:comment added by
398:Observer-Reporter
307:
287:
248:
771:
754:
658:Given the nom's
608:
586:
445:
423:
230:
212:
211:
197:
149:
137:
119:
78:
69:
63:
58:pretty obviously
34:
779:
778:
774:
773:
772:
770:
769:
768:
767:
761:deletion review
750:
587:
557:reliable source
522:WP:NOTTEMPORARY
424:
154:
145:
110:
96:Sackville House
94:
91:
88:Sackville House
80:
76:
67:
61:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
777:
775:
766:
765:
745:
744:
723:
701:
677:
676:
675:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
572:
571:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
485:
484:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
413:
412:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
332:
331:
309:
308:
288:
268:
267:
266:
215:
214:
151:
90:
85:
74:
72:The Bushranger
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
776:
764:
762:
758:
753:
747:
746:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
724:
722:
718:
714:
710:
705:
702:
700:
697:
696:TheCatalyst31
693:
689:
685:
681:
678:
674:
670:
666:
661:
657:
656:
654:
650:
646:
642:
639:
638:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
584:
580:
576:
575:
574:
573:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
543:
542:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:Google Search
501:
497:
493:
489:
488:
487:
486:
483:
479:
475:
471:
468:
467:
460:
456:
452:
451:Chiswick Chap
448:
447:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
421:
417:
416:
415:
414:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
391:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
367:
365:
361:
357:
356:
351:
347:
346:
341:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
289:
286:
282:
278:
274:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
246:
242:
238:
234:
229:
225:
221:
210:
206:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
160:
157:
156:Find sources:
152:
148:
144:
141:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
89:
86:
84:
83:
79:
77:One ping only
73:
66:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
751:
748:
725:
708:
703:
679:
640:
613:
588:— Preceding
548:
544:
500:Google Books
495:
469:
425:— Preceding
397:
393:
370:
359:
353:
349:
343:
337:
316:
312:
216:
204:
198:
190:
183:
177:
171:
165:
155:
142:
49:
47:
31:
28:
704:Strong Keep
526:Camerafiend
474:Camerafiend
243:) has made
181:free images
490:There are
757:talk page
649:GrapedApe
496:delisted.
321:• Gene93k
297:• Gene93k
277:• Gene93k
37:talk page
759:or in a
713:Gtwfan52
688:this AfD
665:Oakshade
622:Oakshade
602:contribs
594:Otp15301
590:unsigned
561:Oakshade
508:Otp15301
439:contribs
431:Otp15301
427:unsigned
402:Chris857
375:Oakshade
371:historic
355:WP:NTEMP
256:Oakshade
241:contribs
233:Otp15301
220:Otp15301
140:View log
39:or in a
734:Nyttend
187:WP refs
175:scholar
113:protect
108:history
54:WP:SNOW
684:WP:GNG
645:WP:GNG
618:WP:GNG
583:WP:GNG
579:WP:GNG
553:WP:GNG
345:WP:NRV
159:Google
117:delete
358:says
348:says
202:JSTOR
163:books
147:Stats
134:views
126:watch
122:links
65:trout
16:<
738:talk
726:Keep
717:talk
680:Keep
669:talk
653:talk
641:Keep
626:talk
598:talk
565:talk
545:Keep
530:talk
512:talk
478:talk
470:Keep
455:talk
435:talk
420:WP:N
406:talk
394:Keep
379:talk
364:WP:N
339:WP:N
325:talk
313:Keep
301:talk
281:talk
260:talk
237:talk
224:talk
195:FENS
169:news
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
50:keep
709:any
209:TWL
138:– (
740:)
719:)
671:)
663:--
655:)
628:)
604:)
600:•
567:)
532:)
514:)
480:)
457:)
441:)
437:•
408:)
381:)
366:.
327:)
319:.
303:)
295:.
283:)
275:.
262:)
239:•
231:—
226:)
189:)
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
68:}}
62:{{
52:.
736:(
715:(
667:(
651:(
624:(
596:(
563:(
528:(
510:(
476:(
453:(
433:(
404:(
377:(
323:(
299:(
279:(
258:(
235:(
222:(
213:)
205:·
199:·
191:·
184:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
161:(
153:(
150:)
143:·
136:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.