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. Michig ( talk) 19:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Thomas Bond 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)

Does not meet GNG. Promotional article about a business. The building is located within an Historic District, but notability is not inherited. Created by SPA. Lack of independent in-depth coverage. MB 16:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 17:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 17:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep, although it could be tagged to be developed further. It is listed on the National Register. There are many many articles on B&Bs or other individual contributing buildings within historic districts. I don't begrudge the B&B owner, say if they are behind the article having been created; it is sort of part of historic preservation IMHO. It seems entirely factual as an article and is indeed longer and better sourced than many many NRHP articles in Wikipedia. -- Doncram ( talk) 03:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

What do you mean is is listed on the National Register? It is merely within a listed Historic District. It is not individually listed. It still has to meet GNG. There is no independent coverage; none of the refs in the article pertain to anything establishing notability. MB 03:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

It is absolutely listed/placed/included/whatever in the National Register. Its owners, like owners of other contributing buildings in other historic districts, are absolutely entitled to post the fairly common NRHP marker sign upon it, as is often done. About GNG, well there is room for improvement in the article; I don't see coverage yet there about why it was included in the historic district, etc. It is appropriate to tag the article and call for improvement. As with other contributing buildings we have reason to believe/expect that more extensive coverage exists about it--we know this from experience with many other historic districts--and that is reason to Keep.-- Doncram ( talk) 07:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep should definitely be expanded, but it is a known historical building in an NRHP historic district. More references than most NRHP articles. The B&B part is mostly irrelevvant, though I'm sure the owner acted like a bull in a china should, as is the usual case. I'll get a better photo within the month. It is also on the Philadelphia Historic Register. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 04:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The number of references is not relevant. There are no references to sources that provide in-depth coverage required for GNG. There is no WP policy automatically conferring notability based upon a building being "a known historic building". MB 05:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment By the way, there is no way this should be outright deleted as proposed (so this AFD should not have even been started), as a merge/redirect to the Old City Historic District article is obviously superior to outright deletion. However, the district article is long enough as it is and I believe it is better kept as a separate article (and I stated my !vote that way above). -- Doncram ( talk) 07:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep as it is confirmed as a historic building that is part of a NRHP historic district and such buildings are usually kept Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Again, no policy based reason given and no sources provided to reach GNG. MB 15:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep passes WP:GEOFEAT. It's a bit awkward since it's currently a business, meaning there are a ton of sources which refer to it in a business context, but would be notable if it was not, and while the business owners founded the article the article is written in a non-promotional manner as someone quickly removed the copyrighted content. SportingFlyer ( talk) 07:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:GEOFEAT specifically says buildings "require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Where is the coverage? MB 03:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The building is owned by the National Parks Service (NPS), is part of Independence National Historical Park, and is on the National Register of Historic Places. NPS did not create this article, nor is the article written to promote a business, so it is satisfactory in meeting GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martha129 ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't think the building is owned by NPS and such statement is not made in its article. Not sure if it is part of INHP or not, isn't it across the street from it, though associated? Not that these points matter. I !voted "Keep" above. -- Doncram ( talk) 02:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note that from the contribution history of Martha129 they would seem to have a COI. MB 03:09, 1 March 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.