Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCC Shelter

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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 19:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CCC Shelter

While this may well be verifiable, it's a small building, a shelter in a park. Its notability is entirely based on the fact that it's one of the 79,000 entries in the US National register of historic places. If we have an article on every building worldwide which is as "historic" as this one, we'll have a million such articles. Note that I'm nominating this to some extent to see if this entire category of articles is worth keeping, we have many other articles on "historic" cabins and such Xyzzyplugh 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - presumably there's a good reason for this being listed as an historic site. Having a milion articles shouldn't be an issue so long as each such site has some historical signifigance. -- Whpq 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if it is on the National Register of Historic Places then notability should be implicit. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's notable enough, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so space concerns aren't nearly as big an issue. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 16:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Combination Shelter which is how it's listed on the National Register Dlyons493 Talk 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Combination Shelter, I did create a redirect from that to CCC Shelter. However, this structure is definitely not known locally as the Combination Shelter, nor is that how it is listed on Pokagon State Park materials (let me try to find an online version). Note also that the National Register gives an 'aka' as "CCC Shelter". MrHarman 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable criteria works for me per TheFarix above. If only there was one for schools :) -- MrDolomite | Talk 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain, as creator of the article and photo. I myself have wondered about the idea of creating 79,000 National Register of Historic Places articles. It seems a trifle much to my mind (let's see, at 2 per day it would take 100 years), but there have been discussions over at Talk:National Register of Historic Places which can be summarized: "The fact that they are listed as a historical place says they are notable." MrHarman 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Space is not an issue for Wikipedia and since i beleive it is notable (but perhaps warrenting expansion) it is my recommendation to keep it.-(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 15:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)}

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.