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. Further merge discussion may take place as an editorial discussion on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cathcart

The Cathcart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In this nomination, we find out whether anything connected to the National Register of Historic Places can ever be non-notable. This is a smallish apartment building in Indianapolis. It is not listed individually on the Register; rather, it is one of of a group of thirty-seven buildings listed together in an entry called "Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis." The "Significance" section of the nominating document ([1]) does not appear to mention the Cathcart at all (see the reference numbers in the margin), and I can find no indication anywhere of the significance of this building.

My PROD was declined by the author, who left a thoughtful comment on the article's talkpage. I think I disagree that being "historic" is the same as being notable, see e.g. WP:OLDAGE. But that's somewhat beside the point; in the end this particular building is only 1/37th of an NRHP entry, and seems to be one of the least remarkable buildings of that group. I'll gladly withdraw the nomination if it can be shown why that alone -- or other information that may be out there -- would satisfy WP:GNG.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional noms by Orlady on 3 February 2010. I am nominating these to receive the same disposition as The Cathcart. These are some other apartment houses that were nominated at the same time as The Cathcart. As with The Cathcart, the National Register nom form does not provide information about these individual buildings, so there is no basis for writing separate articles about them. They are currently included in Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources. --Orlady (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Colonial (Indianapolis, Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Dartmouth (Indianapolis, Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep I'm the one who removed the PROD and responded at Talk:The Cathcart, though I was not the author and did not add the pics. Thanks for your nice introduction to this AFD.

However, you misunderstand the situation. The document you refer to is a general study of what Indianapolis buildings would be NRHP eligible. It lists 37 or however many, and gives brief information. It is not the nomination document for this particular building, which AFAIK has not been obtained from the National Register. That individual nomination document should be obtained and used to develop this article, per my comment at Talk. It is premature to have an AFD, when really the situation is there is a valid stub article and a reliable source available, just not yet obtained, that will fully explain its architectural or other significance. And to be clear, this building is individually listed on the NRHP. It is not merely a contributing property within a historic district. I'll post notice of this AFD at wt:NRHP. --doncram (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, you weren't the author, my mistake. As to the rest of what you say, after much fiddling around I did find what appears to be an entry at nrhp.focus.nps.gov; I had tried before, but the site's opaqueness baffled me. I can't link it, but you can go to this search box, enter "Indiana" and "Indianapolis" as state & city, hit Search, and it's the second entry on page 3. However, I'm unclear why I should think the document listed above is just a study and not the nominating document. It's called "National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nominating Form," and it was submitted to the National Park Service on August 1, 1983. Anyway, I'll leave this nomination open for a while in the hopes that the conversation continues to develop.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You followed a reasonable approach to try to find the NRHP document specific to Cathcart / The Cathcart. However, unfortunately the NPS Focus websearch system is incomplete and documents for this one are not available on-line. Worse, the system misleadingly seems to imply that it is available. Frequent NRHP editors will recognize that when the docs are online an image of a document will show (as, when, for example, you search on "Butler Fieldhouse", also in Indianapolis), while the other image just indicates no doc has yet been scanned.
And, your interpretation of the MPS document is also not unreasonable, as it is odd that the bureaucratic label is the same as for an individual NRHP nomination. Technically, the separate NRHP nomination docs for The Cathcart and others, when we receive them, may turn out to be parts of this MPS document, i.e. they may show as later parts of a big document, at really high page numbers. For some MPS/TR studies the result is a multi-hundred page document, out of which the NPS scans just the cover section to make available as in the 32 page section here, and additional sections for each individual item are provided only separately. For other MPS/TR studies the material is a truly separate document from the separate item documents, but either way the NPS cuts them up and serves them separately. Again, sorry that you are encountering these idiosyncracies. --doncram (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this building is notable for being on thr NRHP. The document referenced is just a 'thematic resource' cover document. Someone just needs to request the actual nomination. This situation is no different from the many other stub articles. Einbierbitte (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As an individual building within the Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources (now known as a Multiple Property Submission), this building merits an individual article. If it were part of a historic district, or if it were one of a group of very similar buildings, then maybe we would need just one article about all of the buildings. Sometimes it's more useful to have just one article about all of the properties in a Multiple Property Submission, such as Cuyuna Iron Range Municipally-Owned Elevated Metal Water Tanks, where the water towers are really more notable as a group and where there isn't much that could be said about the water tower in Crosby, Minnesota as opposed to the water tower in Deerwood, Minnesota. In the case of the Indiana apartment buildings, though, each of the buildings was built by a distinct builder in a distinct style. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I've changed my mind; see below.[reply]
  • Keep - The National Register of Historic Places has much higher inclusion standards than WP. Everything they consider is heavily researched, scrutinized and fact-checked to ensure that these are stand-out important and unique places. If it's notable there, it most certainly is notable here. --Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original nomination form for the MPS lists three pages of sources in the bibliography on pages 26-28. I don't know how substantive the coverage is within all of those sources, but I would presume that the Indiana SHPO and the National Register would have checked out those sources and found them valid documentation to support the properties nominated. Three of the properties listed in the MPS, the Dartmouth, the Massachusetts, and the Sid-Mar are marked as "Substantive Review", indicating that the National Park Service needed to do additional review to ensure that those properties were compliant with National Register guidelines. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Doncram and Elkman. This article should be developed with its own (interesting and clearly sourceable as already demonstrated above) history; this would be lost (and nothing gained for it) if it were redirected to an article on the group as a whole. Rebecca (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Downtown Indianapolis. Do the same with The Wilson (another one of the ~33 downtown Indianapolis apartment buildings added to the National Register as part of the same Multiple Property Submission). National Register listings are presumed notable because it is presumed that there was ample documentation for their nominations, and that documentation would establish notability. That's generally true, but the nomination that includes The Cathcart contains no specific information about it, other than its address. The images that illustrate the article are nice, but the absence of other content makes it hard to justify a separate article. On the other hand, those images and a nice write-up about this and other historic apartment buildings of downtown Indianapolis would make a wonderful addition to downtown Indianapolis. --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one article for the group, the Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources. The register accepts the concept that something might be historic but only of only limited importance - in which case they include it in an historic district, as my own house is included, and indeed specifically mentioned by number as all the houses on the block are, but not as a separate monument, and Wikipedia includes the district, but not the individual houses in it, unless they are separately listed for their individual merits. I have not encountered this type of inclusion before, but I assign this more to the nature of an historic district, defined but by geographic but by theme. I think the evidence for that is "the following (properties were excluded from the Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resource because they were already listed in the National Register as properties within the Chatham -Arch Historic District. " (item 6 of ref 2) I seriously urge the people writing keep above to read the reference 2, and consider again. Had I not read the actual source, I would probably have !voted keep also. But I did, and this is the first time I have ever not said keep in connection with one of the National Register articles-- this is qualitatively different. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I commented just below in response to Elkman's starting that list article, and I am pluralizing ur title so it points to it. Just one point: the apartment buildings which are contributing properties in, and are protected to some small degree by, the Chatham-Arch Historic District designation should certainly be covered in any list-article about Indianapolis apartment buildings. The topic for a list-article should not be limited to just the content of one dated study. --doncram (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elkman. I believe that locations on the National Register of Historic Places should meet our notability guidelines in any event. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my mind. I started Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources, because I figured that an article on the whole Multiple Property Submission could contain more relevant material and more of the history behind the grouping of apartments than one individual article (or 36 individual articles) could contain. While I still think individual articles on properties are notable enough, the likely scenario right now is that there just isn't enough reference material to make a separate article for each of these buildings. Even if there is, a general article on the MPS will provide historic context that otherwise would have to be repeated in 36 separate articles. So, my new vote is for a merge/redirect. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not altogether opposed to having some good list-article to which the many items could redirect, and i did like your treatment of the 5 Minnesota items which were similar, in one combo article. But, I am not sure about what article name and topic for such a combo article would make sense. The title/topic you've created: "Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources" seems not notable to me, on the grounds that a single dated study should not get a wikipedia article, just like there should not be an article on each local or state history compendium or each book or study of any other type. Perhaps it should be a broader topic: Apartment Buildings of Indianapolis? To allow for notable other buildings, including modern buildings, too? I don't think the title should be the MPS document/study. If it were about the study, then it should describe the history of the study, who wrote it, why the document/study is notable relative to other documents and studies and books. --doncram (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apartment Buildings of Indianapolis doesn't indicate a historical district or any common theme. An article with that name could include apartment buildings built in the mid-1960s, for example, in Brutalist architecture. Maybe a name like Historic apartment buildings of Downtown Indianapolis could cover it, but any title would have to reflect the grouping that's made by this MPS and the inclusion of just those buildings. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current list-article is mostly a table in the mostly the same format as National Register of Historic Places listings in Center Township, Marion County, Indiana which I worked at developing (starting from Elkman's table generator output). Perhaps Elkman created it by stripping down a newly generated table? I don't see why it does not reflect the consideration about naming of most of the entries, reflected in the discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Marion County, Indiana#Odd one word names before Center Township was split out. Elkman, perhaps you were not aware of that discussion and subsequent development of the names of the apartment buildings?
Actually another model would be Detroit Financial District, with a separate mini-section for each item, so as to be different from the table format that will be retained in the Center Township list-article. --doncram (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Apparently, I'm just too stupid and clueless to read the discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Marion County, Indiana#Odd one word names when figuring out how to disambiguate names for articles that haven't been written yet. Apparently, I'm just not very observant. Apparently, I just like using table output from the MPS generator. You may now nominate Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis Thematic Resources for deletion, since I apparently can't be bothered to keep up with project standards. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete your article, Elkman. --Orlady (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't delete it. I'm no longer an admin. I'm asking Doncram to submit the AFD, since he can come up with the rationale that I created the article without adherence to project standards. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 06:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm sorry that I seem to have offended you Elkman. I did not oppose having an apartment building list article. I just offered my suggestions about it, if it is going to exist (avoid focus in title/topic on the MPS study; consider the two word names for the buildings as sorted out at the "Odd one word names" discussion; consider the format of Detroit Financial District article in order to be different than Center Township list-table). It is relevant to make such suggestions, I think, in providing some support to your idea to have a list-article rather than, or in addition to, a separate article. In general, project-standards-wise, I don't think it is established whether/how to make list-articles corresponding to Multiple Property Submissions / Thematic Resources studies, meaning there is not a standard i know of. I have created one or a few myself but became unhappy with having their title/topic be the study, rather than the object of a study, and I have commented along these same lines for another case or two, like i think the historic bridges of Pennsylvania MPS. Honestly i am sorry to have rubbed u the wrong way with how i said anything here. --doncram (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nominator's opposition to the idea that historic=notable is irrelevant, as not all historic buildings are on the Register. This building is individually listed on the Register, as you can see at this page, which does not include profiles for historic district contributing properties. It's a Moreover, a reference to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't help your point here — it's one thing to argue that one thing should have an article because several similar things have articles, but quite another thing to argue that one thing should be kept at AFD because several similar things have been kept at AFD. Moreover, yes, this will have had plenty of coverage in reliable sources — but we don't require online sources. The nomination form (itself a reliable source) will provide a list of other sources that we'd consider reliable, but the form doesn't appear to be online. By the way, Indiana's historic preservation office claims to have forms online, but these online documents only give basic information; the actual forms aren't generally online. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, don't merge — the new page that Elkman created is essentially nothing more than a list. Using information from nomination forms and their sources, far more information can be added than is appropriate for a single page. See what I'm currently doing with Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches (which essentially represents another multiple property submission) — an article about one of these churches was featured at DYK in November, and I have two more in process of getting on DYK. You can't get an article at DYK without plenty of information, and we could easily get some of these articles to DYK if we had the currently-only-available-in-print information at our fingertips. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nyttend's comments appear to assume that nomination forms exist for these individual apartment buildings, and that these nomination forms contain extensive detail about the individual buildings that could be used as a basis for individual articles. That happens not to be true. The nomination form is available online (I've read it), and it contains very little information about any specific buildings (in most cases, it only lists addresses). Although these buildings are individually listed on the National Register, they were listed on the basis of an MPS, and there never were any individual nom forms. You can't squeeze water from a stone, and you can't write a decent article about a street address. --Orlady (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a request to the National Register for the individual nom forms of Cathcart/The Cathcart and of Wilson/The Wilson. --doncram (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the nomination form that you've read for the Wilson? Do you mean the ones available from SHAARD? All of their forms — not just ones from this multiple property submission — are just basic data, containing nothing of the narrative statements of significance that are required for the actual nominations. The forms available from SHAARD don't have anything about coordinates — where would the NRHP get the coordinates (which are present) if not from the official nomination form? — and the statement of significance is required to be given on a continuation sheet, which isn't part of the online form. The official nomination form will contain much more than you can find at SHAARD. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of those not familiar with the way that NRHP listing is done — the multiple property submission form, which Orlady incorrectly believes to be the nomination form I'm talking about, is a document explaining the interrelated natures of a group of properties that are being nominated for being added to the Register. Properties included in such a document can be (1) ones being added to the Register at the same time as the form is composed and (2) properties already on the Register before the form was composed. All properties require their own nomination forms in addition to a multiple property submission form: this, not the multiple property submission form, is what I'm talking about. For this reason, it's possible for a multiple property submission form to be approved and for the majority of its properties to be added to the Register but for one or more properties to be rejected. Orlady is confusing this form with one that is created for a historic district, in which there is only one form for the entire nomination: the entire district is listed (or not listed) on the Register together. You can't squeeze water from a stone, but if you turn a blind eye to a sponge, someone else can squeeze water from it. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never looked at SHAARD. The nom form I am looking it is the one that is on the NPS website (and cited in the article): http://www.nr.nps.gov/multiples/64000185.pdf . That form has the same title ("Apartments and Flats of Downtown Indianapolis TR") and date as the nomination listed in The Cathcart's entry on NPS Focus.
I don't believe that I am confusing MPS's with historic districts, as I've looked at plenty of nominations of both types. Typically an MPS contains a fair amount of detail about each individual property (sometimes even a mini-nom for each property), but they do vary in the amount of detail they provide. In this case, there is very little information about individual properties. A few of the listed apartment buildings have enough description to support individual articles, but most do not. --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I couldn't find anything searching by the name or the address. Abductive (reasoning) 06:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I voted Keep above. I am in support of having a list-article about the historic apartment buildings in Indianapolis, but I am still, fundamentally for keep on this item. Still waiting on the National Register providing the individual NRHP nomination document, which they said they would look for and try to send out this week. The impression I received is that they will send a photocopy of the individual nomination for Cathcart by postal mail, i.e. that it is not available in electronic form. A possibly significant consideration for this AFD, especially in its expanded form, is that if accepted it would eradicate the entire set of 2 new articles so far created by a new wikipedian, User:Nedtorson. Others may not put any weight on this, but I think it would be a lousy outcome for a new editor who created articles to replace red-link entries in the NRHP list-article covering this area (which served to indicate the topic was wikipedia-notable), and who contributed photographs for both. I think it would be received as rather unfair and fully discouraging. --doncram (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2010 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Cathcart
No tags for this post.