Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts

Page does not belong in article space because there is no evidence of notability. There has been no third-party coverage regarding "featured properties and districts," and the article does not indicate what aspects of this list make it notable. In fact, not even the entity that has "featured" these properties (the National Park Service) has published anything about the reasons why it "features" certain properties or the basis for selecting these properties. (Note that the article says "The program was announced in July 2008", but the "source" for that statement is a note saying "Press releases, news coverage, other reports would be helpful to add here.") The only "coverage" of this list has been its existence -- that is, the appearance of a "featured" property at the top of each week's list of new NRHP listings. As far as I can tell, these are merely the properties that the NPS has put on the "cover" of its weekly electronic bulletin; I cannot discern anything noteworthy about this particular assemblage of items. Because the weekly lists contain extra information about the "featured" properties, the list is useful to NRHP wikiproject participants, but otherwise it appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Because it is a potentially useful resource for Wikipedians, it should be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts. I feel silly bringing this here. The need to move this from article space to Wikiproject space has been discussed on the article talk page (and I in fact moved the page to Wikiproject space), but the creator of the article is adamant that it belongs in article space and essentially dared me to bring this here. Orlady (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

concur with nom. There appears to be no specific justification for the items on the list, and only the items on the list, and I don't see any third party coverage of the list elements as a list being likely. The comparison to e.g. Rolling Stone cover people is indeed telling in my opinion. Every publication has a front cover and thus some kind of featured content. But lumping it all together is only justified if third party sourtces already do so. MadScot (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And i am fuming mad about this, so I shall not write much right now. No good purpose is served by putting this one NRHP list-article up for deletion. The deletion nominator has been unable to respond in discussion at the Talk page for the article, about why she would want to delete this and what purpose would be served. Her "answers" showed either an unwillingness or inability to understand the question, and only consisted of arguments--some specious in my view--that she could and has now used to put this article up for AfD. This editor has acknowledged following my contributions around, and this AfD nomination smells bad to me. I am resenting her following me around, her having derailed a Featured List nomination of mine for another list-article, her having caused other time-consuming processes on other article titles on my watchlist, and what seems to me to be her developing pattern of not ever conceding or backing down. To say that she "reluctantly" puts this up for AfD is a copout, in my view: she definitely did not have to and should not be causing this process to happen now.

There is not a plague of list-articles being created frivolously--this is not a promotional article about a local garage band. It is a particular collection of recent NRHP listings that is not hurting anyone. For it to be nominated to featured list, say, I would agree that it would require some more background work. I ask for the nominator to assist in finding documentation to describe the program better. Also, a different alternative would be simply to rename the article, as I suggested at its Talk page. I'll stop now. doncram (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been repeatedly determined that individual NRHP sites are wikipedia notable. There were at last count, 527 list-articles of NRHP sites, and I don't see the criteria available to evaluate that this one alone should be deleted. doncram (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and move to a subpage of WP:NRHP if the project wants it. I don't see the point of this, but may be convinced otherwise by good arguments. (Disclaimer: I got here from WT:NRHP.) --NE2 02:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As it is, there's no problem with the date: it's rather obvious from the main National Register listing page that they began this program in July, as the listings begin then. I understand and appreciate the bit about Sports Illustrated covers, etc., but this seems too trivial of a topic unless it attracts attention from the third-party sources. I can't imagine that a list of United States Senators appearing in the "Hill" would necessarily satisfy the criteria, even though The Hill is a leading US congressional publication and though the senators are obviously notable. I like the topic, and it's interesting (and I've received much help from the creator), but to have an article about it without further sources seems to go a little too far. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that this "featuring" of newly listed properties began in July 2008. My problem was with the statement that "the program" was "announced" then, as no one has been able to produce evidence that this is a "program" or that said program was ever "announced." The "program was announced" language is no longer in the article, however. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Orlady says that there has been no "coverage" and sends us to indiscriminate collection of information where it specifically notes that having news coverage does not automatically make something noteworthy. Therefore, whether there was "coverage" or not seems a moot point. Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places automatically confers notability. It follows logically for me that being featured by them would automatically confer a slightly higher degree of interest and notability. This list just recognizes that elevation in interest, slight as it may be. I like the list. Lvklock (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having news coverage does not automatically make a topic notable, but that is not the issue here. This is a topic that apparently has not had coverage in the news or anywhere else. The general notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This business of "featuring" a property is a topic that has apparently never received even insignificant coverage in sources that are dependent of the subject, much less significant coverage in independent sources.

