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 delete.  JGHowes  ^talk 17:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoma County Historical Society list of landmarks[edit]

Sonoma County Historical Society list of landmarks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Poorly formed list which partly duplicates 6 separate incompletely developed lists of probably notable items of 5 towns/cities and of Sonoma County govt, then adds additional notable and non-notable items without adequate support. It would be most helpful to remove this in spirit of wp:TNT, to focus development on the 6 separate lists. To accomplish what I believe to be the article creator's main goal, then a merger could be considered, but would be formatted differently and would contain only agreed-to-be-list-item-notable items. If merger of all were to happen into one or two list-articles (historic landmarks in all of Sonoma County, or separated into two geographical parts), that would more easily be accomplished by appending the tables of the 6 separate list-articles, than by editing here. As has been discussed at article creator's Talk page, the preferred format would be like List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Downtown Los Angeles, which efficiently uses colors and codes to indicate levels, and does not waste entire columns of mostly empty space.

Or, simply consider it this way: "Sonoma County Historical Society list of landmarks" is not a notable topic. A private organization has compiled a list (which happens to include contents of several Wikipedia lists of historic sites in Sonoma County, and also includes plainly non-historic sites, and is of dubious merit). There exists no coverage about it at all, not in any local news source, and not in reliable sources. I do wish to support the article creator's overall goals, but this has got to go. Doncram (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, i.e. support retention. List articles which are consolidations of other lists by smaller geographic regions are very valuable to Wikipedia users. --MikeVdP (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Downtown Los Angeles takes landmarks from various programs and consolidates them geographically. This makes it easy for historians and visitors to find all the historical landmarks in the area. This list does not remove National Historic Landmarks, sites on the National Register or California Historical Landmarks from those separate lists, but duplicates the entries and makes them available to Wikipedia users.

The National Historic Landmarks, sites on the National Register or California Historical Landmarks all have their own hierarchies which should not be broken.

There has been much talk about the five cities' programs. I believe these are all now adequately documented. Most of the individual cities' programs articles have been on Wikipedia for extended periods without any concerns about notability or reliability.

The Sonoma County Historic Landmarks and Districts article has been in place since March 2018.

The Sonoma County Historical Society (SCHS) began its work on its consolidated list in early 2019. (See the draft article on the Society.) The SCHS was organized in 1962 and has been the leading county-wide historical society since then. The judgment of the Society's Board of Directors determined what was included on the list.

Of special concern to Wikipedia editors is the inclusion of all cemeteries. In the view of the Board, even newer, small cemeteries truly have historical value: the interments may be recent, but the occupants often have roots many decades or a century-plus back.

If the determination of the SCHS Board with its Sonoma County Historical Society List of Historical Landmarks is inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines, then perhaps we should not have a Sonoma County Historical Society List of Historical Landmarks, but instead have a Sonoma County List of Historical Landmarks which is a consolidation of the two federal programs, the state program, the county program and the five cities' programs. That reduced list would, appropriately, omit the cemeteries which are not specifically identified as landmarks in any of the nine established programs.

The Sonoma County List of Historical Landmarks (without any recognition to the SCHS list) would seem parallel to the Los Angeles lists which do not have any ties to any society or outside group: they are consolidated lists developed by Wikipedia editors. In that thinking, the title might be Historical-Cultural Landmarks in Sonoma County. That does, though open the list to additions of many churches, synagogues, Italian cultural centers, Filipino community centers and such.

Thoughts?MikeVdP (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An officer of the society (MikeVdP – COI-declared) posted a link to a list as a reference. The list has over 500 items. Moreover, the list referenced Wikipedia, indicating it was created to support the article and not an actual effort to designate historical landmarks. The source used Find a Grave as a reference to prepare the list. But the Find a Grave website includes "cemeteries" with unknown locations, no documentation, and no historic value. (For example, cemetery is a church memorial with no notable or even historical persons.) The List fails both WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:NOTABLE. Pointing to List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Downtown Los Angeles is a WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:WHATABOUT argument. Focus should be on improving the existing list articles which will have value to the reader. – S. Rich (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentWhile the Sonoma County Historical Society itself appears to me to be not wikipedia-notable, and its "mega-list" (let me call it that) appears not to be a valid source for Wikipedia, the article creator and other members of that local society remain free to contribute sourced material to articles about the official landmarking programs of the county and five cities/town governments (for which published minutes and other sources will be available):
  • Sonoma County Historic Landmarks and Districts
  • List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, California
  • Sonoma historic landmarks (Sonoma (city) historic landmarks)
  • Santa Rosa historic landmarks
  • List of historic landmarks in Petaluma
  • Windsor historical landmarks

