- 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 Delete.-- MelanieN ( talk) 21:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Andrew Larson House ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Though this building is old, it is not a provincial or national historic site. Being designated a historic site at the local level does not confer notability, and there is no reliable source to confirm notability otherwise. This good faith creation simply is not notable.
Note: This and similar articles were PRODed and no objections were received within seven days, but this and the others were objected shortly thereafter before they were reviewed by an admin, hence this now being an AfD. The reason for the objection was "Because the articles seem to have merit". Hwy43 ( talk) 21:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 ( talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - The article does not claim any particular architectural or historical importance of this house over millions of other old houses. There don't appear to be articles about it in any online history books.— Anne Delong ( talk) 03:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge if possible to Stirling or simply delete if this can't be accomplished as if at all this may be locally significant and notable but not enough for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 Delete.-- MelanieN ( talk) 21:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Andrew Larson House ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Though this building is old, it is not a provincial or national historic site. Being designated a historic site at the local level does not confer notability, and there is no reliable source to confirm notability otherwise. This good faith creation simply is not notable.
Note: This and similar articles were PRODed and no objections were received within seven days, but this and the others were objected shortly thereafter before they were reviewed by an admin, hence this now being an AfD. The reason for the objection was "Because the articles seem to have merit". Hwy43 ( talk) 21:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 ( talk) 21:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - The article does not claim any particular architectural or historical importance of this house over millions of other old houses. There don't appear to be articles about it in any online history books.— Anne Delong ( talk) 03:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Merge if possible to Stirling or simply delete if this can't be accomplished as if at all this may be locally significant and notable but not enough for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- 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.