Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craftsman Mansion


 * 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   delete. This is clearly quite a tough call, especially given how polarized the debate is. I'm therefore going to make a few comments on my close. When an editor alleges that an article has no reliable sources to establish notability, the onus is then on those wishing to keep the article to provide the discussion with sources. Doncram makes some interesting arguments to support keeping the article, which suggest that there must be secondary sources available offline due to it being on the Los Angeles Historic-Cultural monuments list. However, he has not provided any sources. AfD is not about speculation - We must resort to firm evidence in these discussions. As there has been no evidence provided, I must give these comments less weight. alf laylah wa laylah makes an important suggestion that a designation as a LAHC monument confers notability - If others had agreed with this, I would have closed this AfD as keep. However, the numerous users wishing to delete the article suggest that this does not automatically confer notability, and the article must pass the general notability guideline in order for the article to remain. I am persuaded by this point, and this is something that those wishing to keep the article have failed to rebut. As such, I conclude that the consensus is to delete the article. This is without prejudice to anyone putting a redirect in place to List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the Wilshire and Westlake areas or List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in South Los Angeles, whichever it is decided is the correct list. Further, should anyone wish to merge the content, I am happy to userfy the article in order for histories to be merged.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Craftsman Mansion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough for a standalone article. The property is designated historic by the city, but not by the National Register of Historic Places which would make it automatically notable. The only reference provided is generic and not specific to this property. Everything in this article is already duplicated in the article Victoria Park, Los Angeles. I considered proposing a redirect to that article, but IMO the name "Craftsman Mansion" is too generic to use as a redirect. MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It has been argued in recent deletion discussions that neighborhoods of Los Angeles, being themselves bigger than many small countries, are inherently notable. Could not a conclusion be drawn, analogously, that, since a listing on a national historical registry confers automatic notability, so too does listing as historic by a city that is bigger by population than very close to half of the world's countries?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in South Los Angeles. There is nothing here that could not be easily mentioned in the existing list (i.e. "built in 1912"). Generally with Wikipedia articles they should only be created if there is something meaningful that can be said about the subject. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected target name, based on comments below. Though if a building has such a generic name no-one is exactly sure where it is, it's hardly encouraging on the notability front! Sionk (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is listed on a significant register of historic places, the Los Angeles Historic-Cultural monuments list.  Whether or not there is already a lot of info about it in the article, there will exist substantial off-line documentation about it, and local historians/librarians/others may add to it if it is an article;  it meets Wikipedia criteria for notability.  Tag it as "stub" calling for further development.  Also, if "Craftsman Mansion" seems too generic, suggest a different name such as Craftsman Mansion (Victoria, Park) in a wp:RM at the article's Talk page. -- do  ncr  am  16:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The process of designation as a Historical-Cultural monument is quite rigorous. It is described here.  As you can see, it requires detailed scrutiny and documentation by the staff of the Office of Historic Resources.  Further information on the process is described in a series of PDFs published by the Los Angeles Conservancy and to be found here.  This process will have generated a mass of documentation in order for the designation to have been approved, that material will have been scrutinized by employees of the Office of Historic Resources and thus will qualify as a secondary source.  Furthermore, because it's available to the public (I don't know the details of this yet, but I will find out tomorrow; worst case scenario involves the Freedom of Information Act, but I can't imagine that would be necessary) it has been published. (Parenthetical note: I have seen the argument here and there on Wikipedia that publication does *not* consist of one copy of the material being deposited in an archive and made available to the public.  This is wrong.  It does.  Ask your lawyer if you can defame someone by depositing one copy in a public library if you don't believe me).  Thus any property on the list of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural monuments is de facto notable.  I hope to write a Wikipedia essay about this soon and propose it as a notability guideline.  However, even in the absence of a guideline I think that it is clear that a designation as a LAHC monument confers sufficient notability for the retention of this article. (Note: The name of the article is abysmal, however.  I suggest a move to the actual address of the property rather than this generic name, and will carry it out should the article be kept).  Also, @Sionk: there may be nothing available on the internet about this property, but User:doncram is correct that verifiability does not require on-line documentation.  TL;DR: Per Doncram.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the application is not available online? The application for the Holmes-Shannon house is. However, even if you find the documentation, it remains my opinion that the only historic listings that convey automatic notability are those on the National Register. If you open "automatic notability" to states and large cities, you are asking for a deluge of non-encyclopedic articles about minimally notable properties. As for notability, while I grant that such an application is "published" by a "reliable source", it takes multiple such sources to establish notability. If no newspaper or magazine or historical writer took note of the designation - if there is no source other than the approved application - it doesn't meet the notability criteria IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to write a notability essay about states and large cities, just about Los Angeles! Then we really only have to worry about New York, and they can take care of their own darn notability criteria. Also, I'm not just thinking about the application itself, but the documentation that must be generated during the review process.  