Yes, there has been consensus that listing of a property or district in the National Register of Historic Places automatically confers WP:notability, but that does not mean that everything related to the National Register is automatically notable. In essence, this is nothing more than a list of the lead articles in a weekly newsletter. In a comment I wrote last week on the article talk page, I commented that this is similar to a list of magazine covers, and I noted that Wikipedia includes List of celebrities who have appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models, Sports Illustrated#Cover history, and Saturday Night Live hosts, but that those topics are arguably notable due to the existence of significant third-party coverage of SNL hosts and Rolling Stone and Sports Illustrated covers. Since there is no evidence that anyone other than Wikipedia contributors has found anything noteworthy in the new NRHP practice of featuring one property out of the week's list of two or three dozen newly listed properties, it is difficult to see why this particular collection is a notable topic for a list.

As for your comments that "it follows logically for me that being featured ... would automatically confer..." and "I like it," please see WP:OR and WP:ILIKEIT. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how my explaining why I think the article should be included can possibly be construed as original research. As far as liking it, I did not intend that as a reason for keeping the article, but just as a passing comment on it. I notice that you did not refer Nyttend to WP:ILIKEIT when he commented above that he liked the article and it was interesting, perhaps because he he was just making a passing comment on his appreciation of the article. Lvklock (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have problems with minor factual matters in the deletion nominator's statements:

as noted by Nyttend, the nominator questions the source of the July date but the July date is well enough supported. On that point, the nominator questions the article on the basis of an informational footnote asking for help in getting more sources. It is an informational note, not a source footnote, when used in that way, obviously.

As noted above, I have no quarrel regarding the date that this started, but rather I object to the subject and verb of that sentence, where it is stated that "the program was announced." That statement (subsequently removed) and the associated footnote were added after I asked for evidence that this "featuring" business has WP:notability. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the deletion nominator states "not even the entity that has "featured" these properties (the National Park Service) has published anything about the reasons why it "features" certain properties or the basis for selecting these properties". That is likely a false statement. Neither I nor the deletion nominator has copies of such publications, but it is an overstatement to assert nothing exists. How would the deletion nominator know?

Perhaps that is a false statement, but the burden of evidence for providing sources (in this case, to demonstrate the notability of the topic) falls on the person who adds the material (see WP:PROVEIT). I hasten to add that if Wikipedia were to presume all topics notable until proven non-notable, it would be virtually impossible to delete articles about garage bands, 8th-grade football stars, and other non-notable topics, due to the philosophical dilemmas involved in trying to prove a negative.--Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the deletion nominator states "The only "coverage" of this list has been its existence -- that is, the appearance of a "featured" property at the top of each week's list of new NRHP listings." That is false, technically, if you consider that the NRHP program website homepage at http://www.nps.gov/nr/index.htm does indeed feature the weekly featured item, and if you consider that to be coverage of the featured items one by one. Cumulatively, that provides coverage of the entire list of them. This other coverage is mentioned in the article, although i had neglected to add the URL of the NRHP program homepage. Also, there may have been other coverage, not yet known to us.

A link on the NRHP homepage is not "independent coverage." The possible existence of "other coverage, not yet known to us" is one reason why I have proposed moving this page to project space. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've searched Google for instances of the word "featured" in connection with "National Register", properties, districts, etc. Essentially the only instances where the word "featured" was actually connected with NRHP listings were on NPS websites. Interestingly, in addition to the weekly listings reports, I found that the term "featured property" (and variants such as "featured site") has been used over the years in NPS press releases and educational materials for African American History Month,[1] Women's History Month,[2] Hispanic Heritage Month,[3][4] Native American Heritage Month,[5] and Asia-Pacific Heritage Month,[6] as well as in historic travel brochures like this one. In every case, the usage is in the journalistic sense, along the general lines of "this article features several interesting sites." --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assert that pointing out these minor factual issues greatly counters the deletion nominator's larger argument, but I feel that they potentially add up in a troubling, larger pattern of the nominator's critical-style editing. I am resenting the nominator's attack on this article, but not just for sake of this article in which i have not invested greatly. doncram (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no personal attacks, please. It seems to me that you are the one who has been trying to make this personal. I saw this article at Category:National_Register_of_Historic_Places when I was looking for categories needing to be renamed, and I looked into it because "featured properties and districts" were something I had never heard of. I have an apparently-crazy notion that WP policies and guidelines have to be applied uniformly if they are going to be effective, so I went to the article talk page to ask for an explanation of the justification for including this in article space, and the answers I got led me to conclude that no such justification existed.

