Talk:White House (disambiguation)

redlink entries here are valid

One of the NRHP-listed places named exactly "White House", photo by moi

In this edit i restored multiple redlink items, but each having a properly formed supporting bluelink. This is exactly per disambiguation requirements in MOS:DABRL. There will be articles created for all of the NRHP entries, all of which are valid Wikipedia notable topics; article creation for NRHPs continues at a good pace altho it proceeds faster where NRHP editors can visit. Having them listed on this dab page serves many purposes, including clarifying for readers looking for one of them how to find more info (at the supporting bluelink page), and clarifying for editors what is proper name to use when starting the article. Thanks for notice to my Talk page. I'll try to watch here. --doncram (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. The MOSDAB policy is explicitly one bluelink per entry. When an individual redlink turns blue from article creation, the supporting bluelink can/should be delinked or deleted. --doncram (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, is there something in the notability criteria that makes all listings on the registry notable? Otherwise, who says that they will all have lots of secondary sources about them? 0¹⁸ (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The notability of NRHP-listed places has been tested by AFDs and otherwise many times. The basic reason why the NRHP-listed places are repeatedly deemed wikipedia notablie is as follows: the places are 1) recognized as historically significant by 1 or more of 4 objective criteria, in a many-reviewed process by nominators, state officials, Federal officials, and 2) there is always available a free, good NRHP nomination document which is often written by architectural historian or other professional and provides both secondary source info about the historic significance, as well as primary-type descriptive info about the current condition of a place and about small details (and primary type information can be used, with care, in Wikipedia, where it is straightforward and noncontentious as here). The NRHP nom docs also provide references to other sources. The significance of a place is not because it is NRHP-listed, but rather the NRHP listing is evidence of a pretty stringent notability review plus the availability of sources. I think the details describing criteria may be available from links at National Register of Historic Places or from wp:NRHPhelp. Does this suffice? Hope it helps anyhow. I do see that you had previously removed the same stuff and I had readded, earlier this year, by the way. --doncram (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing I always wonder when I see a red link is, will it ever become an entry? If the answer is likely no, I don't think it belongs on the DAB page, though linking to it from the register list pages seems fine to me. The point of a DAB page is to help people looking for concepts with the same name as the title to help find where they are going. If there is never going to be a place to go... it doesn't really help. And you make a great point that these pages have existed for 5 months and still no new pages have been created. If there are no more in say, May of 2011, I'd definitely support removing them from this page. 0¹⁸ (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, I also wanted to thank you for the very clear and convincing argument about register listed sites being notable. 0¹⁸ (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)