And I and others are willing to help develop those, as long valid sources can be found. And it seems that User:MikeVdP has recently been uploading photos which can be added to those, which is great. If/when those are developed, then a merger could be considered to achieve most of what the article creator intends (one-stop shopping about all notable Sonoma County historic sites). It would remain to be argued whether non-notable, non-historic sites should be included. Although some of these may be moved to Draftspace for further development (and note there is a lack of sources or at least dispute about sources at the Healdsburg one, at least, at AFD now, nominated for deletion or move to Draftspace by me), I do expect those will eventually be valid list-articles.

But I am not willing myself to fight it out about sources, etc. at all 6 of those PLUS at this duplicative Sonoma County-wide "mega-list" article. If this Sonoma County-wide article were developed, instead, then all 6 of those should be deleted (MikeVdP, do you realize that, do you agree?). However I think there are 512(?) items in question, and it would probably make too long of a list-article to merge all together. And, the AFD subject mega-list is inferior, does not even link to many existing articles about individual notable sites. For purposes of arguing about valid sources, etc., it will be far more efficient to argue about Windsor sources in the separate article about Windsor, etc. And to argue about the sites supposedly located in Windsor which are not in fact located in Windsor. IMO the town/city of Windsor is not likely to provide building code and zoning-type protection to historic sites not located within its borders, so I do not believe it is proper to state (as is done in AFD subject article) that non-Windsor sites are Windsor sites. Do let's discuss at the Windsor Talk page, not at this mega-list.

Also, the article creator and members of the SCHS are free to publish in the Sonoma Historian (see [1]), a journal of the SCHS which may well be a valid source that could be cited in Wikipedia. Also, the article creator is free to create a map of all 512(?) historic and non-historic sites that SCHS has "listed" and publish that at the SCHS website. But Wikipedia mainspace is not the place for local Sonomamanians to blog or otherwise make assertions about what is historic based only upon their own opinions or upon resolution of the SCHS.

To User:MikeVdP, this AFD process is a cumbersome one, which will require a week or two of time, and I predict will reach a decision to delete this or move it to Draft space. But AFD is also a bit random. If it turns out this article is "Kept" or "No consensus to delete" is the decision, then I expect I will feel it necessary to dispute and delete all contents of this list-article. And to argue at its Talk page that discussion about Windsor sites needs to be settled at the Windsor article, first, before duplicated here, etc. I really really would prefer to simply get rid of this, so that you and I and others could proceed efficiently to develop about all 6 areas, elsewhere. It is not necessary at all, or it is premature at least, to have this duplicative list-article open.

To others, again, the "SCHS list of landmarks" is not a Wikipedia-notable topic, is not covered in any published sources, not even the SCHS's own Sonoma Historian, as far as I know. I ask for "Delete" decision towards move forward with other development. --Doncram (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's deal with a couple of items we might be able to close first:

1. The individual cities' programs. Talk on those can and should be on those pages. On those talk pages, please note what improvements are needed. These are all official programs which are (I believe) documented.

2. No, when a comprehensive list (mega-list) is created, the contributing pages DO NOT go away. For the Los Angeles mega-list example, the entries (records) remain in the National Historic Landmarks, the National Register and the California Historical Landmarks list articles. These NHL, NR and CHL programs all have their own hierarchies in Wikipedia which should not be broken. This Sonoma County comprehensive list article mirrors the Los Angeles geographic list articles which, indeed, duplicates entries, but provides a geographic organization in addition to the separate by-program hierarchies.

3. For cemeteries, should not cemeteries which have been "lost" not remain? Many NHL, NR, CHL and local landmarks have "general site of" or "site location confidential" designations. The fact that the specific site is not know does not eliminate its importance. The primary references for cemeteries are, indeed, Find-A-Grave and the Nichols book. I'll add this comment to the cemeteries talk, too.

