| Revision as of 02:40, 26 December 2024 editMagicpiano (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers112,335 edits combination← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:17, 26 December 2024 edit undoReywas92 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers81,139 edits →Boston Common and Public Garden: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ::::The listing – an approved nomination that here was titled "Boston Common and Public Garden" – is not notable. The places listed – ] and ] – are. There are many cases where the name of the listing is convenient way to cover the places listed (e.g. some districts), but that is not the case here. But even if I grant that any listing is notable, per ], notable things don't automatically need articles if they're already covered in others. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | ::::The listing – an approved nomination that here was titled "Boston Common and Public Garden" – is not notable. The places listed – ] and ] – are. There are many cases where the name of the listing is convenient way to cover the places listed (e.g. some districts), but that is not the case here. But even if I grant that any listing is notable, per ], notable things don't automatically need articles if they're already covered in others. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Agreed that the Common and Public Garden are each individually notable. The 1972 listing implies that the ''combination'' is notable. So kindly explain where the historic significance of the ''combination'' is covered. It's certainly not in either the Common or Public Garden articles. '']''] 02:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | :::::Agreed that the Common and Public Garden are each individually notable. The 1972 listing implies that the ''combination'' is notable. So kindly explain where the historic significance of the ''combination'' is covered. It's certainly not in either the Common or Public Garden articles. '']''] 02:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::So more can be added. I just added a sentence from this page to each, but for the most part this fails to discuss the combination, certainly not in any way that justifies a separate page that needs to duplicate them. If the combination was so significant, why did they need to later designate them separately? Again, even if the combination is notable, that doesn't mean redundancy is necessary. No content that could go here can't also go on one or both of the primary topic articles. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::(a) "because neither individual site was a better target" vs. (b) "both articles already have history sections that describe their relationships". If (a) is true, why not improve one or the other, and then propose a redirect to that place? If (b), well, why not propose a redirect rather than starting a confrontational process like AfD. In either case, there is no reason to delete the article NOW. If for no other reason, it provides a linking point from the NRHP list on which it appears until such a time as a more suitable redirect can be erected. '']''] 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | :::(a) "because neither individual site was a better target" vs. (b) "both articles already have history sections that describe their relationships". If (a) is true, why not improve one or the other, and then propose a redirect to that place? If (b), well, why not propose a redirect rather than starting a confrontational process like AfD. In either case, there is no reason to delete the article NOW. If for no other reason, it provides a linking point from the NRHP list on which it appears until such a time as a more suitable redirect can be erected. '']''] 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::LOL what do you mean "propose a redirect"? It was already a redirect to ], but you started a confrontational process by reverting me and said this wasn't a useful target. The NRHP list can just link "] and ]", there's literally no need for anything else. It has a Description column that I suppose can mention they were listed together before being listed separately. I ''did'' make sure both individual pages mention this fact as well, but regardless of how they're developed a redirect to one or the other isn't necessary. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | ::::LOL what do you mean "propose a redirect"? It was already a redirect to ], but you started a confrontational process by reverting me and said this wasn't a useful target. The NRHP list can just link "] and ]", there's literally no need for anything else. It has a Description column that I suppose can mention they were listed together before being listed separately. I ''did'' make sure both individual pages mention this fact as well, but regardless of how they're developed a redirect to one or the other isn't necessary. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:17, 26 December 2024
Boston Common and Public Garden
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Boston Common and Public Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We already have articles for the separate entities Boston Public Garden and Boston Common. There is no purpose to this duplicative article. Although the Garden and Common were listed on the National Register of Historic Places together (before being superseded by more appropriate separate listings later), an NRHP listing itself is not notable, rather the places it designates are notable, and they already have articles. The original author User:Doncram, who made articles for thousands of NRHP listings, even redirected it the day after making it with the note "'Boston Common and Public Garden' was the name given to the combination of the Boston Common and the Boston Public Garden when they were listed as a single entry on the National Register of Historic Places in 1972, with refnum 72000144. In 1987, the two were listed on the Register separately. It seems not helpful to have an article on the arbitrary combination of the two. Please see, instead, the individual articles for Boston Common and Boston Public Garden."
