From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is consensus that both this and Jerome Historic District need not exist. As to which one should be merged to the other can be decided on the talk page. J04n( talk page) 12:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of historic properties in Jerome, Arizona

AfDs for this article:
List of historic properties in Jerome, Arizona (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant to existing topic, Jerome Historic District and/or Jerome, Arizona. This is one in a series of non-valid, non-notable list-articles for Arizona towns/cities which generally constitute wp:OR about what properties are historic. With none or few sources, this seems to come across as one local editor's personal view about which buildings are notable. Another irritating thing is they list, in bold, various building names as if that is to make them notable, and they omit wikilinks where the occasional one or two of them is indeed individually notable (e.g. as if it were separately listed on the National Register of Historic Places), which it turns out none of these are. Work within the existing framework of articles about historic districts that are actually listed on a historic register, please. Doncram ( talk) 03:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

P.S. I have visited Jerome, spoken to local historian there, verified that the entire darn town is included in the National Register-listed historic district (actually a National Historic Landmark district, which is honor roll for NRHP districts). Probably i uploaded pictures, not positive, this was some years ago. We don't need or want redundant list-articles which only seem to give room for marginal extra stuff. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The current article includes an NRHP infobox for Jerome Historic District, which does not belong in this article which is not the article about that subject. I would simply delete it. For other Arizona towns/cities in the series, the corresponding list-article basically consists of items in the corresponding historic district (which are notable, properly covered within the historic district article) plus vaguely historic other items not valid for coverage, with little/no sourcing about their historic importance. It is more appropriate to develop the NRHP historic district article, and include mention in the corresponding town/city article about the NRHP historic district plus perhaps some mention (if sources support) about other historic resources in the town. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I see this as a simple misunderstanding on the part of the article creator, that historic district articles can/should do what this list-article does, but with more substantive content and sourcing. A list of pretty good historic district article examples, which include lists of their contributing resources, is here. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Please note, the list-article is NOT a list of any local Jerome town/city historic register's items. wp:HSITES and I would generally support creation of a list-article about any local historic registry that any town or city or region chooses to officially create. Instead, this is an ad hoc / unofficial list, which we don't want, IMHO. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere talk 03:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but I don't think we need a U.S.-wide series of "List of historic properties in CITY, STATE" articles corresponding to every "CITY Historic District" article topic, which is what exists, usually with more development, in every other state. Why not merge this list-article to Jerome Historic District, the older Wikipedia article. There is no justification provided for merging in the other direction. -- Doncram ( talk) 04:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Absolutely proper list. Most of the town appears to be in a historic district, which means buildings that wouldn't be notable on their own (since the building itself wouldn't be on the register) could be added to this list. The nominator's two arguments are WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the second one of these isn't valid, and this doesn't appear to be original research due to the large number of sources found in a before search on the very topic. Furthermore, deletion is not cleanup as the nominator also proposes above. SportingFlyer talk 05:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Hmm. What can establish historic notability of individual properties is their being contributing properties in the NHRP/NHL historic district (assuming they all are...if one is not, it should probably not be mentioned). The NRHP/NHL HD article existed previously and can include a list of all of these (this comment seems not to understand that). There is no reason to create a separate list-article on the topic. How is this an "absolutely proper list"? It should be merged into the previously existing article, we don't need a series of new parallel articles. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The only issue with the list at the moment is that it may be slightly ambiguous in its determination due to the use of "some of the historic structures" in the article heading, but it's easily fixed. But the list passes WP:GNG and WP:CSC very clearly. If you're looking to merge instead of delete, try Wikipedia:Merging#Step_1:_Create_a_discussion, but there's absolutely no reason why the information in this well-sourced, informative article should be deleted. SportingFlyer talk 13:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
AFD is an appropriate forum to get wider, uninvolved participation. Merge to Jerome Historic District is an acceptable outcome, though I would frankly prefer "Delete" decision to send a stronger message that new content forking like this is not wanted. We don't need a separate new Merge discussion where only the content forker and I would be discussing it; this is already a proper discussion of the merits of deleting or merging. Sure, any well-sourced informative stuff in this new article can be moved to the original article. Yes, vagueness in this article's topic is concerning. -- Doncram ( talk) 18:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
This is not a proper reason for the use of a deletion discussion. The list is notable, is not original research, and passes the guidelines for lists. You simply don't like the article and that's pretty clear given your continued participation in this AfD. SportingFlyer talk 02:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
You suggest this is technically the wrong venue to discuss this; I am not sure about that. wp:SALAT about standalone list articles, wp:CONTENTFORK, and wp:SPLIT don't provide guidance as far as I can tell. If others disagree that this is the right forum, though, I suppose I could close this or wait for this to be closed, then reopen same discussion at Talk page of one of the related articles, and invite everyone to give their views again. I certainly am open to general direction about how to address content forks / splits.