--MikeVdP (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MikeVdP, this is helpful interaction. About 1, sure, discuss at those Talk pages, although those articles (and Talk pages) might get moved to Draftspace, if they are not adequately supported to stay in mainspace. Having been around for several years does not give a free pass, but the governmental historic landmark programs do seem fundamentally notable to me.

About 2, "No" back to you about your understanding of how the Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments lists work, and how all other local-level historic sites lists work. There do exist list-articles covering wider regions' higher level designations, e.g. List of World Heritage Sites in North America, List of National Historic Landmarks in California, National Register of Historic Places listings in Sonoma County, California, and California Historical Landmarks in Sonoma County, California. Nothing here should change any of them. But note that each of those can/should list the appearances of any higher level designations in the lower level. E.g. the list of 68 NRHPs in Sonoma County makes a point to note the 4 NHLs in the county. If there were any World Heritage Sites in the county, those should be mentioned also (but there are not). It can/should be clearly presented which of the higher-level sites are also given the lower-level designation; this may require having a separate table listing the higher level sites within the local region which don't have the lower-level designation. But surely anyone interested in NRHPs in Sonoma County would also want to know about higher level designations in the county. That's what the list of LAHCMs in downtown Los Angeles does: it restates all the higher level designations, too. That's what a list-article about Healdsburg, or about Windsor, or about county-designated sites in unincorporated areas should do. But, there is no duplication of the lowest level entries. We do not have, anywhere in Wikipedia as far as i know, duplicative sets of "all lowest level and higher historic sites in region A", "all lowest level and higher historic sites in region B" as well as "all lowest level and higher historic sites in combination of regions A and B". If summary treatment about all of these could be handled well enough in the A+B one, then we would eliminate the separate A and B ones. It would not particularly serve readers to have, and historic sites editors are not willing to maintain, grossly duplicative list-articles. P.S. I will grant to you that the list of California-state level CHLs in Sonoma County may not currently report on the higher level designations in the county. It should be modified to do so.

About 3, cemeteries are not automatically list-item-notable, though the intros and Talk pages of list-articles about them seem not to make that clear. Follow up at Talk:List of cemeteries in California#many cemeteries are not list-item-notable, to be deleted.

To be clear, I want this "mega-list" deleted.--Doncram (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it would appear many of the landmarks themselves may meet notability and this is more of a directory page for it. Why not keep it? Webmaster862 (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to see that this AFD is about removing a big duplicative list (as would be created by a merge, but without removing the components merged), plus removing not-validly sourced info about non-historic random other items.

Here is where AFD gets random? I have seen this happen before, about list-articles, where a few editors show up with sort-of-reasonable-sounding points about notability of items, which is different than their considering the reasonableness of having this particular collection of them. Yes, there are notable items of several types and locations, many having individual articles or getting them soon. But all of them (well except for some arguably non-historic, not-notable ones that are to be deleted from Wikipedia entirely) are covered in other lists of those types and locations. It is an _editing matter_, not an issue of "notability of some items", that historic sites editors don't want to have entirely overlapping lists. It is okay to repeat mention of a few high-level historic sites in a list of the lowest-level historic sites for a given small local area. That's not what's going on here, this is unfortunately intended to exist as a merge of 6 separate lists, while keeping all the 6 separate lists in existence also.

