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 per WP:NTEMP. Non-admin closure. — neuro^(talk) 19:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Walker House

[edit]

Internet searches turn up no notable coverage of this property. The Tennessee State Review Board met May 28 to review the Register of Historic places. See press release. The Tennessee Historical Commission's October 2008 newsletter says, on page 5, "Three properties were removed from the National Register because they no longer exist. They are: ... Thomas J. Walker House..." If the state review board doesn't think it's notable, I don't think so, either. Travisl (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry was not correctly placed on the main AFD page. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad brackets. My bad. Fixed. Travisl (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: did the state review board remove the house from the list because it's not notable - or because it no longer exists? It seems to me that a register of historic places would list places that (a) are notable, and (b) exist. Ceasing to exist would not necessarily remove notability (as an extreme example, the Soviet Union remains notable). This flag once was red 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little bit of text to the article that might explain why it's been delisted from the National Register, but I haven't found the full story as far as whether the house still exists or not. This real estate ad says that there are 13 acres for sale, zoned for apartments, on a newly-built five lane road. I don't know if this means that the house was demolished, or that the house and/or its surroundings were so severely altered that they no longer qualify to be listed on the National Register. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep All properties listed on the Register are inherently notable, and notability is permanent: if it were once notable, it still is. If you look at the National Register of Historic Places article, you'll see that the state commission doesn't add or remove properties from the Register — they're listed and delisted by the Register itself, which you can learn more about here. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The original inventory/nomination documents for the house will remain available, and provide basis for wikipedia notability. And, if in fact this house is delisted, there will be further documentation providing basis for further wikipedia notability. There are many former buildings and ships and other notable places that no longer exist but which are notable, sometimes specifically because they were demolished. doncram (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as here's a definite case of notability is not temporary. Even if it were removed from the national registry, perhaps for wishing to develop the acreage, the original reasons it being listed in the first place have not changed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in this instance because, I think, we should draw a distinction between properties delisted because they get demolished or destroyed, yet were undeniably historic and notable while they were extant, and properties delisted because they never were historic in the first place (in the latter category, I'd put the building erroneously believed to be the Florence Mills House in New York City; since the real house no longer exists it is likely that not only will the NHL designation be withdrawn but the building delisted entirely). But we should start creating a separate infobox category (perhaps on a black background?) for no-longer-extant NRHP listings, to avoid further deletion noms like this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If they were ever on the list, they are notable. Basic principal--this is an encyclopedia. For something on the list erroneously, yes, that would possibly be another matter, but in practice I think most of them would in consequence of the error have sources. DGG (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability isn't transient. We're an encyclopaedia, not a news service. Wily D 10:17, 25 October 2008 (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.