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. No consensus to delete, some suggestions to merge but the NRHP listing slightly strengthens the keep arguments (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Rutland City, Vermont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I'm not sure that there is an officially designated area called "Downtown" Passportguy (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't know anything about this subject, but Downtown Rutland has a website at http://www.rutlanddowntown.com/ and I get 1420 Google News hits for "Downtown Rutland". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rutland (city), Vermont # Culture. The events ("lighting of the Christmas Tree... a magician, a sitting on Santa Claus's lap line, hot chocolate, and wagon rides"), "Friday Night Live" in August, a 10K and 5K race in June can be mentioned in the culture section to illustrate the rich homogeneity and predictability that make Rutland "A Nice Place To Live" (TM). The Wal-Mart and the TJMaxx can be listed in the section Rutland (city), Vermont # Historic sites. Mandsford (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to main article on Rutland, as Mandsford said. This is crazy. Why would anyone feel that two articles are needed, one on Rutland and one on "downtown Rutland"? (note that the population of Rutland is around 17,000)Steve Dufour (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the Rutland article. The city's downtown does not warrant its own article. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge downtown as a separate article does not make sense for very small cities such as this. DGG (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a historic district listed on the NRHP. --Polaron | Talk 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep U.S. National Registered Historic Places are notable. Sebwite (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but retitle to Rutland Downtown Historic District. Anything on the NRHP is pretty much guaranteed to have enough sources to meet notability guidelines, and consensus is that just being on the NRHP is a sufficient claim of importance. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this article is clearly about the federally-recognized historic district, not the vague area citizens might refer to as downtown. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, when it was nominated for AFD, the article didn't indicate it was a recognized historic district. Polaron improved the article to indicate that. Now that we all know hopefully we can close the AFD early. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a listing on the National Register of Historic Places makes it notable. The article need to be renamed. Einbierbitte (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I added some information about the historic buildings in downtown. There wasn't a whole lot of information about contributing properties, but I think there's enough in there now to indicate how many buildings are historic, how they're related to the historic context of the district, and how the history influenced their construction. So, keep this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:35, 5 June 2009 (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.