Deletion of Old Arkansas City High School

Comment: This is on the National Register of Historic Places.  Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I can link you to a guideline that says exactly the opposite. Per , "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, *but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability*." Which this article blatantly lacks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOFEAT)

Comment: Being on a register of historic places is a sufficient claim of significance; the article is in a state that would qualify it as a  delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: per  NRHP listing and discussion about the two above at
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOFEAT)

Comment: I was initially torn between keep and merge... but what settled this for me was reading the nomination document at the NRHP website (https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/74000824_text here).  Had that document discussed events and personages associated with the building, I would have said that the building's ''history'' is what makes it notable (and, since being part of a larger campus is also part of the building's history, I would have said merge it into the article on the larger  campus).  ''However'', the document barely mentions the historical aspects, and instead goes into great depth about the buildings architecture (calling it "an outstanding example of the stonecutter's art" and noting "The fine detail and workmanship evident on the exterior").  The fact that the building is now part of a larger campus is actually irrelevant to that architecture.  It would be notable for that architecture no matter what was around it, or who owned the building.  I do completely agree that the article's title should be Ireland Hall (as I think the more modern name will be more recognizable, and thus better meet our rticle titles policy)... however, this isn't the place to discuss that (for name changes see ... not FD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:RM)

Comment: This is on the National Register of Historic Places.  Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: may as well pile on here, meets  due to being on the NRHP, the article's references, and the consensus here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOFEAT)