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 merge to Drinking fountains in Philadelphia. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 18:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Horse Trough at 315 S 9th St (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod rationale was Non-notable horse through trough. 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 Farm Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:16, 16 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
And it's not out of the question that an individual brick might be notable. Brick 90136 in the British Museum is discussed in this book and gets mentioned in quite a few others. Spinning Spark 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I will be happy to vote Delete! in that AfD as well. Thumbs up icon KidAd talk 16:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:13, 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
I think that’s a good idea— id help build the draft as well. I would happily merge the Philadelphia fountain society to that article because it seems to be permastubby as is. Let’s get something live at Draft:Philadelphia public drinking fountains and we can make it into an acceptable merge target? Eddie891 Talk Work 20:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Are they drinking fountains or just … fountains? Be a bit difficult to drink from the one on the cover of [1], surely … AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 23:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes this article is specifically about fountains & horse troughs meant for public consumption, not every fountain in Philly. -- Lockley ( talk) 00:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I bet I could drink out of that if I tried :P -- Eddie891 Talk Work 00:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I've started to work on a draft, Lockley. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Seems like a good solution. Redirect there after it is mainspaced. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
That looks good to me. Spinning Spark 12:56, 25 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.
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 merge to Drinking fountains in Philadelphia. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 18:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Horse Trough at 315 S 9th St (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod rationale was Non-notable horse through trough. 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 Farm Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:16, 16 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
And it's not out of the question that an individual brick might be notable. Brick 90136 in the British Museum is discussed in this book and gets mentioned in quite a few others. Spinning Spark 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I will be happy to vote Delete! in that AfD as well. Thumbs up icon KidAd talk 16:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:13, 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
I think that’s a good idea— id help build the draft as well. I would happily merge the Philadelphia fountain society to that article because it seems to be permastubby as is. Let’s get something live at Draft:Philadelphia public drinking fountains and we can make it into an acceptable merge target? Eddie891 Talk Work 20:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Are they drinking fountains or just … fountains? Be a bit difficult to drink from the one on the cover of [1], surely … AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 23:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes this article is specifically about fountains & horse troughs meant for public consumption, not every fountain in Philly. -- Lockley ( talk) 00:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I bet I could drink out of that if I tried :P -- Eddie891 Talk Work 00:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I've started to work on a draft, Lockley. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Seems like a good solution. Redirect there after it is mainspaced. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
That looks good to me. Spinning Spark 12:56, 25 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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook