Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
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 no consensus‎. To this point, those arguing to keep the article have pointed out correctly that WP:GEOFEAT extends presumed notability to nationally protected places; however, they are incorrect that presumed notability means inherent notability (see definition of presumed at WP:GNG). There is thus a very high burden of proof on those arguing to delete the article to show that the subject is not notable in spite of its presumed notability (this would be the same as coming to a decision that an article that had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" was still not "worthy of notice" in spite of the sources). Those arguing to delete the article have not convincingly demonstrated that this is the case (arguments about lack of sources are an okay start but nobody has addressed the Mercury News references). More convincing are concerns about a close paraphrasing, which this clearly is, but I think this can be dealt with outside of an AfD.

Even if I assign more weight to either side based on policy, I do not see or expect a consensus to emerge from further discussion, so I am closing this now. Malinaccier (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairglen Additions[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Fairglen Additions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not all places on the National Register are inherently notable. This article is primarily a paraphrase of the application form (which is neither reliable nor independent), and its only other sources are press releases and other paraphrases of the application form. I can't find any better sources for this, so it fails WP:GNG. – bradv 16:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and re-create as stub. There's zero doubt that Situated within a 1952 urban expansion zone southwest of San Jose's early Willow and other phrasing is plagiarized and edited with an LLM to not be detectable as easily. A stub can exist about Fairglen, but the copy is problematic as is the sourcing. The latter is why I think it's TNT territory. Star Mississippi 16:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is long standing consensus that the documentation needed for a place to meet the NRHP qualifies those buildings for articles under GNG. I'm not sure I necessarily completely agree, but it does look like there is enough there for an article here. I haven't done a COPYVIO search on this one and it does need cleanup, but I don't see the problem with having an article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike possibly most here, I just finished reading that long ... long ... long NRHP form, word by word. The Fairglen Additions are indeed notable. I have no doubt of the notability here. However, it would be helpful if there could be more independent sources (newspapers, etc.) added. — Maile (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: But doesn't this beg the question, is notability determined by wikipedia's criteria or by someone else's criteria for some other purpose? Even if that someone else is the US Congress. (I can't help but think that the argument that a body in any other country had designated something as notable wouldn't be so easily presumed to be the only argument needed). My read of WP:GEOFEAT is exactly that - a national body saying something is notable should give a presumption of notability here, but is does not necessarily in every case all that is needed. Melcous (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I would like to emphasize that the only reason this addition is notable is because of Joseph Eichler, and his "Eichler Homes". Eichler is mentioned 110 times in this NRHP document citation [1]. The article, should be redirected or merged to Joseph Eichler or possibly to Willow Glen of which this addition is just that - an addition - to Willow Glen. The reason for its NRHP status is because of the mid-century modern architect/builder Eichler. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the presumption of notability means that there would need to be something overwhelming to prove that presumption wrong. For example, an archeological site on the NRHP, without any publicly available address and any published reports, is one of the few exceptions to this presumption of notability. For what it's worth, this can probably be covered in the Willow Glen, San Jose, article without any problem - we've done this for other NRHP districts as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Places on the National Register are not inherently notable. The relevant guideline is WP:GEOFEAT which says they are presumed notable, which is not the same thing. This is the heart of the question: what would overturn that presumption in favour of notability? My argument would be a total lack of WP:GNG and WP:RS. If all that can be said about it is to paraphrase the (non-neutral) application form for such status, then I do not see how the presumption should apply. And if consensus is that they are notable, I would then agree with Star Mississippi that articles that merely paraphrase the application form should be WP:TNTed. Melcous (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and redirect to the mid-century modern developer/architect Joseph Eichler who is indeed notable (or possibly to Willow Glen of which this addition is a subdivision). It is the fact that Eichler was the architect/developer that is the key core of why this addition achieved NRHP status in the first place. I also somewhat agree with Star Mississippi that this might be a candidate for WP:TNT and stubbification, however I feel more strongly about the redirect. I also agree with Melcous's comment regarding WP:GEOFEAT; not everything on the NRHP is inherently notable, rather the entries are presumed notable not inherently notable. The lack of GNG and RS is key to that argument. Redirect seems like the best solution.Netherzone (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, or at least "don't delete" per WP:GEOFEAT. As to the claim that "not everything on the NRHP is inherently notable", in practice almost everything on the NRHP is listed because it is notable for some reason; these reasons are given in the NRHP nomination form. However, given the copyright concerns, it may be proper to consider a WP:TNT rewrite, anyway.
    As to the claim that the "application form isn't reliable", that's just plain wrong. Draft applications are not reliable, but final registration forms have been vetted by architectural experts and historians. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: The form itself is just basic information about what criteria it passed to be on the NRHP. To write an article about the property, the user must do other research, just like creating any other article. Some NRHP articles are written better than others, but the basic sourcing should be research beyond what is on the NRHP form. — Maile (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66, thanks for the clarification. I have no other comments on the registration form itself, but I agree with you that articles should cite additional sources as well, not just the form. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per SportingFlyer and Eastmain. This has been discussed before. Places on the National Register are inherently notable. Lacking RS is not a reason for deletion because the article can always be edited/shortened if necessary. C F A 💬 17:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clearfrienda: is there a link available to a previous discussion where there is consensus that being on a/any national body's register makes notability inherent rather than presumed, i.e. more than reasons given in a discussion about a particular site? If not, I'd be keen for this broader discussion to occur as this would make literally millions of sites around the world qualify for an article even without WP:SIGCOV (or indeed any coverage). Personally, I can't help but feel the National Register argument is a little US-centric, and wonder if the discussion would be the same I started creating articles for the 20,000+ nationally heritage listed sites in my small part of the world, or if one of our friends from an Asian or African country did the same. Melcous (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. Places on the National Register are not inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2024 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fairglen_Additions

Leave a Reply