Anyway, I'm going to call the city planning office tomorrow when they open and find out where they keep all the paperwork.  I'll let you know what happens.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't it simply the case this is a house of some age (for Los Angeles) with original features which has been put on a list? To make the claim that there is "substantial off-line documentation" would be shot down in most other AfD's, unless there was some indication of proof. The fact is all we know is it was built in 1912 and its on a list. The list has its own article already. When the "mass" of documentation comes to light, the article can be easily recreated. Sionk (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read the links I provided that outline the approval process? They support the claim that there is substantial off-line documentation.  Did you read the link MelanieN provided for the application for the house next door to this one?  That's substantial off-line documentation.  Like in so many AfDs, ease of access of documentation is being conflated with verifiability.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. It has generally been established that only national registers of historic buildings confer an intimation of automatic notability (and even then not always). Local registers do not. The size of Los Angeles is utterly irrelevant. The fact it is larger than many countries is a complete straw man, as the United States lists many, many more buildings on its national register than do those smaller countries (and those smaller countries, in any case, in many cases have a much longer built heritage history than does the United States and therefore a far larger ratio of historic buildings proportionate to their area; just because an area is larger does not necessarily mean it has more buildings of historical interest). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comment below; there is no "general establishment" that way, at all. -- do ncr  am  12:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "red herring" rather than "straw man"? In any case, this is not a matter of physical size, it's a matter of population and of length of history.  Los Angeles has a longer built history than many of those countries as well. (Unsigned comment by  alf laylah wa laylah)
 * Sorry, but although I am a proud Californian myself I have to refute that statement. Here in California, 100 years old is considered really old, but that is not the case on (say) the East Coast, where a hundred-year-old house is just another house. And in most countries of Europe, 100 years old would be considered relatively new; everyday properties there are often hundreds of years old; some historic structures may be a thousand years old or more. I can fully understand why someone from England might dismiss a hundred-year-old residence, and many other properties considered "historic" by Los Angeles, as of trivial significance. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of pride. There are 250 year old buildings in Los Angeles.  Are there 250 year old buildings in the Republic of Tonga, or Fiji, or many other countries on the list smaller by population than Los Angeles?  My remark was made in response to the claim that "those smaller countries, in any case, in many cases have a much longer built heritage history than does the United States", which is simply not true.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 250 year old buildings in Los Angeles. That does not appear to be true. The city was founded only 232 years ago. According to the LA Times, the oldest building in LA may be a 220-year-old portion of the Sanchez Adobe in Baldwin Hills. Just for the record. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And to answer your rhetorical question about other countries: there are monuments on the Island of Tonga that are 800 years old, and there is an archeological site on Fiji that is at least 500 years old. No matter how you look at it, California is a johnny-come-lately with regard to historic properties. Again, just for the record. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if we're going archeological, we have La Brea Tarpits, site of the ceremonial interment of La Brea Woman...and 220 is about the same as 250, anyway!&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment Several here have asserted that only national registers matter for Wikipedia. Since when? That is just not true, there is no such finding in Wikipedia. Ask, if you wish, at WikiProject Historic sites, which I and others founded to cover local, national, international historic registers. There is absolutely no such finding.
 * Delete or Redirect to List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the Wilshire and Westlake areas; subject of this AfD does not appear to have received significant significant coverage in reliable sources such as the Los Angeles Times, the LA Weekly, or anywhere else other than the document which lead to its listing by the City of Los Angeles. Therefore, I can understand the reasoning for supporting deletion as it can be well argued that the subject is not notable as defined by WP:GNG. That being said, it maybe a searched for subject and may fall under WP:LOCAL, as such a redirect to the List suggested at the beginning of my comment maybe an appropriate compromise.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And, redirecting this article to the List-article, which itself includes redlinks and bluelinks linking to individual listing topics, doesn't make sense. You don't complete out a list article by converting every redlink into a link back to the same list-article. -- do ncr  am  12:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we're not asserting that at all. What we're saying is that only listing on national registers provides a likelihood that a building will be found notable. I think you'll find that it has generally been found in AfDs that nationally listed monuments are valid for articles and locally listed monuments are not. We naturally consider all monuments on their merits and they may have articles even if they are not nationally listed, but this is frankly not a particularly good case for an exception. It's a fairly ordinary suburban house dating from 1912. It has neither age nor size nor history nor uniqueness to make it worthy of an article. The keep opinions seem to be based merely on the fact that LA has listed it and not on its own merits. If information can be provided on why it's worthy of an article (other than the fact that it's been locally listed) then I may reconsider. Until then, it appears to be a pretty pedestrian early 20th century building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to the application for the status of the house? I ask because I'm sure you're aware that notability is not based solely on online sources and you assert with such authority the ordinariness of the house.  If you have evidence of this, would you mind sharing it or saying where you got it so I can use it in the article.?