While I had redirected the page to National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston because neither individual site was a better target (Doncram originally pointed it to Boston Common), a redirect is likely not necessary either. This is an unlikely search/navigation target since these are separate entities that already have their own articles that link to each other with full histories, and replicating information in a third page just because they previously had a simultaneous historical designation is completely unnecessary. Reywas92 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Reywas92 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston. I agree that an article on this is totally unnecessary, as it's a listing covering two already-notable parks, and the listing is not in itself notable. However, a redirect can still help with navigation, especially for people who are specifically looking for the NRHP listing. (As far as I can tell, this listing is still on the National Register, but there are additional, separate NHL district listings for both parks, which are overlaid onto this listing.) – Epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Firstly, long-standing consensus that heritage listings are notable. Secondly, there are plenty of district listings that include individually listed items. The question is, what makes this district distinctive for historic reasons? It is the combination, which is what the article is about. Not one; not the other; but how the relate to each other over time. Rather than deleting it, elaborating on the relationship between the entities is the proper thing to do. Magic♪piano 01:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect, there's a long-standing consensus that places listed on heritage listings are notable, not that the listing as a concept itself is or must have a separate page. Absolutely the Common and Garden are notable, but the fact that they were listed together doesn't make that listing a notable entity. Many listed districts do cover a whole neighborhood that includes multiple individual places, or may delineate a new place in a way that justifies its own entry, but those often also include dozens of contributing and non-contributing items, and it's still the place(s) that's notable, not the listing. Unlike for such districts (whose articles should never just be duplicative like for a neighborhood and a district spanning it), here there are just two specific places, and both articles already have history sections that describe their relationships. Those can be expanded, sure, but it doesn't need a redundant page that few will read and most will wonder why exists. Reywas92 02:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- "there's a long-standing consensus that places listed on heritage listings are notable" vs. "the fact that they were listed together doesn't make that listing a notable entity". Well, which is it? Either a listing is notable or it isn't. Magic♪piano 22:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The listing – an approved nomination that here was titled "Boston Common and Public Garden" – is not notable. The places listed – Boston Public Garden and Boston Common – are. There are many cases where the name of the listing is convenient way to cover the places listed (e.g. some districts), but that is not the case here. But even if I grant that any listing is notable, per WP:NOPAGE, notable things don't automatically need articles if they're already covered in others. Reywas92 14:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that the Common and Public Garden are each individually notable. The 1972 listing implies that the combination is notable. So kindly explain where the historic significance of the combination is covered. It's certainly not in either the Common or Public Garden articles. Magic♪piano 02:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- So more can be added. I just added a sentence from this page to each, but for the most part this fails to discuss the combination, certainly not in any way that justifies a separate page that needs to duplicate them. If the combination was so significant, why did they need to later designate them separately? Again, even if the combination is notable, that doesn't mean redundancy is necessary. No content that could go here can't also go on one or both of the primary topic articles. Reywas92 05:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that the Common and Public Garden are each individually notable. The 1972 listing implies that the combination is notable. So kindly explain where the historic significance of the combination is covered. It's certainly not in either the Common or Public Garden articles. Magic♪piano 02:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- The listing – an approved nomination that here was titled "Boston Common and Public Garden" – is not notable. The places listed – Boston Public Garden and Boston Common – are. There are many cases where the name of the listing is convenient way to cover the places listed (e.g. some districts), but that is not the case here. But even if I grant that any listing is notable, per WP:NOPAGE, notable things don't automatically need articles if they're already covered in others. Reywas92 14:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- (a) "because neither individual site was a better target" vs. (b) "both articles already have history sections that describe their relationships". If (a) is true, why not improve one or the other, and then propose a redirect to that place? If (b), well, why not propose a redirect rather than starting a confrontational process like AfD. In either case, there is no reason to delete the article NOW. If for no other reason, it provides a linking point from the NRHP list on which it appears until such a time as a more suitable redirect can be erected. Magic♪piano 22:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- LOL what do you mean "propose a redirect"? It was already a redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston, but you started a confrontational process by reverting me and said this wasn't a useful target. The NRHP list can just link "Boston Public Garden and Boston Common", there's literally no need for anything else. It has a Description column that I suppose can mention they were listed together before being listed separately. I did make sure both individual pages mention this fact as well, but regardless of how they're developed a redirect to one or the other isn't necessary. Reywas92 15:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- The redirect to the list page is inadequate because it does not explain the historic significance leading to the listing of the combination, nor does it provide the space for doing so. Magic♪piano 02:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- LOL what do you mean "propose a redirect"? It was already a redirect to National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Boston, but you started a confrontational process by reverting me and said this wasn't a useful target. The NRHP list can just link "Boston Public Garden and Boston Common", there's literally no need for anything else. It has a Description column that I suppose can mention they were listed together before being listed separately. I did make sure both individual pages mention this fact as well, but regardless of how they're developed a redirect to one or the other isn't necessary. Reywas92 15:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- "there's a long-standing consensus that places listed on heritage listings are notable" vs. "the fact that they were listed together doesn't make that listing a notable entity". Well, which is it? Either a listing is notable or it isn't. Magic♪piano 22:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)