But AFD certainly has the power to come to a delete or merge decision here. -- Doncram ( talk) 14:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 06:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 06:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 06:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
"or perhaps rename" -> well that is implemented by merging into the JHD article, which is older and more fundamental. Just because a new content fork is formatted/written nicely, doesn't mean that we give primacy to that new fork. Put any nice writing into the long-existing article, at its more fundamental name. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This well written article should not be merged into the Jerome Historic District stub because it is not about the Jerome Historic District. This article is about the few structures indentified as historical by the Jerome Historical Society within the Jerome Historic District. Tony the Marine ( talk) 16:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Okay, using Wikipedia jargon, it is a wp:REDUNDANTFORK and should be merged back into main article. Fork creator just said everything in the article is covered by Jerome Historic District topic. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
You mean "Merge"? The entire content of wp:REDUNDANTFORK is "Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. If you suspect a content fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." -- Doncram ( talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am not understanding opposition to Merge the new article into the long-existing article. "List of historic properties in Jerome, Arizona" is not a thing, it yields zero separate Google hits. "Jerome Historic District" yields many Google hits, is a fundamental thing. The fork creator acknowledges here that everything in their article fits in the Jerome Historic District article topic. To commenters and eventual closer, please consider actual arguments about which name is better, not addressed in assertions amounting to "this article is nice". No valid reason suggested to usurp older article and its edit history; the problem is new fork creator ignoring existing structure and not working within it. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Is the opposition wanting to be nice to the new fork creator, and to avoid offending by deleting? I would be fine with there being a redirect left behind, so no actual deletion of their edits, and with new content all being moved to the main topic. But this is not a new editor; they should know better; they don't need patronizing. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment- for the closing admin. This article is "not" about the Jerome Historic District since all of the structures in the district are not historical nor considered as such. This article is about the few historical structures within the district as deemed by the Jerome Historical Society. Tony the Marine ( talk) 18:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
So then this article does not make any sense. Its title is "historic properties in Jerome" but it is not supposed to cover some/many historic properties (contributing resources) in the Jerome Historic District ?!?!?! The article does not in fact state up front (and probably not anywhere) these just-asserted criteria for inclusion. The list-article topic is vague and wp:OR. I would not totally oppose there being a different article about the Jerome Historical Society (I have myself created some articles about local historical societies), or better a section about the Jerome Historical Society within the Jerome Historic District article (whose bounds include everything about JHS, according to Tony the Marine). -- Doncram ( talk) 00:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • It would be ideal, then, to know what properties within the district are contributing properties to the historic district and which aren't. But, I can't find that list within the National Historic Landmark designation or the nomination document. Maybe the Arizona SHPO would have a list available, but it's not online. So, it's entirely possible that the Jerome Historical Society has picked out a set of properties that are a subset of what's in the NHL nomination, and it's possible that they listed a couple properties that aren't actually NHL contributing properties. But, I will note that the article proposed for deletion has a lot more information on what's in the district than what's currently in Jerome Historic District. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • The NHL documentation for the historic district (see 220MB PDF here) does not include a resource inventory, so there is no list of what contributes or not to the district. It does not even including a finalized boundary for the district, although one has been proposed (PDF page 128, sketch map on page 112). Historic district stub article is probably best redirected to Jerome, Arizona, owing to the lack of detail. Magic ♪piano 16:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note - I just added references about the particular historical properties which also show the plaques which the Jerome Historcal Society placed describing the historical importance and significance of each one of them. Tony the Marine ( talk) 21:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
All of which are appropriate to include in Jerome Historic District article. Why do you want to have a different article? Please explain, seriously. -- Doncram ( talk) 00:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Okay maybe a different misconception here is about the contents of historic districts. NRHP-listed historic districts include "contributing resources" and "non-contributing resources". We in wikipedia will tend to explicitly cover the Contributing buildings, Contributing structures, Contributing objects, Contributing sites, and say no more than necessary about non-contributing intrusions into a district. Tony the Marine is suggesting, I think, that they don't want to cover the historic buildings in the JHD (i.e. the ones they accept as historic because the JHS is specifically commemorating them with plaques (which I have seen too), because Tony the Marine believes the bounds of the JHD include less-historical, non-contributing buildings. Is that the perceived issue? I see no problem with covering the very-historical elements in the JHD article. I see no merit in creating a bogus new list-article, "List of some but not other historic properties in Jerome". -- Doncram ( talk) 00:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Elkman mentions above that the list article includes far more content than Jerome Historic District. This is true, but much of that content appears to have been copied word for word from the featured article Jerome, Arizona. Finetooth ( talk) 18:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Please, please – let’s not make this discussion a personal one by stating “Tony the Marine” said this or that. Nor by stating our own POV by calling the article “Fork” or “Bogus”. The fact is that not all of the structures in a historic district are historical. This is because many owners of these buildings can demolish and build structures that are not historical. This article is about the structures which the "Jerome Historical Society" have identified as those which are historical, not Tony the Marine. These structures, which the Jerome Historical Society have indentified, are maintained by the society and they each have a plaque placed by the society as such, that's all. Let’s let this AfD take it’s course without further interference, please. Tony the Marine ( talk) 16:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article lead should more clearly express inclusion/exclusion criteria. Magic ♪piano 16:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. No strong opinion on which way to merge, or what title the result should live under, but it's WP:JUSTDUMB to have both of these, especially when one of them is literally three sentences of text. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to a single article, which will consist 90% of the content of this article and 10% of the additional content under Jerome Historic District. Which name the combined article should reside under is left to editorial discretion (the other of course a redirect); I would suggest Jerome Historical District since we have more content here than a simple list, but there are clearly passionate people more knowledgeable than I about that. Finally, since there is something meaningful to say both about the district itself, and about recognized historical buildings, and possibly about other buildings not on someone's recognized list, wherever the article ends up, let's make sure it says what is interesting about all of these, without hair-splitting about whether it fulfills some a priori definition of scope. Martinp ( talk) 01:45, 19 April 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_historic_properties_in_Jerome,_Arizona&oldid=1138013240"