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.
Thiny veiled attempt at house-sale promotion perhaps. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite The article is sourced but seems to be copied directly from the source. The cottage itself, dating back over 150 years seems to be notable as an historic landmark. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was clumsily posted in relation to a real estate ad. But the property is historic. I removed the copyviolation (ie. 95% of the text). There is a lot more information on the property in the reference provided (a real estate ad detailing the property and its history) if anyone wants to expand the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The building is on the National Register of Historic Places, there is a WikiProject dealing with this subject (WP:NRHP) whose aim is to improve coverage of NRHP buildings. Thus it would seem to be notable enough to retain. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a contributing property to Schooley's Mountain Historic District, but we don't have an article about the district. The real estate agent is more than willing to tell us everything about Oak Cottage, though. (For example, it has a 6 bedroom septic system.) It sure would be nice if we could know something about the rest of the historic district, or something about the people who built this place, or at least something that discusses more than the super curb appeal of this building. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 06:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you're not making an offer? This one pencils at 885,000. Bed and Breakfast potential! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as on the NRHP, although the article could definitely be cleaned up and improved. Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as NRHP listing. As far as other sources, there certainly exists a nomination form for the Schooley Mountain Historic District NRHP listing. It could be requested from the proper NJ state agency, and would certainly address the reasons for notability and info about the rest of the district. My understanding is that the availability of the nomination forms as a source is one of the reasons NRHP listings are automatically notable for Wikipedia purposes. Like Elkman, my ultimate preference would be an article for the historic district, but a contributing property is certainly notable. Lvklock (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The property is notable as a contributing property to a National Historic District.--Pubdog (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a contributor (i.e. that makes it an integral part) to an NRHP historic district, that makes it notable. Einbierbitte (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others above. NRHP demonstrates its notability. The copyright violation was a matter of simply re-writing, not deleting the entire article. --Oakshade (talk) 05:57, 15 November 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.