Cedarburg Wire and Nail Factory: I've looked for other sources but haven't been able to find anything that makes more than a passing mention about the factory.  CoatGuy2 ( talk ) 22:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment by nom : Discussion of article's 4 sources:  1) Kelm's " Early History of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin " has a half-page entry on the building, which is the most significant coverage of the subject I could find.  (Kelm might be self-published, though. The scans clearly show her manuscript was typed on a typewriter.)  2) Property Record: 4807 COLUMBIA RD doesn't have much information about the building except for a couple of dates, and is from a Wisconsin database of thousands of properties, many of which are not notable.  3) Gierach only includes one sentence on the building in a paragraph about one of its owners: 'Weber later bought the Excelsior Mill (along with the Wurthmann Brother and Fred Kuether) in 1890 and converted it into the Cedarburg Nail Factory. '  4) And the dam inspection report isn't a source that can be used to judge notability.  CoatGuy2 ( talk ) 22:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions .  CoatGuy2 ( talk ) 22:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable local structure.  Doesn't seem it's still standing and I don't see that it's been listed in the NRHP.  nothing notable that we can use found either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Vague coverage of them cleaning up the river down from where this was, but nothing that helps GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge [was Keep ].   This is a good contribution that Wikipedia makes, giving background on a historic mill in the community, built in 1821.   Seems factual, "helpful", of local significance.   There can be many reasons a place  does not become NRHP-listed, including owner objections, deterioration of historic character.   Basically, I think old mills, where anything can be known about them as here, are Wikipedia-appropriate.   Like castles are (see excellent essay wp:ITSACASTLE ).  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 01:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Or "Merge" is okay too.   Like other historic places, to be covered it does not need to be in a separate article, it can be covered in a list-article instead, which provides better context for all elements covered.   This article links to articles on other mills in the area.   There is Category:Textile mills in Wisconsin with four items in it.   Merging into something like List of textile mills in Wisconsin or List of water mills in Wisconsin or a Wisconsin section of a List of textile mills in the United States (which I would be willing to start if it does not yet exist) would be okay.   I have done a lot on List of windmills in the United States recently (see its Talk page and edit history if you like), by the way.   It has a section on historic windmills in Wisconsin, List of windmills in Wisconsin .  There you go, it has to be kept (albeit perhaps with encouragement to merge to a list-article), because that is an alternative to deletion that is available, and we're required to accept that, per wp:ATD .   Just "Keeping" is simpler.   We should be gathering and building, not deleting.   (And I will post notice of this AFD at WikiProject Mills).  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 01:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment from nom : In this case, I don't find the essay you cite (and wrote) to be particularly convincing, @ Doncram : .  Forgive me for being blunt, but the essay and above argument use circular reasoning and ignore the community's generally accepted standards around notability (see WP:GNG ).  Being a mill or old does not make a subject inherently notable, however much you or any other editor might like mills and old things.  The GNG puts forward that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources [NOTE: emphasis on more than one source] that are independent of the subject."  The most significant coverage this nail factory received was 1 paragraph + 1 sentence in a typewritten manuscript.  At present, there are no other available secondary sources that make more than a passing mention to this building.  This subject gets a sentence in the article on Cedarburg, Wisconsin#Economy and could get a sentence in Cedar Creek (Wisconsin) , but giving more mention to the subject would give it undue weight.  Most historians have ignored this building in favour of larger, more significant industries in the area.  But this subject won't warrant a standalone article until multiple reliable, independent secondary sources give it more than a passing mention.  CoatGuy2 ( talk ) 04:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, I'm glad you agree that the essay is excellent, at least, even if it doesn't apply very directly here.   Thanks for your affirmation!  --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 04:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Doncram : Haha, and I'm glad that you agree that the article should be deleted! Looks like you forgot to change your vote, though! CoatGuy2 ( talk ) 04:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Cedarburg (town), Wisconsin . It's a noteworthy element of the town, if not an independently encyclopedically notable subject. BD2412 T 03:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with User:BD2412 's suggestion...it would fit in fine in the town article where it mentions other historic places. --Doncram ( talk , contribs ) 06:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment by nom : I can agree to a merger as well.  CoatGuy2 ( talk ) 12:02, 14 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge