User talk:Isotope23/Notability:Buildings

Suggestion

I'd like to see this become a proposed guideline ASAP- I see more and more building articles all the time, and maybe there's some hope we can get a handle on them before they're out of control. The criteria you've outlined here seem reasonable and would make a great starting point IMO. Friday (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Too restrictive

I think these rules are far too restrictive. They only allow "the best example of the architectural work of a notable architect", so are we going to delete everything in Category:Frank Gehry buildings other than the Guggenheim. In my view pretty much any building designed by a major architect is worthy of an article. Similarly having only the tallest buildings on a national rather than a local level is far too strict. The tallest structure in any city is worthy of an article, and for major cities any of the top ten buildings can certainly be written about. Personally, I feel the standard guidelines should apply to buildings. If a well referenced, non stub, NPOV article is written about a building there is no reason to delete it. - SimonP 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think adding a generic "has been the subject of multiple nontrivial articles from third-party sources" criterion would help. Friday (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You have some good points Simon, particularly in regards to your Frank Gehry example. I'd be very open to discussion on the "national" level of building superlatives. I picked that rather arbitrarily and it certainly could be too restrictive of a suggestion. The problem is that there is no guideline for buildings right now... what you are citing is policy.--Isotope23 19:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SimonP, and if policy is enough, I'm not certain why we should restrict inclusion any more. Anything covered in a non-trivial way in reliable sources is notable enough. up+l+and 19:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Isotope23, it would probably be useful if you gave some examples of articles which you think should be deleted based on the current version of this guideline, and perhaps some borderline cases which you would still argue to keep. up+l+and 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, by reasoning of current policy and guidelines being sufficient, I could write an article on the Walmart store in Livonia Michigan. I could make it a non-stub, ensure it was well sourced, and NPOV (I'm not going to actually do it... WP:POINT and all. This would be an article that would meet WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, as well as the WP:CORP guideline. That doesn't mean we should have an article on it though. I hesitate to call out examples of articles I think should be deleted based on the criteria because this criteria is nascent and needs quite a bit of work before it is applied to anything. Friday's example below is a good example though of the kind of article this would cover. Yes, it was deleted sans any guideline. I'm just trying to see if we can come up with an actual guideline rather than a vague assertion of "yes, it is verifiable, but I'm not sure it is necessary". Anecdotally, there were several dorm articles that were deleted a few months back (it's somewhere in my history... I'll have to look for it) and a few that were not that were no less or more notable than those that were deleted. It would be nice to have some sort of consistancy.--Isotope23 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I was probably just assuming that it was understood that "reliable sources" in a case like this means something like articles in architectural or historical journals. If somebody has written an article on the building of a Walmart store and had it accepted to an established academic journal, I see no problem with having an article on the store. I don't know if the existence of such an article is very likely, but I would be rather surprised if somebody hadn't written on the architecture of, say, Walmart stores or McDonald's restaurants in general. (That is probably an interesting topic.)

Most individual dorms aren't notable, but as a group I see no reason not to include them in larger articles, once the usual bullshit has been stripped away. The problem with dorms is frequently that, even if a particular dorm/hall of residence/whatever is in fact notable, the lazy undergraduate writing the article just can't be bothered to go to the library to do the research (which is exactly the same reason most university articles suck). I see no reason why we couldn't have a featured article on Alvar Aalto's Baker House at MIT, for instance (it's currently just a short part of another article). A JSTOR search finds several things written about it. up+l+and 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why?

As for why to try to restrict creation of building articles, I have what seems to me like a good reason- all kinds of junk is being created. I think perhaps inspired by the let's-give-every-road-an-article crowd, people are now making articles on anything with an address. Just being listed in a phone book isn't nearly enough- this is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites - Detroit Downtown is an example of an Afd on a building that does nothing other than exist. I've seen tons more, some of which have been speedied, some of which have been Afd'd, and many of which are still sitting there. Friday (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a great example- Riverfront Towers III. This is an apartment building. People live there. That is all. Unless we're going to adjust WP:NOT to say Wikipedia is a directory, this kind of stuff doesn't belong. Friday (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as well as the Riverfront Towers I & Riverfront Towers II. In fact, a number of User:Raccoon Fox's contributions are rather non-significant buildings, even in the context of Detroit. The Kahn and Kamper designed stuff is of at least local interest, if not interest to the greater architectural community... but many of his contributions I would consider unnecessary.--Isotope23 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen many great articles on buildings without much international fame. Consider the page on the Merchandise Building in Toronto, which was almost deleted last year, but is now quite a good and substantial article. - SimonP 22:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FOr what it's worth, that one looks like it'd be covered under the part that wants multiple independant sources. Friday (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Scope?

