Talk:Hereford House
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Rangasyd in topic Section move proposal
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Proposed deletion
edit | This page was proposed for deletion by GA Melbourne (talk · contribs) on 19 January 2023 with the comment: Fails WP:GNG. Despite being a historical house on the NSW heritage register, the article's subject doesn't show WP:SIGCOV. It was contested by Rangasyd (talk · contribs) on 2023-01-19 with the comment: It is regrettable that this relatively new user, GA Melbourne has chosen to propose deletion about a house that has significant contribution to the European history of the State of New South Wales, and in particular, to the inner western Sydney suburb of Glebe. Let's look at WP:SIGCOV: Presumed: The house's journey through various ownerships hands, including its role in the history of the College of Nursing and its place as home for the Mayor of Glebe. Significant coverage: Demonstrated via the article's journey from pre-European history up to more contemporary times, evaluating the development of Glebe, its citizens, and its built environment. Reliable: Placement on the NSWHR is, by itself, a process that requires editorial integrity and verifiability by third party sources. This is not a local register, it is a state register. Sources: All sources are secondary sources and show a varied depth of coverage. Independent of the subject: All sources are independent of the subject matter, previous or current owners. |
- Hello Rangasyd, I accept your reasons for contesting the PROD. My main concern, and my reason for the PROD, was because due to the lack of multiple sources. Only one good quality source was in the article as the time of the PROD. You have since added two more quality sources which is welcomed and has improved the verifiability of the article. (see WP:GNG note 4) - GA Melbourne (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @GA Melbourne: So lovely of you to accept my reasoning. Perhaps, instead of proposing a deletion, you could assist Wikipedia by searching for sources and adding them yourself. Our roles as editors can be varied. However, proposing a wholesale deletion of an article (and I noticed from your recent edits that this is modus operandi of yours) is perhaps not ideal. A better approach may be to add value. Something for you to consider as you continue to learn from more experienced editors. Rangasyd (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Rangasyd: I don't think my actions were all that extreme, as it stands half the article is about the suburb of Glebe rather than the subject, the article relies heavily on the one source, and there are no news articles on the topic. - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @GA Melbourne: Newsworthiness does not dictate whether an article on Wikipedia should be retained or deleted. That's a very unusual measure to adopt. I did not say or imply that your actions were extreme. What I did say (and imply) is that your actions were both regrettable and unproductive. Perhaps you might like to look over some background of how several dedicated editors worked over many months to create and/or update articles in Wikipedia for assets listed on the Commonwealth HR and those listed on some state HRs, where there were permissions in place to share content under copyright. Here is an introductory link to the NSWSHR project. In summary, my comments to you as a new editor to Wikipedia are to add value; and don't be so hasty to propose deletion of articles or criticise experienced editors. Speaking from my own personal experience, you will gain much more insight by adding value to articles through enhanced research and editing. It may take a little longer, yet the outcome is an improved Wikipedia. Rangasyd (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Rangasyd: I don't think my actions were all that extreme, as it stands half the article is about the suburb of Glebe rather than the subject, the article relies heavily on the one source, and there are no news articles on the topic. - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- @GA Melbourne: So lovely of you to accept my reasoning. Perhaps, instead of proposing a deletion, you could assist Wikipedia by searching for sources and adding them yourself. Our roles as editors can be varied. However, proposing a wholesale deletion of an article (and I noticed from your recent edits that this is modus operandi of yours) is perhaps not ideal. A better approach may be to add value. Something for you to consider as you continue to learn from more experienced editors. Rangasyd (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Section move proposal
editI propose that subsection Hereford House#History of Glebe be moved to Glebe, New South Wales#History. The subsection is more related to the topic of Hereford House#History of Glebe. While the section is relevant to this article I feel it is more appropriate to be on the Glebe suburb article as it is more about Glebe rather than the property. - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's reasonable to copy it but I don't see a reason to delete it here, as it provides context. Kerry (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: There is no clear reason to remove the history of Glebe from this article. It is not unusual in any article to give some context to what happened in the area / suburb before the house was built - and this approach is reflected in many article on assets listed in various heritage registers. If the Glebe article is missing content, add it. For example, there is no history of the area pre-1790. This is a major failing. Rangasyd (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)