And, Webmaster862, this list-article also is a host to non-historic, non-notable stuff. Again, there exists no external coverage of the mixed list of places compiled by a non-itself-wikipedia-notable local historical society. --Doncram (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- This seems to be about every significant building in a county. This may be appropriate for the Society's own website, but it is far too wide-ranging for an encyclopedia, such as WP. Not every NRHP site is important enough to merit a WP article, and certainly not all this locally listed stuff. An article about the Society's list (with a link to an external website might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is synthesis, combining the preexisting National Register of Historic Places listings in Sonoma County, California and California Historical Landmarks in Sonoma County, California with local sites. These lists should not be duplicated like this. Just because some of the landmarks themselves are notable does not justify this combination. At the very least this should be limited to county-only landmarks, but these are the least notable ones. Reywas92^Talk 19:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sufficient sources in the article already to pass WP:GNG--NeujorK (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)— NeujorK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • That's not how this works, we're not suggesting this is unsourced, but just because there are sources doesn't mean a separate article is mandated. Namely, these sources support notability of National Register of Historic Places listings in Sonoma County, California and California Historical Landmarks in Sonoma County, California, and it makes no sense to just WP:DUPLICATE them! Reywas92^Talk 18:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Update: Related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, California has been closed "Delete", on basis that it did not provide sufficient documentation establishing which, if any, places in or near Healdsburg, within Sonoma County, have been designated local landmarks by the city/town of Healdsburg. And even if that minimum was provided (about which I grant that I saw User:MikeVdP making progress at its Talk page, by their adding citations to specific off-line city/town council resolutions), there still is no information available, much less good sourcing, about why on earth any of those have any historic merit. So it it really not ready for mainspace, IMO.

Update 2: The deleted article was restarted at Draft:Healdsburg Historic Structures and Districts and there is discussion ongoing at Draft talk:Healdsburg Historic Structures and Districts. --Doncram (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But these [Healdsburg items] are all apparently "listed" by the Sonoma County Historical Society in their mixed list of actual historic plus non-historic whatevers. It is an editorial matter to fight it out once, not again here in this duplicative list, about the merit of the Healdsburg places. The fact that places are "listed" by SCHS provides no support, unfortunately, about the merit of their being covered in Wikipedia.

To potential closer, I think this is ready to close "Delete". I'm sorry it is sorta complicated, that you have to see that some places in this list are notable places (in which case they are already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia or could/should be) yet you have to see this list, this collection, is not helpful. I actually have a great record at wp:AFDSTATS in terms of my !votes in general, but a poor record on articles that I have myself nominated for deletion. This is because I am only ever bringing up semi-complicated situations where an editorial collective decision needs to be made.

The alternative to getting a clear "Delete" decision here would be for me and others to battle it out in this list-article, certainly towards deleting all non-notable places. And recognizing that the SCHS's "judgment" applied in its listing choices is poor, and can't really speak to list-item-notability of many of the places. It would be just weird to be keeping a list-article on places listed by SCHS but not accepting their judgment on what is to be listed (because there is no evidence of quality in their judgment, no standard being applied, with their accepting any burial in the county being the most obvious non-starter). So I suppose the editing battle could be to change/rename/repurpose the article towards being something else. But I don't see what that could be, duplicating other Sonoma County historic sites list-articles for no clear purpose? So realistically the alternative if this is "Kept" by "Keep" decision or "No consensus" decision is to appeal the decision, and/or to start a second AFD. Or just to act wp:BOLD and delete the article by redirecting it, and potentially having further fights about that because the BOLD action would be ignoring "consensus" in the AFD. This list-article just doesn't work. Sorry.

I nonetheless remain available, and have been doing some work, about expanding Wikipedia coverage of legitimate historic sites in Sonoma County (esp. Windsor historical landmarks), and I would cooperate in future about any grand merger proposal being considered, once smaller-area lists are better. --Doncram (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is an example of WP:SYNTH. We do have list articles, but these are usually well known lists. We do not feature lists curated by local societies/media as these lists are usually not notable. The individual items in the list may well be notable and individual articles can be created about them. Alternatively it might be possible to add them to suitable existing articles. If possible, I would suggest to Userfy the article, so that the content remains accessible.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Ready to close: In my opinion this is ready to be closed with "Delete" decision. As has been noted, many items within the list are listed in 7 or 8 continuing mainspace list-articles plus Draft:Healdsburg Historic Structures and Districts, some of them having problems themselves, but it is better to fight it out in those separate list-articles about what are the facts. I think this list in fact was created by appending sections or all of each of those. That creation, in effect a merger without removing the contributing articles, had faults in how it was done. A potential future merger could be done better, and could use better content at the separate articles after improvements elsewhere are done. Even though I might personally oppose it, I remain willing, in the future after such fighting out about basic facts is done, to facilitate a merger proposal to re-combine in some way (or perhaps create a new streamlined "coordinates plus little more" version, or whatever), towards creating what I think the original author of this article wanted (basically a "comprehensive" list of historic places in Sonoma County, in one article so that linked "map of all coordinates" would display all). If, as the article title suggests, they really wanted this list in order to communicate to the world what the Sonoma County Historical Society chooses to identify as historic or possibly historic or whatever is their standard, then I would oppose that, because they should do that in their own website.