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you mind sharing the information I'm sure you have that shows it isn't any more than a building listed for being a bit older than the average? Because I can't see any in the article. To put this into perspective, I've just returned from a trip to Munich to look at the historic architecture. Bavaria lists pretty much any building built before 1920 as an historic monument. On some streets that's almost every building. In no way are all or even most of these worthy of articles in their own right. I want to see evidence that Los Angeles doesn't have a similar policy, because I see none at the moment. Of course it's true that print sources are as valid as online sources, but there must be some evidence that it's of special value or interest to have an article about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not older than average. In fact it's the same age as all the other houses in that neighborhood and in adjacent neighborhoods as well.  They built hundreds of thousands of houses in LA between 1900 and 1920 and hundreds of thousands of them are still standing and are not listed anywhere.  What Bavaria does is of little concern.  If you don't see the evidence that Los Angeles doesn't have a similar policy will you please look at the links I've provided that describe the vetting process for the list and also the example of the successful application that MelanieN has linked to somewhere on this page?  The fact that this house passed the review process implies the existence of information comparable to that found in the other application.  Your questions have really actually already been answered.  Unfortunately that particular office of City Planning is not very responsive, so I haven't yet gotten a completed application form for this house or even found out where they're kept on file, but it's the same process as the other house went through.  This neighborhood has hundreds of these houses, all built at the same time, mostly in craftsman style.  Two of them are on the list.  The list is not indiscriminate.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment For those who would like to redirect this article, note that it shold be redirected to List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in South Los Angeles rather than the Wilshire Westlake one. It's in West Adams, so is in South LA.  I've fixed this on those respective lists.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hold on. We have conflicting information here. The property is in Victoria Park, Los Angeles, which is described as being in Mid-City, which is described as being in Central Los Angeles. This article in the LA Times seems to confirm that Victoria Park is part of Central LA. However, I also note that Victoria Park appears to be served by the West Adams Heritage Association, and that the West Adams article links to the South LA cultural monuments. According to the application for the Holmes Shannon House, Victoria Park is in the West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert community plan area, and the South Los Angeles planning commission, and the Mid City neighborhood council. The city's designations should probably be accepted, therefore the information at Mid-City and at Victoria Park is wrong. As I read it, Victoria Park is in West Adams, which is in Mid City, which is in South LA. (For those who are not from southern California and can't understand why this should be unclear: in the LA metropolitan area, neighborhoods and even cities run into each other with no obvious demarcation; it's just solid urbanscape for 60 miles in all directions.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We really should go with the city. See this document for proof that the city considers this house to be in the West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert area. I know why this probably intentional error was made, but as I have no reliable sources for it I'll keep it to myself. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to list historical properties outside of the districts that the city lists them in.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Further confusion: the LA Times mapping project lists West Adams and Mid-City as two different districts, with West Adams being in South LA and Mid-City in Central LA. And yet the city's designation says that this property is in both West Adams and Mid-City. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The immediate problem only has to do with which list of HCM's it should redirect to. Since there is no sense in which Victoria Park is in Wilshire-Westlake even though it is legitimately in Mid-City, it shouldn't redirect to that list.  It's in Mid-City since it's north of the 10, which is the criterion being used by the mapping LA project and which is totally reasonable, but architecturally and historically Victoria Park is part of West Adams and other historically white ritzy little South LA neighborhoods, which is why the Historical commission lists it with those properties.  Since we don't have a list of HCMs in Mid-City we should go with grouping this one as the city groups it, which is essentially South LA.  If we had a list of HCMs in Mid-City we could send it there, but we don't.  The real problem is that the Wikipedia lists of HCMs don't match the Historical commission's divisions.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll go with whatever you think is correct in this case, and I agree it should be the city's designations. I would request you (since you have this a lot straighter in your head than I do) to fix the Victoria Park and Mid-City articles at some point. (And of course I still maintain that a Delete would be better than a Redirect to either the list or the Victoria Park article.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to think of what to do to fix them, but of course I still maintain that a Keep would be best here ;)&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relist rationale:I notified WikiProject Historic sites of this discussion, perhaps folks there can clarify some things. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Merge Local historical significance best detailed on local page, the article does not warrant a stand alone article per N or GNG at this time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - There should be no auto-pass of GNG based on the city's listing of the property as significant. It's a simple question of whether this passes GNG under its own merits. Now checking... Carrite (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm seeing a lot of uses of the phrase "Craftsman Mansion" as a generic term for a type of house, not much and nothing counting to GNG for this particular house. Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources become available. We shouldn't create new special notability rules for Los Angeles or New York or London on the fly simply because they are big... Carrite (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2013 (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.