Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historic value

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historic value

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a WP:DICTDEF. While the term is certainly used a lot, I believe it fails WP:GNG (there is no "significant coverage" of this term, it is just a common expression). A redirect and perhaps even a merge of this single (but referenced) sentence to Significant coverage is the best I can think in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this could be improved with sources like this and this. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia Hmmm, not bad but I've also seen such promising sources (on surface) fail to provide WP:SIGCOV of the topic. Would you mind taking a stab and trying to expand the article with said sources, to move beyong WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The importance of a building or artefact has to be assessed to determine how important its preservation is. There must be some academic literature discussing this in detail, which ought to be described (not merely cited) in this article, but at present it is not there, We merely have a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is more than a dictionary definition here, and scope to improve. "We merely have a stub" is not a reason to delete. Thparkth (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for little other reason than I just helped improve the article, and it "feels" like it could be expanded with intellectual rigor, far beyond a dictionary entry. Here Under The Oaks (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went back and forth on this article, I can see why Piotrus nominated it. I do think we can find RS to support and expand this article per WP:NEXIST. See A Catalogue of the Portraits and Other Objects of Historic Value from January 1, 1907. I looked for a logical spot to redirect and could not find one. So it is likely best that we have an article. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2022 (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.