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. (non-admin closure) Bmusician 05:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Owen Neal House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The house and related individuals are of questionable notability. Furthermore, the property was removed from the National Register of Historic Places. Encycloshave (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability is not temporary, and consensus at AfD has been that NRHP-listed sites are notable, as any property which has passed the standards for inclusion on the National Register should be well-documented enough to pass the general notability guideline. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My only question was about the fact that the NRHP had removed the site from the register in 2006, thus it doesn't meet their standard. Encycloshave (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, presumed notable. Also, see http://www.preservearkansas.org/index.php?page=2005-list, where it's listed as "Saved" and restored. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, consensus has time and again confirmed that even destroyed and/or delisted NRHP sites remain notable. It being listed in the first place required extensive documentation to prove its notability prior to the original listing. Altairisfar (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Removal from the NR means that the property's historic integrity has been compromised for some reason or another: it doesn't mean that the property's documentation never existed or that they made a mistake in listing it. See Kinzua Bridge, which is a featured article despite its destruction and delisting from the NR; the documentation is still in existence, and it's extremely unlikely that the same is not true for this house. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, at the moment, is that as far we are concerned, the documentation doesn't exist. If the original paperwork could be produced, it could used as a source, but at the moment that paperwork cannot be obtained from NRIS or anywhere else I can find. Mangoe (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, as far as we are concerned, the documentation does exist, or it wouldn't have been listed in the first place. It's not our problem that the documentation isn't online.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is our problem in that it can't be used as a source unless someone actually reads it! I'm ambivalent about deleting this article; however, the fact remains that there is essentially no information about it available. We cannot even state its actual location! Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Offline sources - "This page in a nutshell: Offline sources are just as valid as online sources." Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost - "Verifiable sources may have location restrictions (only available at one archive, museum, repository, or only available within a certain country or geographical area).... The costs or difficulties of verifying a source do not impact on its reliability, as long as it can be verified in a reasonable time frame by someone." http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/research/ - "Visit our archives. Open Monday through Friday 9:00am to noon." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is likely that the documentation does exist, but it's evident from the article that nobody who wrote any part of it actually read the documentation. It's not a source until someone has actually read it and gathered information from it which appears in the article, no matter how accessible it may be. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That flies in the face of many established notability standards. For example, we keep high-level politicians if a single source can be established to show that they held political office, because it is presumed that print sources exist — even though we can't be 100% sure that they exist, while US law requires the sources to exist in order for a place to be listed on the NR. NRIS is a database, so it doesn't have extensive documentation for anything; it's based on the documentation held by the National Park Service (which operates it), and the documentation is available from them or from Arkansas' State Historic Preservation Office. Some SHPOs charge for access to documents, but I don't know of any that would absolutely refuse access, and even if they did you'd be able to get it for free from NPS. Finally, being unable to state its actual location is irrelevant, or we'd start a deletion discussion for Amelia Earhart. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:Notability is not temporary. It used to be on the NRHS. A412 (Talk * C) 01:38, 7 February 2012 (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.