Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7700 16th Street NW


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

7700 16th Street NW

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NGEO. The two crimes that took place in the building are notable (and Wikipedia has articles about them), but there is absolutely no indication that the building itself is notable. The sources describe what happened there, they describe the building's owners and its neighborhood, but none of them actually describe the building. Please see related discussions at Talk:1973 Hanafi Muslim massacre and Talk:7700 16th Street NW. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 06:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is inevitably going to be a claim that this building is covered "extensively" in sources; that would be an incorrect assertion. Yes, the building is passively mentioned in the context of notable incidents, but it is never written about as a notable building. WP:NGEO explicitly states: "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events". Considering the majority of the article is now devoted to incidents that transpired within it and sources about the events are crammed into the text to fabricate the illusion of multiple sources, it is too obvious this building fails NGEO and GNG. I strongly urge editors to evaluate the sources before being fooled by what appears to be a bounty of coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If we make the mistake of keeping this article (which is looking entirely likely), can we at least address the WP:SYNTH and the fact this has become a content fork for the notable events that already have an article?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Question - Are we going to put up 10050 Cielo Drive (Manson "family" house, that I presume isn't a cause for POV issues) to AfD on the same rationale? This isn't a WP:GEOFEAT fail - as the geo guideline for buildings notable for social (e.g. crime) reasons is 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. - basically WP:GNG - the crime site could be notable per GEO, the question is sources available on the place.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have put WP:OSE as another one of the "inevitable claims" I expected above but thought editors would know better; I was proven wrong. I do not know how you can argue this passes NGEO when no sources are actually about the place and the policy explicitly states geographical features, including buildings, do not inherent notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz's point seems to be that houses (see: Lizzie Borden House,) can become notable for the crimes committed in them, Category:Buildings associated with crimes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually haven't taken a position yet - I brought up 10050 Cielo Drive since that is not a POV battleground article. The house is discussed - e.g. - in a $78,000 home donated to the sect as a Washington headquarters by Kareem‐Abdul Jabber, the professional basketball star who is a member of the sect.. This isn't an obvious GNG fail - the house appears in RSes for over 40 years - the only question really is WP:DEPTH of coverage - which is not so easy to assess given the fairly large amount of appearances coupled with the need for archive access (1970s-80s is actually a tricky period to source - most of the archives are non-free, not everything was digitized, goolge-books is often limited to snippet or no preview).Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We also have a MILHIST issue here, as this was the HQ of a militant group in 1977 Washington, D.C. attack and hostage taking - we generally do keep military/militant installations.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per ongoing Merge discussion. Decide, either close this or the merge discussion. WP:GNG applies here anyway, plus extensive sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Merging would be dysfunctional because the house is notable for three quite separate events, each of major significance. 1.) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar purchased this house for his mentor in Islam Hamaas Abdul Khaalis when he was very new to Islam - still called Lew Alcindor.) He gifted it to Khaalis for use as an Hanafi center.   Jabbar and his wife were married in this house. 2.) It was the scene of the 1973 Hanafi Muslim massacre - an attack on this sect by a faciton of the Nation of Islam, and it was the largest mass murder that had ever been committed in Washington, D.C.; 3.) It was Hanafi headquarters - and the place where an arsenal of weapons was stockpiled in preparation for  1977 Washington, D.C. attack and hostage taking, an attack by this Hanafi sect in which armed militants from this house took 149 hostages at the City Hall), B'nai B'rith headquarters, and the Islamic Center of Washington, holding them at gunpoint during a 39-hour standoff.  Two innocent people were killed in the attack during which members of the sect held press conferences by phone from inside the house and on the lawn. Khaalis' son-in-law Abdul Azziz stood on the lawn and told journalists that,  "Heads will be chopped off, a killing room will be set up at B'nai B'rith and heads will be thrown out of windows."  Article is heavily sourced to WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS that begins with the house's early owners and continued through 2017.  But because ownershop of and events that took place at this house form a significant aspect not only of the religious carer of a man who is arguably America's most notable convert to Islam, but also are  a significant part of two extremely notable crimes (events totally unrelated to Jabbar,)  it seems more useful to keep it as a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * INDEPTH sources on house include: Newsday: 7 Killings Started Islamic Holy War, Washington Post: "Reclusive Hanafis Still Mystery to Neighbors", and (Mayor Marion) "Barry 'A Very Lucky Man"  These and several others include details about the house itself.  An account of the purchase by Kareem Abdul-Jabar is in Philadelphia Inquirer, "Giant Steps - An Angry Young Man Embraces Islam and a Boycott".  apologies for the fact that Inquirer and Newsday are vial Proquest, which is password protected; I am not certain whether WaPo archive is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm satisfied by the sourcing above, coupled with the 3 notable incidents, that the house or at least its use as the Hanafi Madh-Hab Center is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is anyone going to read the sources Gregory provided, supposedly about the building? It takes a few seconds for each to realize that the sources are not about the house but rather the notable events and people. NGEO already clearly states notability isn't inherited to them despite Gregory's !vote and GNG is not met by passing mentions. I would like to believe everyone here understands those basic policies.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * [redacted] Unscintillating (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that this page is not architecture-related.  It is about an ordinary, posh 1920s "Tudor-style" house, presumably built on spec by a real estate developer.  Reminds me of 81-15 Wareham Place.   It is notable for having had a famous owner, been the site of an infamous crime, and used by a radical cult that carried out a spectacular deadly attack on downtown Washington D.C..   No one claims that it is architecturally notable.  Q.  Is it permitted to remove an AfD fomr an erroneous list.  I ask because I often see cases where topic experts see, for example, a notable athlete who had a small role or two in a film listed on a of actors for AfD and iVote, "delete, not a notable actor."  In other words, this sort of mistake can queer an AfD.  Anyone know if there is a way to remove such misleading listings? E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep A point of reference is a part of the gazetteer.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The events in the house are related, rather than simply random crime sthat merely happenned to take place here, so the place itself is notable.  DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - While the focus of much of the articles is not on the house, there is enough coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or repurpose as an article on Hanafi Madh‐Hab. The two crimes were clearly related: an attack by Black Muslims, presumably objecting to a different Muslim group; and a return attack to try to recover the jailed culprits of the first attack.  Both attacks have articles and there is a proposal (which may not be appropriate) to merge this article to the first one.  However we might merge both here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that User:TheGracefulSlick changed her iVote above from Delete to Comment., a highly experienced editor, to return and do this the proper way by: Delete and replace.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * no but thanks. Editors who tend to look for the smallest lapses of policy -- the "proper way" -- tend to be the biggest offenders of it. By the way, no one commented on my !vote, I didn't change the actual content, and it was a courtesy so this can be snow closed. So, actually, you are welcome.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks as though an editor responded, you responded back to him, and, in all events, opinions are intended influence subsequent iVOtes. Bottom line: however you define "respond" it is clear that you ought to follow WP:REDACT and fix the edit. Editors who drag as many fellow editors to ANI as you do ought to take care to be purer than Caesar's wife.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * no...but thanks again. I don't claim to be perfect or "pure". And you must have me confused with someone else: I only reported you once and the community decided you had a problem with bludgeoning that could be sanctionable if it continued. Now, if you have any more cheap shots feel free to unload them at my talk page instead at an AFD. You know, it's the "proper way" and all.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.