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.
Prod rationale was Non-notable horse throughtrough. It's old, but that's not enough for notability. A city-level register of historic places is not enough to pass
WP:GEOFEAT. I'm struggling to find coverage for this particular site.
This is just a table listing and almost suggests it doesn't have a name beyond "Horse trough".
Another brief listing. It exists, it's old, and it has a bland name. That's about all that I can find about this, and it doesn't meet
WP:GEOFEAT or
WP:GNG.. Deprodded by
Spinningspark stating that if
Wilson Cary Swann or
Philadelphia Fountain Society existed, it could be merged there. However, GEOFEAT is still not met, GNG is not met, and since neither of the merge targets exist at the moment, to AFD this goes.
Hog FarmBacon01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Create a stub at
Philadelphia Fountain Society and merge there. Both the society and its founder,
Wilson Cary Swann, are notable. They are both discussed in
this book and
this one. I'm going to ask for a copy of the listing proposal for this at
WP:RX. It might possibly have enough information to write a standalone article, but if not will at least provide a source to confirm that this fountain is one of Swann's society.
SpinningSpark09:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Collectively, the horse troughs installed by the Womens Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (WPSPCA) and others and designated as historical objects by Philadelphia are notable as evidenced by the coverage by WHYY:
Curbside refreshment for man and beast, now added at the article.
24.151.56.107 (
talk)
17:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Was: "Keep", for now at least, unless or until it might be merged into a larger article that covers the topic better. It is apparently an officially designated local historic site (one of 5 horse troughs listed), and the article carries a photo and has other info, is apparently tangible evidence of historical events. Wikipedia is not required to have a separate article about each separate historic site which exists, because many might be better covered as items in a larger list whose article provides context. Discussion above has not clearly identified a merger target article. I don't think AFD process is suitable for forcing development of coverage about persons, societies, places mentioned above. There is substantial info here which should not be lost or made inaccessible/unlikely to be found by future editors. We should defer to future editors actually developing about these topics, who would be free to merge this article without an AFD being necessary. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Individual old bricks are not generally listed structures whereas this horse trough is. That makes a prima facie case for at least looking at it, and not tossing it out of hand.
SpinningSpark07:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to.... somewhere. Hi @
Doncram,
Spinningspark,
Piotrus, and
Eddie891:, responding to your comments above, looks like we agree that this horse trough doesn't reach notability by itself, but there's a history here, touching on multiple people & social issues, worthy of encyclopedic coverage. I've expanded the article with some of that history -- please have a quick look. There were dozens of fountains and many remain. I'm hoping for your opinion about an appropriate new merge target which would cover all such fountains and their sponsors, called something like
Philadelphia public drinking fountains, which I would gladly help build. Ideas welcome. --
Lockley (
talk)
20:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The entry in the register is adequate to establish this as a notable historic feature. Whether it might be consolidated into a more general article about the fountains or the district or the parties involved is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our policies
WP:ATD,
WP:NOTPAPER and
WP:PRESERVE. Note that policies trump guidelines.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
10:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson: - The first part of your statement is rather problematic. The entry in the register does not establish notability.
WP:GEOFEAT has the treshhold of national register, although in practice, it seems like this gets expanded for most state-level sites in the US. This fountain is on a local register, which falls several rungs below the GEOFEAT standard.
Hog FarmBacon20:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge as suggested by others. This is an appropriate outcome for something that is NN by itself. By the way, a charity for providing horse troughs in the city of London still exists, but it now provides other water-related benefits, such as boreholes for villages in Africa.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:05, 26 September 2020 (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.
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.
Prod rationale was Non-notable horse throughtrough. It's old, but that's not enough for notability. A city-level register of historic places is not enough to pass
WP:GEOFEAT. I'm struggling to find coverage for this particular site.
This is just a table listing and almost suggests it doesn't have a name beyond "Horse trough".
Another brief listing. It exists, it's old, and it has a bland name. That's about all that I can find about this, and it doesn't meet
WP:GEOFEAT or
WP:GNG.. Deprodded by
Spinningspark stating that if
Wilson Cary Swann or
Philadelphia Fountain Society existed, it could be merged there. However, GEOFEAT is still not met, GNG is not met, and since neither of the merge targets exist at the moment, to AFD this goes.
Hog FarmBacon01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Create a stub at
Philadelphia Fountain Society and merge there. Both the society and its founder,
Wilson Cary Swann, are notable. They are both discussed in
this book and
this one. I'm going to ask for a copy of the listing proposal for this at
WP:RX. It might possibly have enough information to write a standalone article, but if not will at least provide a source to confirm that this fountain is one of Swann's society.
SpinningSpark09:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Collectively, the horse troughs installed by the Womens Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (WPSPCA) and others and designated as historical objects by Philadelphia are notable as evidenced by the coverage by WHYY:
Curbside refreshment for man and beast, now added at the article.
24.151.56.107 (
talk)
17:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Was: "Keep", for now at least, unless or until it might be merged into a larger article that covers the topic better. It is apparently an officially designated local historic site (one of 5 horse troughs listed), and the article carries a photo and has other info, is apparently tangible evidence of historical events. Wikipedia is not required to have a separate article about each separate historic site which exists, because many might be better covered as items in a larger list whose article provides context. Discussion above has not clearly identified a merger target article. I don't think AFD process is suitable for forcing development of coverage about persons, societies, places mentioned above. There is substantial info here which should not be lost or made inaccessible/unlikely to be found by future editors. We should defer to future editors actually developing about these topics, who would be free to merge this article without an AFD being necessary. --
Doncram (
talk)
22:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Individual old bricks are not generally listed structures whereas this horse trough is. That makes a prima facie case for at least looking at it, and not tossing it out of hand.
SpinningSpark07:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to.... somewhere. Hi @
Doncram,
Spinningspark,
Piotrus, and
Eddie891:, responding to your comments above, looks like we agree that this horse trough doesn't reach notability by itself, but there's a history here, touching on multiple people & social issues, worthy of encyclopedic coverage. I've expanded the article with some of that history -- please have a quick look. There were dozens of fountains and many remain. I'm hoping for your opinion about an appropriate new merge target which would cover all such fountains and their sponsors, called something like
Philadelphia public drinking fountains, which I would gladly help build. Ideas welcome. --
Lockley (
talk)
20:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The entry in the register is adequate to establish this as a notable historic feature. Whether it might be consolidated into a more general article about the fountains or the district or the parties involved is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our policies
WP:ATD,
WP:NOTPAPER and
WP:PRESERVE. Note that policies trump guidelines.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
10:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson: - The first part of your statement is rather problematic. The entry in the register does not establish notability.
WP:GEOFEAT has the treshhold of national register, although in practice, it seems like this gets expanded for most state-level sites in the US. This fountain is on a local register, which falls several rungs below the GEOFEAT standard.
Hog FarmBacon20:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge as suggested by others. This is an appropriate outcome for something that is NN by itself. By the way, a charity for providing horse troughs in the city of London still exists, but it now provides other water-related benefits, such as boreholes for villages in Africa.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:05, 26 September 2020 (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.