Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPA architecture

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, and continue to expand. Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPA architecture

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

Fairly useless article as it stands -- "WPA architecture describes architecture of the WPA?" SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is useful for linking from many current and future U.S. National Register of Historic Places articles whose places are described by the National Register in its NRIS database as representing "WPA architecture" or "WPA Rustic architecture". It is akin to National Park Service rustic architecture. Tag the article as a stub, calling implicitly for expansion. --do ncr am 01:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added a little to the article, including 2 references easily found. Nomination for deletion seems to have been inappropriate, IMHO. --do ncr am 02:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as stub/needing expansion per Doncram. Topic is notable, and underdevelopment is not a reason for deletion. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is what happens when you create a very short article that doesn't have enough context at the start to identify it. How was SarekOfVulcan supposed to know that you were eventually going to expand this article, versus completely ignoring it and going on to the next stub? Also, if those two references were easily found, why didn't you put them into the article when you first created it? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) The article's topic is obviously notable and that was apparent enough before SarekOfVulcan's nomination for AFD. SarekOfVulcan has no need to know what i am personally am going to develop or not. The topic is valid whether or not i am the one to develop it further. SarekOfVulcan might consider my own track record before opening an AFD though. Consider a few dozen AFDs opened by Masonic-focused editors, which he is aware of, all closed Keep. To respond to your last question, i am developing Wikipedia at a reasonable pace, cannot do everything all at once. I hope the Wikipedia will be ready for you real soon now. --do ncr am 03:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LaMenta3, and because '"WPA rustic" -wikipedia' gets 6,230 Google hits. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy - The general topic of architecture created under the aegis of the WPA is undoubtedly notable, but the article in its current form is, at best, useless -- and indeed has significant potential to misinform users by giving incorrect and misleading information on the scope and context of the topic. Because it would be easier to create a new article than to convert this one to a useful form, deletion would be appropriate. The creator of this article is an experienced Wikipedia contributor who should be able to develop a better article than this, so it would be OK to put it in his article space until it's ready for publication. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article topic is notable and it is adequately supported already, thank you for acknowledging that. The topic does not belong to me; i contributed already by starting the article and developing it as far as it goes now. I don't want to "own" it further, thank you. So, neither deletion nor "userfying" is appropriate. --do ncr am 16:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by Kanatipo, and as I've verified, a search of "WPA rustic" turns up multiple reliable sources discussing this style of architecture. This is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. Sure it can be improved. But the solution is not to delete it. Cbl62 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Pubdog (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the way to deal with incomplete or inadequate articles on admittedly notable topics is to add to them, not remove them. If we started removing inadequate articles, we'd have pretty weird coverage--and pretty low usage. Just like 10 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 25 July 2011 (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.