Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hastings House


 * 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. Tone 18:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hastings House

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With the proviso that I struggle to see US news sources, I think this fails WP:GNG. It's a building, apparently of no particular merit, that was donated by someone who may perhaps have been a local worthy to a community association that also appears to be nothing special. I'm struggling to understand what the purpose of the article was intended to be as it seems to be more about the organisation that the buildings, albeit via a massive unsourced quotation. Sitush (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I agree notability is very doubtful but I don’t really see how we improve the encyclopaedia by being too rigorous with this kind of article. The house is a valued community asset and this kind of article is typical of the kind of content new users generate. I think we should relax about it. Mccapra (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have an argument based on policy rather than sentiment? I realise that you categorise yourself as an Inclusionist but this is surely a ridiculous rationale even by that standard? Let's just allow every newbie to create whatever they want on whatever they want and, hey, we'll keep it because they're new and they say it is a local asset so it must be so? Why not go to the Pump and propose we scrap the notability guidelines? I am flabbergasted. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We improve the encyclopaedia by adhering to our notability policies. That way if someone discovers we have an article about something, they can be sure it has a certain level of notability. We also improve the encyclopaedia by ensuring there are sufficient reliable third-party sources to write an article per WP:WHYN.--Pontificalibus 08:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Notability is not "very doubtful," but nonexistent. The article is devoid of reliable sources about the subject, which don't seem to exist: such links as pop up in searches are passing mentions in local newspapers along the lines of "Saturday's parade begins at the corner of Oak and Hale Streets and ends at Hastings House, 14 Oak Street."  And indeed, the article is typical of the type of content some new editors generate; what bearing does that have on the matter at hand?  Perhaps if Mccapra is familiar enough with Beverly to confidently assert that the subject is a "valued community asset" (something that, even if true, meets no policy or guideline for inclusion), he can include some reliable sources in the article which provide the "substantive coverage" to the subject the GNG requires for inclusion?   Ravenswing    12:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just remedied this AFD for its omission of tag for "Places" category, which brings to attention of editors focused on buildings, historic sites.  Recommend keeping this open a week for wider discussion. --Doncram (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I said in the nomination? It is actually about the organisation, rather like Talbot House. Why not just notify every project that exists and have done with it? In any event, the thing has only been open 2 days, so another week is just procrastination and - surprise, surprise - lawyering.- Sitush (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:NBUILD, no significant coverage in independent sources. (I came here via the Places category). --Pontificalibus 08:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of substantive sources to establish notability. Reywas92Talk 01:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom and User:Pontificalibus. Otr500 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2019 (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.