Talk:James S. Thompson House

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deletion tag

There is not a single Google hit for this claimed building, nor does a search for the text find anything. Given that there are no sources, looks made up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: I don't think it's a hoax, as a reverse image search for the house brings up this forum, which includes posts by someone with the same username as the article creator. (The image is labeled "10.jpg".) It looks like it exists, but it also looks like it's pretty solidly non-notable. Unless Josys36 can prove that this is on a historical registry and/or can show that it has received substantial coverage in reliable sources, it looks like it's your typical non-notable old house. A house's existence does not automatically mean that it is notable, nor does its age automatically mean that it's notable either. I think that this will technically have to go through AfD since the speedy criteria doesn't apply here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79:. Fine, I thought it seemed an odd choice for a hoax, but being so non-notable that Google can find it raised doubts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: I'm moving part of this here. The registry listing is giving a different address, but I'm kind of getting the impression that this may be a registry listing error. I've pinged the creator in the AfD and if he agrees to it, I'm willing to move the article to my userspace in the hopes that he can get it fixed and then we can use it to show notability. If this is what I think it is, it sounds like it's shaping up to be a nightmare for the homeowner getting all this straight, poor guy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79: You do whatever you think best. I admire your efforts to sort out this very confusing scenario, and I accept that the creator is doing his best. If you become satisfied that this can be established as notable building, feel free to close the AFD. I'm going away for a couple of days, so I may not respond then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: OK, now this is weird. When I looked at the Registry page at work the address was completely different. Now it's showing up as the correct address. This is why I dislike going to the Registry page- their website is so wonky. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the usual infobox, templates, and categories used for NRHP articles. I've included the nomination form, and retained or added information that can be tied to that form. I removed the information from the owner that has no references. @Tokyogirl79: please take a look and see if the AfD can now be closed. @Josys36: take a look at Galusha House, an first-time article written by another owner of an NRHP-listed house. While I'm not suggesting that your try to duplicate that level of detail, it is an example of the types of references to include for things you know to be true, but can't currently find a reference for. Find some references and add some of your information back in. Generic1139 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generic1139, I'd already posted in the AfD about that, so if it hasn't been closed yet then you can close it yourself if you haven't voted. I'm fine with a non-admin close on that one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm done with the article. It can stay how it is. I'm not writing another, and I'm not going to be editing this one.

Josys36 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Dates

@Josys36:Thanks for correcting my typo on Thompson's death. I see you have also changed the build date from 1867 to something else. The date in the cited reference is 1867, as is the date for several of the outbuildings. Do you have a reference showing a different date? Otherwise, we need to use the date in the cited document. Generic1139 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have an article from the Aledo Weekly Record of September 23rd 1862 that discusses the house being in it's final stages of being constructed. Unfortunately this is not available in any electronic source, so I just have that as a print out. You can sure cite this, but I cannot provide it to you. Josys36 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Jason[reply]

@Josys36: Make a citation with all the relevant data - publication name, publication date, author if known, and where you got it from, and what it said - and note that final stage of construction isn't the same as "built". I suggest we put both dates in there - something like one source (ref) says x, another (ref) says y, and the reader can make the own determination. Citations don't have to be electronic to be relevant. But, you have a print out, and it is old enough to be public domain - you can scan it in or take its pic and upload it to commons.

The History of Mercer and Henderson Counties [1] shows Thompson moving into a "very fine residence" in 1857, then leaving for California possibly due to unhappy investors ("many anathemas were showered upon his head") in a railroad deal. All must have been forgiven though as he apparently came back and built your house but the History of Mercer and Henderson Counties book unfortunately doesn't mention it. Generic1139 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You looked at the wrong Thompson. Judge John Thompson was James S. Thompson's brother. It was JOHN and NOT James that had a fine residence in 1857. James S. Thompson built my home in 1862 as I mentioned. I know these two families inside and out. Josys36 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Yes, you are correct of course, I suffered from search drift. Still, my basic premise remains the same - make a cite for the Aledo Weekly Record reference. Generic1139 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]