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 no consensus. There are a multitude of options here, but at this time there is no consensus regarding the article's fate. I recommend that this productive discussion continue on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage site (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Disclaimer: a redirect proposed by me as a part of a larger renaming proposal outlined at Talk:National_heritage_site#Requested_move was declined. I am now taking this unreferenced stub to AfD for the following reasons: 1) per WP:V unreferenced content can be subject to deletion. While they are plenty of sources for the use of term "heritage site", I cannot find any proper source that differentiates it from "historic site" or the exiting and more developed article on National heritage site. 2) A lack of references also means this fails WP:GNG. Now, I'd be happy to withdraw this nom if someone could cite a good source that defines this clearly and in such a fashion that supports this topic existence as separate from another. Otherwise, I think this should be deleted as a topic nobody was able to provide a single good reference for NINE YEARS (!), and my redirecting of this to national heritage site restored. I am pinging User:Jane023 who I believe may want to offer a critique of my proposal, as well as users User:Skookum1 and User:Necrothesp both of whom opposed my prior proposal; I hope this shows I am not interested in deletion for the sake of it but in heaving a wider discussion (and if we end up rescuing and referencing this and/or other articles, the better). Hoping to see a productive discussion! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I might offer some commentary before offering a !vote. The problem as I see it is that a couple of the related articles aren't very clear and some try to cover multiple countries (and do so badly) so as not to be tagged as US-centric. It may well be that all "heritage sites" are "historic sites", but obviously not all "historic sites" are "heritage sites". Not all "heritage sites" are "National heritage sites". In Australia we have "heritage listed sites" and most are administered by the States and aren't National heritage or historic sites at all. We do, though, have a few UNESCO nationally listed sites, many with their own specific protective legislation. Our "National Parks" are actually administered by the States and include a range of natural heritage sites. Other countries are different again. The UK has its Historic Houses Trust (similar in function to some of our heritage listing provisions). My point is that these terms mean different things to different people depending on context. You would only need to search for "heritage listed site" to find more than enough to justify an article about the concept of "heritage sites". But is that the same or should we be creating Heritage listed sites for us Australians while letting this go because it's too broad? Stalwart111 03:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stalwart111: A very good observation. I certainly acknowledge different terms are used in different languages or by different organizations, and we can certainly define them using sources specific to a given notable, national or regional topic, from Polish zabytek to international UN World Heritage Site. My argument is that I am not seeing any good sources for more than one generic term, certainly not consistently used. In other words, I think we should have just one article about (nationa) historic/heritage site, in which we could more clearly explain that 1) different countries use different terminology and 2) some sources (which?) distinguish, if inconsistently, between different types of such sites (however I doubt we can argue that those different sites are separately notable). Having them all discussed in one article where all redirects would point would alleviate the current confusing mess of historic site vs heritage site vs national heritage site vs few more terms I haven't caught yet (and then why historic site is stubbed but cultural monument just a redirect? PS. For an example of a related term that's defined well enough to show some notability, see cultural artifact. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An authoritative document like Unesco's Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage shows that (world) heritage sites include both historic sites and "natural heritage" sites, which include natural biological or geological features. So it seems clear that heritage site and historic site are not synonyms. I need to think a bit more about all the other issues raised in this complex nomination. --Mark viking (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mark viking: Is the usage of those terms consistent? My current belief is that it isn't, which is why we would be better of discussing those closely related and inconsistently used terms in one article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am responding to your ping, Piotrus. Though I agree that it's shameful that there are unreferenced stubs on Wikipedia that are 9 years old, I certainly won't vote to delete or merge them all based on that reason alone. On this specific issue, I have tried in the past to link some generic terminology, such as the National Heritage Site article, to specific terminology, such as in zabytek, kulturdenkmal, or rijksmonument. This article could be used for provincial or municipal heritage lists and could then be linked to State Park, Municipal monuments of "City x" and so on. I felt we needed this structure in order to form a basis upon which people could create articles on places photographed in Wiki Loves Monuments. I set up an infra page here for interested parties to hack away on: Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011/Infrastructure. Ideally that whole infrastructure should be filled in, either here or on WikiData. I believe that getting the National level lists on Wikipedia is more important than working on the UNESCO World Heritage sites, as those are only considered by one international committee, whereas the national lists are often much older and decided upon by local laws. What I think is missing from this conversation is the need to link to specific types of protection and then to link those to various protection agencies (many now sadly defunct in light of global tax cuts, but I believe local laws are still in effect). Jane (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All excellent work, but it doesn't concern the primary issue here. We can certainly infer the existence of the concept of national heritage site from the list of heritage registers (which oustide the UNESCO ones describes only national-level ones, so really should be moved to the List of national heritage registers). But so far nobody has presented any good, reliable sources to justify the notability of a separate non-national heritage site concept. Now, I think that we may be able to find such sources, through I failed. Unless we do, however, arguing that heritage site should have a separate article because we feel it is a separate, notable concept is WP:ORish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The concept as a "container concept" may not have a reliable resource to reference for the article, but any specific register for local heritage sites will. The whole point is that a list such as any used for the American concept of Historic district will have its own, specifically local reference. This article is a gateway to such articles on a broader scale, since heritage can mean more than a specific location. And as pointed out above, you need this one in combination with the other Historic site to differentiate types of preservation initiatives. Let me turn the question around; what is your specific objection to this article, because it seems to be linked from lots of other articles, so deleting implies that you want to do something with those links? Jane (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I might (in answer to your question above and our discussion), the following discuss "heritage sites" in general: 1 and 2 - neither of which are formally listed heritage sites but are sites identified by companies or individuals as being "heritage sites" for the purposes of various activities. In an Australian context, this site gives an excellent overview. Stalwart111 13:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stalwart. I have no problem with using Australian references in the article, so you can go ahead and use those. And Piotr, as far as your "WP:ORish" comment above, here is an example of a well-referenced list of heritage sites that are at the "non-national" level, as they are by definition protected at the State level: List of New Hampshire state parks. Many of the objects in that list are historic sites, but many are natural wonders or forest reserves. Jane (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• convert to disambig? I have some familiarity with the US version of this sort of thing but I must confess I find the above arguments confusing. "Heritage site" may not be a thing unto itself, but it's part of the name of a bunch of closely related things, and it would be useful to have a link off it to "historic site". At the very least some sort of disambiguation seems to me to be in order. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A typical heritage site that is not at the National level but is also not a historic site, is a park that is meant for public access and is used for public gatherings that are part of a town's cultural heritage (such as for sports gatherings or other main events). I would be curious to read your disambiguation list! You can just put your ideas on the talk page. Jane (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds very reasonable. Now, can you cite a reference for this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- This feels like a dictionary definition, rather than an encyclopaedia article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unreferenced, stubbish OR...yep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to World Heritage Site. Might be possible to mention local heritage site designations there if such exist, but as far as I can tell that is the proper subject that covers heritage sites around the world. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a reasonable solution to me. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It took me all of a minute to find a source which discusses the concept of a heritage site and explicitly differentiates it from that of a historic site: "Is a Heritage Site a Historic Site?". AFD is not cleanup so please follow WP:BEFORE. Andrew (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2014 (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.