I suppose your theories regarding my motives have been influenced by messages on your talk page from the likes of User:69.86.225.195, but if that's the case, I hope you will consider the source. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment here was that you had made overstatements (and/or false statements) in arguing your case, not that there weren't arguments along the same lines that would have been more correct. A loaded term for this, which i have seen applied elsewhere in an offensive manner that I do mean to convey here, could be "sloppiness". Using overstatements and inaccurate statements in an effort to get an article deleted, to me tends to suggest the possibility that something is not right, that the deletion nominator has chosen one side and is committed to arguing it, right or wrong, rather than participating in good faith. I am attuned to this issue due to your edit summaries and talk page justifications of other reverts of my work that you have done, an issue which I have raised to you at your Talk page. The issue here is not whether there is or is not a kernel of a valid point in something in what you say, but rather it is in how you are saying it and seeming to pursue something resembling an attack. If there is a continuing pattern, then this set of statements might be used as evidence some other wikipedia process. Anyhow, I am choosing to label these mistatements, here, as what I see they are: mischaracterizations that suited your argument. It would help if you would disavow such tactics and perhaps apologize; you could do that simply without abandoning your argument. Anyhow, there does not need to be a big issue here, if there is not a continuing pattern of such behavior. Note, I labelled these instances as "minor". doncram (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would deletion voters here clarify if they see a larger purpose in removing this list-article, out of the many NRHP list-articles? For just one type of example, what is the difference between this collection of NRHPs, vs. say National Register of Historic Places listings in Ozaukee County, Wisconsin? That is randomly picking one geographic area-based list from List of RHPs in WI, which is a state list system that i have worked on, but i have not been specifically involved in developing that Ozaukee list within it. Note, the National Register does not collect and present NRHP listings in the Ozaukee geographic area as an organized set, at least not in any linkable website or published document that I am aware of (i acknowledge that is likely one could get an on-demand report out of NRIS for the NRHP listings in the county, but that is different, that would not be a positively presented set). By contrast, the NPS does in fact present this featured listings collection as a set. The Ozaukee County wikipedia list-article, at least, is not supported by documents asserting its importance or existence as an organized set. Would the deletion nominator and voters here want also to delete the Ozaukee County list? If not, what is different. Likewise, what about lists of ships listed on the NRHP, or bridges and tunnels in a given state, or NRHPs at universities, or many other lists. I must say, I am not happy to be engaging in discussion about deleting this list-article, but if you want to delete this you should provide clear arguments about why this one that is associated with me personally, and not others. doncram (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The geographic-based lists are an obvious way of breaking up a full list that would otherwise be way too long. As for the topic-based lists, they are intersections of two important topics - NRHP listings and bridges, tunnels, etc. On the other hand, being featured on the NRHP main page isn't too important. It's a lot like a list of articles featured on Wikipedia's main page. --NE2 07:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete, since as much as hate that he's the one making it, NE2 has a very good point there. I think it's nice that the NPS has decided to sort of emulate us and feature one new listing every week. However, this is as Orlady says, not something that's been widely picked up on. Yet. We can certainly recreate this if it does become something of note within the historic-preservation community. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is like our featured articles, and it did occur to me that one resolution would be to mark such articles within the NRHP lists. But that would leave no way to find them all, if one were so inclined. Note that featured articles appear in Wikipedia:Featured articles, which is linked to from the main page. If we were to move this article out of article namespace, it would essentially disappear. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The one problem I have with this list is that it is an ever growing one and one that will require maintenance every week. If the list is primarily for use by the Project to determine high priority articles to write (given the redlinks), then it probably belongs in ProjectSpace. If the intention is to keep a list in Wikipedia that is the same as one on the NPS website, then the list part of the article should be deleted and a link given to the NPS website. If, however, this list is not available anywhere else AND someone from the Project is prepared to commit to maintaining it every week, then I see no problem in it living in ArticleSpace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an index to the wikipedia articles on the featured NRHP listings, the list is not available anywhere else. Only this list can be used to navigate to the wikipedia articles, which carry usual wikipedia benefits of wikilinking architectural and historical terms and which are otherwise interlinked with the wikipedia. The wikipedia list and its articles are different and "better" in some ways than anything available at the National Park Service. I am the wp:NRHP project member who has developed this list and I created, i think, 14 of the 15 articles that it indexes. By the way wp:NRHP operates, others usually contribute as well with edits following my listing it in the new articles section of the wikiproject. I expect to continue maintaining and developing this. doncram (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that this is the only index to the Wikipedia articles about the listings that have been featured in the NRHP weekly listings, but (because I have yet to see any evidence that there there is anything notable about the listings that were so featured) I have to ask "so what?". (The Internet also lacks an index to the Wikipedia articles about National Parks that I have visited, but the list of parks I have visited is not notable and does not belong in Wikipedia article space.) The list of featured properties is readily available on the NRHP website at http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/nrlist.htm and there is nothing preventing a user from maintaining a list in user space or project space; I am only saying that I have seen no evidence that this list belongs in article space. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral With a second observation that Wiki itself is ever-growing and its article require upkeep and maintenance on an even more urgent schedule, this AfD in point. If there is a better place for this article, where it will itself receive the upkeep and maintenance it will require, then that option should surely be of highest consideration. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The main aspect of maintaining this list-article is creating at least a stub article for each featured property using the documents made available for these featured listings. Creating articles on NRHP sites is exactly what the NRHP wikiproject does, and it is most of what i do in my wikipedia editing. I would guess that i have created more than 2,000 articles in one year; wp:NRHP has created 15,000 articles in two years. Ensuring that one article in this program is done each week is no problem, well within even my own capacity alone. And, it is more beneficial and interesting to focus article creation on these featured listings because of their news value (as brand new listings), because they are in fact featured by the National Park Service, and because there is extensive documentation made available for these ones, so there is no sacrifice involved in focusing on these ones. Having the article in mainspace keeps a bit of pressure on to maintain it, but that is just a good thing. If this were not in mainspace, that would most likely undermine my personal interest in maintaining it, so here is the best option for its development and maintenance, in my view. doncram (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I think you are saying that this list article exists solely as a resource for article creators. I believe that is a good and sufficient reason for maintaining a list in Project or User space. Then, however, you say that if it is moved outside of article space, you will stop maintaining this resource (in the playground context, this is called picking up your ball and bat and going home), so we had better keep in article space to keep you happy. You didn't really mean that, did you? --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, first, I did not say what you state you are thinking i was saying, probably for good reasons. Second, you make a false statement: "Then, however, you say that if it is moved outside of article space, you will stop maintaining this resource...." That is simply false! I said it "would most likely undermine my personal interest in maintaining it" which is quite different, and which is a true statement of my feeling about this. It doesn't call for the label you wish to attach to it. I have trouble with other labels you are throwing at me, below, too, which i think also are not really relevant. doncram (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The great majority of list articles, from List of A B-sides to List of Zambia-related articles lacks third-party coverage— it's the nature of the beast, they aren't like other articles. This article is exactly like our other NRHP list articles except that it is more useful because the info it captures is fleeting. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I always knew this as the Pokémon test-- I guess WAX is the new, improved version. Anyway, this is not quite the same issue, since it is not the article's notability that is at issue, rather, it is the matter of references. I am not arguing that the existence of one article justifies the existence of another, I am arguing that the lack of references in a large percentage of a particular class of articles, namely lists, justifies keeping this list article in the main namespace if it's only failing is a lack of references. Besides, doesn't this situation call for the {{unreferenced}} tag, rather than deletion (er, removal from article space)? -- Mwanner | Talk 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very appropriate list, and helpful, which is enough justification for a list. This AfD seems not very useful, since we will certainly be restoring it rather soon after as the3 references come in. DGG (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL. Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the actual proposal is not to delete the article but to move it to project space, where it would be available to move to article space later on, if and when these hypothetical references materialize. --Orlady (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposal is not to delete the article, then why are we discussing it in an AfD? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Beeswaxcandle, in the nomination I stated "The need to move this from article space to Wikiproject space has been discussed on the article talk page (and I in fact moved the page to Wikiproject space), but the creator of the article is adamant that it belongs in article space and essentially dared me to bring this here." For details, see the earlier discussion on the article's talk page, including the article's creator statement that "If someone wants to raise this in a larger forum, then go ahead. However, this is mainspace material in my view, and can be defended." --Orlady (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, take some personal responsibility here. I interpreted your argumentative style of comments as headed toward an AfD or some other process, but I did not encourage you to open an AfD or other action. I explicitly asked you not to. It is a crazy situation, if you interpret what i say as the opposite of what i am saying. I agree with Beeswaxcandle, it does seem that you raised this in the wrong forum, given your arguments. Perhaps wp:Requested moves would have been more appropriate. But, we are discussing it here, so here it stays, and hopefully ends. doncram (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful to both readers and authors. Sourced. presented in an encyclopaedic fashion. Piece of a large notable topic, for which this is the best style of presentation. Function over arbitrariness. Wily D 13:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's useful alright. Daniel Case (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me towards something far more in need of deletion. Wily D 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to within the project space of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, at least for now. I get the impression that the "Featured Property" heading within the NRHP Weekly List Actions page is meant to draw attention and interest toward the kinds of properties that are newly listed on the National Register. I don't think it's an official program, but just a "teaser" to get people to read the new nominations. As an aside, the nomination forms for the featured properties are all online, so the description at Art Troutner Houses Historic District could have been expanded. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space. Another option might be to create one of those navigation templates that seem to be quite popular these days. --Polaron | Talk 22:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, again, with new information - The following is the body of an e-mail I received today from the National Register in response to my query about the selection criteria for featured properties.