Anyone have an opinion on whether such a guideline should also try to cover other structures? I'm thinking things like towers, bridges or roads. We get bridges such as Langstone Bridge, and apparently there's a whole Wikiproject devoted to roads (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways#Highways..._why_are_they_Notable.3F). Maybe it's too late to try to extend a guideline to roads - I think, like schools, they're considered automatically notable simply because there's too many people making lots of articles and nobody has the energy to try to do otherwise. My general thought is that for things like office buildings or roads, having good articles on the main concepts is way more important than having articles on individual objects of these types, if they've done nothing other than simply exist. Friday (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

I've got to disagree with this, it seems to be a bar on putting verifiable information into Wikipedia. If we can source an article on a building in newspapers and the like, I don't see why we shouldn't include it. I don't see why we should hold such stringent sources as architectural magazines. Buildings can have historic importance to communities beyond the wider world and even the somewhat insulated world of architecture. Wikipedia is not paper and does not need to exclude well written articles which cite sources. Wikipedia is a resource for one and all to use, compile and add to in accordance with the principle that material is not written from a point of view and reliable sources are cited to prove it does not constitute original research. Those points are meant to be non-negotiable and are founding principles. If we can cite published works by historians then we should. Applying a value judgement to information beyond asking for it to be sourced in a reliable source is a point of view, and we should always adopt a neutral point of view. Steve block Talk 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is your opinion at odds with WP:NOT a directory? Any building's existance can be verified by a phone book, but I don't see that mere existance gives us anywhere near enough for an article. Friday (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have answered your own question, since you've stated that a building's mere existance does not create a well written article which cite's sources, and that WP:NOT already precludes against such an article. Steve block Talk 23:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm wondering what you disagree with, then? Doesn't the bit about "The building has been the subject of multiple nontrivial articles from third-party sources" answer your concern? Friday (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I'm unclear as to why multiple nontrivial articles are required to source an article. That's stretching current policies beyond it's current bounds. If I can summarise one well written and lengthy source on a building, why should that disbar it from having an article on Wikipedia? I'm also unclear as to why current policies and guidance aren't enough. Steve block Talk 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The examples given above (under "Why?") are part of why I think a guideline here might help, as is for example Fort_Washington_Plaza. Do you think these articles belong? To me they belong in a directory, not an encyclopedia, and hammering out why that is or isn't true might be helpful IMO. If it were a person, we'd say it does not assert significance and delete it at will. As a building, the situation is less clear. Friday (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As a building we take it to afd or prod it. I'm not sure that's unclear. I don't disagree with you, but I find it very hard to write or give credence to a guideline which amounts to "we know it when we see it". I'm finding that Wikipedia is slowly falling into becoming a global rather than a local resource and I find that lamentable in some regards. There's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't hold information important to local communities, if it is verifiable. Determining significance is really just a question of a point of view, and nobody has ever really explained to me the harm in these sorts of articles. People are a different matter, questions of libel impound on our abilities to be comprehensive. With regards buildings, there's no clear reason to inhibit any sense of comprehensiveness. Why shouldn't Wikipedia aggregate as much verifiable information as possible and present it as best as possible? Steve block Talk 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well, if you're of the opinion that notability is irrelevant to an encyclopedia, I think you're fighting an uphill battle. We already delete things for being insignificant all the time. We're not trying to change that with a guideline here, we're trying to get some agreement on what indicates a significant building. Check any of the other notability guidelines if you like, but I suspect you'll find you disagree with all of them, because they expect a subject to have some significance in order to be covered. Sure, we can spend all day at Afd talking about cases that are obvious deletes, but a guideline might actually help prevent the creation of more stuff that we'd then waste time deleting. If you thinkg Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of information, I suppose you could try changing WP:NOT to reflect your preferences. Friday (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps multiple sources aren't really needed to source an article. One relevant source of sufficient quality ("non-triviality" or whatever term should be used here) would be fine both for establishing notability and for sourcing, at least to begin with. If there is some controversy (over the age of a building, over the influences on the architect, or whatever), NPOV may require adding more sources later. But if I write an article on a building and can demonstrate that it has already been covered in an article in another encyclopedia, or an article in an established journal in a relevant field (or anything else we may describe as a reliable source), that should be enough. In most cases, the existence of other sources will be implicit, even if they aren't actually cited.

I also think it is important to note that in many cases where no source is cited, the existence of such sources can be assumed. (If somebody writes a brief stub on a medieval church in the middle of some French or Italian town, I think we can take it for granted that somebody will have written something on that church.) All articles should be referenced, but we should not start deleting newly created articles that seems to be going somewhere unless there is some good reason to doubt their veracity. up+l+and 09:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need multiple sources to be used. Sure, it's better if we have them, but we do not expect articles to be good right away. To me, the "covered in multiple sources" is a rule of thumb that indicates we want some level of interest. Other guidelines use similair language. Friday (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've updated this per the discussion to read "...the building has been the subject of a nontrivial article by a third-party source."--Isotope23 14:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Local application

Re: "but should not be applied locally" in No. 1, I think 'local' should be defined more specifically. I think the tallest building in a significant city makes it automatically notable, even if people not living in that city don't know about it. I would even accept something like the tallest building in a major city neighborhood/district. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to modify the guidelines

By the way, any of you should feel free to modify the main guideline space for wording or content. Even though it is in my userspace, I don't feel I WP:OWN this and collaboration is welcomed. As I stated earlier, the only non-negotible item there is the fact this should never be applied to schools.--Isotope23 14:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)