Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beal-Gaillard House

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 snowkeep. Per previous consensus notability is established by being listed on the NRHP. See also WP:GEOFEAT. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beal-Gaillard House

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not very notable Wasabi,the,one (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is usually considered to be evidence of notability. Is there any reason why this should be an exception? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the longstanding consensus that buildings listed on the NRHP are notable. And coverage of this house in other books can also be seen by clicking "books" in the find sources link above.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT and Arxiloxos. Also see WP:NPLACE. clpo13_(talk) 23:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom needs to do better than "not very notable" as being a HRHP designate means there is in-depth description, history and significance coverage as all NRHPs have such. --Oakshade (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - without words Agathoclea (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this looks notable to me in the geographical context. Such a building wouldn't necessarily be notable in a western European country where listed buildings tend to be older, but this looks to be historically significant. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By !voting keep here I can help my AfD score. I tilted at a windmill a while back and nominated something for deletion that turned into snow keep so this freebie will make up for that. Subject is notable per WP:GEOFEAT. New editors should spend more time at countervandalism and less time at AfD if they don't know notability criteria. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2016 (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.