Thank you for your question. We had two goals in mind when beginning our weekly feature portion on the website: to bring more attention to the National Register program and its properties and to show the diversity of resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The process for selecting our features is simple. The National Register staff chooses an interesting property that is to be listed that week. Our criteria for selection is that from week to week these properties should exhibit different types, styles, periods of history, and from different states. The features are not a subset of the NRHP and are not officially designated in any other way than other listed properties. Properties are not chosen based on the documentation provided, as we require all nominations to have sufficient information to support significance and subsequent listing. The summary paragraph is taken from the nomination and is intended to provide basic information about the property and why it is significant.

In my view, a ~~subset~~ selection of National Register entries designed to illustrate the diversity of type and location of new listings is notable. I have included this information in the introduction to the list. Lvklock (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting that statement from the NRHP and incorporating it into the list-article. I can imagine future coverage of the program explaining how the emerging set of featured listings complies or not with those goals, too. As Mwanner pointed out above, "the great majority of list articles, from List of A B-sides to List of Zambia-related articles lacks third-party coverage— it's the nature of the beast, they aren't like other articles. This article is exactly like our other NRHP list articles except that it is more useful..." And now it is even more useful, and more referenced than many lists. By the way, i think Daniel Case was probably being sarcastic in his overt support for the list-article by mentioning wp:USEFUL, but that wikipedia mini-essay points out that usefulness is a fair argument, sometimes, such as when it provides a service to readers to navigate among a certain set of articles. This list-article is certainly useful in that wikipedia guideline's approved way. doncram (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, we are reading different things into that message. I read the message as saying that the "featured" listings are purely an element of the website, intended (in my words) to spice up the website, bring positive attention to the NRHP, and educate the public. The message explicitly says "The features are not a subset of the NRHP and are not officially designated in any other way than other listed properties," which I read as saying that there is no particular significance to the choice of "featured" properties. I still see this as similar to a magazine's cover story or perhaps the monthly Featured Objects at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History or the Object of the Month at the Ulster Museum. --Orlady (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so subset was the wrong word. There is no argument that each item is notable. I still believe that a list selected to highlight the wide breadth of "types, styles, periods of history" and location is worthy of inclusion. You say in your initial statement "not even the entity that has "featured" these properties (the National Park Service) has published anything about the reasons why it "features" certain properties or the basis for selecting these properties." This correspondence has explained the reasons. It is certainly not an "indiscriminate collection of information." Lvklock (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2008 (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.