- 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 speedy keep. It's snowing. Mgm|(talk) 13:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AVR 661 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
steaming pile of non encyclopedic speculation WuhWuzDat 15:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All places and structures in the Registry are notable. The details arfe for editing. In this case, the source is not completely sure just what it corresponds to, and the article properly reflects that. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is not particularly satisfying because the underlying NRHP application is not yet on line, but that will come. A fair number of NRHP stubs are very positive, but wrong. This one honestly speculates and is right (for evidence see the ref I just added). If we delete this, we need to delete a lot of NRHP stubs and that would slow the project a lot.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As an NRHP entry, this will be a notable "structure", even if the precise nature is not currently known. Unfortuantely, Google Earth doesn't help on this one, as the structure is too small to be found (and the fact that there is a lot of construction work in the area doesn't help!). I think the article needs tidying up, and awaiting further information being available. Perhaps it might be worth asking someone in Category:Wikipedians in Chicago if one of them could pop over and have a look (a message on Category talk:Wikipedians in Chicago perhaps?) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The NRHP listing means that the documentation is out there to establish notability for this site and to clean up the article eventually. Edits since the AfD nomination appear to fix the most serious problems. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried looking for information on this a while ago in Chicago newspaper archives and such, but couldn't find much, beyond its inclusion in lists. However, the NRHP application should contain enough information to write a decent-sized article. Hopefully, that will be available online soon (or maybe someone can request it.) Nominating something for inclusion on the NRHP takes a lot of time and effort, so even if there does not appear to be much information online, some historian out there as done a good deal of research on each specific listing. Zagalejo^^^ 21:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago#AVR 661 TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I guess i started and/or developed the article. I am amused by User:Wuhwuzdat's wording of nomination, but as others have said here, like other NRHP-listed places or objects, the AVR 661 is wikipedia-notable for two reasons: a) it was deemed significant/notable enough for National Register listing by local, state, and Federal officials; b) there is extensive documentation available for it. In this case I believe i looked for State of Illinois on-line documentation but did not find any. To develop the article, someone just needs to request a free copy of the NRHP documentation from the Federal levell, by sending an email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. It could be appropriate to tag the article as needing development (although it is already classified as a stub which implicitly calls for expansion), but there's no need to delete it! doncram (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notability and article quality are independent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 11 December 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.