I am not sure if value was added in form of coordinates or identification of photos here. I don't know if coordinates here were sourced from the separate lists or were added independently here and not at those, and I am not sure if photos were added here but not at those corresponding other places, but I have saved a copy to maintain my access to those coordinates and photo filenames. I also previously thought this included a long list of cemeteries and other items which are not obviously list-item-notable under what I would think is a reasonable standard for list-item-notability, but now I see those were already removed (including many removed in this edit by User:Srich32977. The article creator and the SCHS presumably have all those coordinates and photo filenames, and they or anyone else could obtain a copy of this article and have access to them in the edit history, and I have copies of bigger and smaller versions of this.

In summary, this list should be deleted because it does not add value for Wikipedia readers, and any continuing process within Wikipedia to add value (e.g. developing more specific information about Sonoma County historic sites) is best done separately at the separate list-articles that were copied into here. --Doncram (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the references here do not appear elsewhere in Wikipedia. Some coord were determined using GoogleEarth Street View to find the locations. No other source -- on Wikipedia or anywhere -- provides the mapping of Sonoma County Historical Landmarks the way this does. This provides phenomenal value to Wikipedia users, to historians, visitors and the public at large. Separate articles and separate maps are totally ineffective.MikeVdP (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example the separate Windsor historical landmarks list. I have been willing there to challenge MikeVdP to come up with sources (which he mostly has) towards clarifying/correcting factual assertions there. And I have corrected coordinates for 4 places (which remain misstated in the AFD subject list), based, yes, upon my going in with Google satellite view and street view. And I have added 17 coordinates for individual trees of a Windsor landmark that was omitted from both of the lists. There is no way in hell that I or any other historic sites editors would be willing to duplicatively edit in the AFD subject list, to correct its errors and omissions and false assertions (explicit or implicit) about historic places. I do see that the AFD subject list shows two places in Windsor not included in the separate Windsor list, which maybe should be, if facts and reliable sources can be identified. There's a discussion item, Talk:Windsor historical landmarks#Places not listed officially as Windsor landmarks, open, to which MikeVdP has not responded. I am not willing to duplicate such discussion and editing in the AFD subject list. But, I do not think that work proceeding on the separate, smaller articles is "totally ineffective"; it is making progress. Inconsistent editing across duplicative lists is to be avoided, first by removing the duplication. --Doncram (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC) 04:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

focus of efforts

Wouldn't it be better for Wikipedia "experts" to fix the damage they have done to Sonoma County Historic Landmarks and Districts rather than pile on an honest effort here? Sonoma County Historic Landmarks and Districts has 192 entries according to the County of Sonoma. Yet, Wikipedia "experts" have decided that numbers 178 to 192 don't deserve listing. Let's make Wikipedia better, not WORSE!MikeVdP (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think i am going to start to get offended. I think MikeVdP is speaking of me, and it is hard for me to see how he could merely be misunderstanding what's going on there. If you are speaking about me or not, please do show diffs to whichever editors are behaving badly as you suggest is happening.

This reminds me of possible misunderstandings, or stretches of the truth, which I have asked MikeVdP about at Draft talk:Healdsburg Historic Structures and Districts. --Doncram (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: A big interactive map showing all Sonoma County places collected from six separate history-related list-articles is available here. Through the wikimedia software magic of transclusion. Without duplication of the raw data in the six separate list-articles. Something like this can probably be done in mainspace, if presented properly (the collection has to be a valid one for presentation in mainspace). In userspace, one can do this for any unofficial collection of mainspace lists plus any other draftspace or userpace lists (e.g. a private historical society's list of other places it deems interesting). :) --Doncram (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'The creation of the big interactive map will solve lots of these problems, particularly if it links back to the various programs' articles.

So, we'd have the big interactive map, a disambiguation page for Sonoma County Landmarks Programs which would list the invidivual programs and the individual programs articles.  The number of columns or entries in the big interactive map could be quite limited.MikeVdP (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2021 (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.