Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry levy 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Henry levy house
Note Moved to Henry Levy House Djflem (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable structure with no claim to significance or importance, no independent sources/coverage/events other than being used as a filming location a couple of times. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Moved: > Henry Levy House Djflem (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The building is a historical landmark. --Elnon (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to Henry T. Oxnard Historic District. The house is a contributing property to the district (see NRHP nomination form p. 20 "One of the few houses designed by Los Angeles architect, Homer Glidden in 1914, the Henry Levy house is an outstanding example of a three story craftsman shingle style house with Tudor influences ... The second story is shingled whereas the first story has medium clapboard siding. The wood trim under the front gable and roof shingles resembling thatching suggest a Tudor influence. The notched beams under the eaves and the use of brick on porch columns and chimney lend a Craftsman feeling...."). My preference would be to merge to the historic district but if the content would be out of WP:PROPORTION at that article keeping as a WP:SPINOFF seems reasonable. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Henry T. Oxnard Historic District. Standalone page is not possible due to soures.Aishaa14 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Henry T. Oxnard Historic District as standalone page will require more WP:RS. Jaysonsands (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Briefly: Too much to merge, already, and material is supported by independent sources, and sources provide info for further development on details of the Tudor and Craftsman styling inside and out, and for development on the significance of Henry Levy. Doncram (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I added 2017 American Bungalow source to the article, and added the National Archives-published version of the NRHP document [ Includes photos from 1998, with #96 depicting Henry Levy House on page 179 of PDF document.] I removed two "primarysource" type tags on items in the article, as they seemed derogatory for the purpose of aiding the AFD deletion of the article.  There were/are no statements of fact that are questioned by anyone; the so-called primary sources are fine to include (as primary sources always are, when used appropriately).
 * It is often useful, as here, to split a contributing building article out of an article about a historic district. Merging the supported, useful information would swamp the district article, making it unduly about the one property.  In some other historic district articles, there are lists or tables covering the contributing properties, but even if that was already done in this HD article, it would still be appropriate to only summarize a bit about this house and leave a main link to its separate article.  The house is, however, one of the more significant contributing buildings out of 139 in the district: it is bigger and more substantial than most (look at the pics), and there's more detail about it in the NRHP document, and it was home of significant person Henry Levy.  Interesting to me to find the NRHP document covers 8 other houses of the 139 owned at times by cashiers or tellers or bookkeepers of the Bank of A. Levy or of a Henry Levy company (found by searching on "Levy" in the NRHP document).
 * More about Henry Levy can be said, including that he was one of a group of Jewish businessmen from Alsace, France, who built businesses in the area:"Merchants from other areas of the county, particularly of Hueneme established new businesses or a second business in the thriving town of Oxnard. These merchants included Jews from the French province of Alsace whose families settled and started successful businesses in Hueneme and later Oxnard, including Lehmann, Samuel Weill, Moise L. Wolff, and Achille and Henry Levy. Samuel Weill, a partner in the Murphy & Weill Merchandise and Grocery of Oxnard built a large residence at 125 N. F street in the proposed district. [page 40 of NRHP document]"
 * I provided link to Ernest A. Batchelder, noted Pasadena tile-maker; it is quite a mark of distinction that this house has two Batchelder fireplaces. Not quite, but almost, as significant as having a Louis Tiffany stained glass window, say.  And there is more info about other details of Tudor and Craftsman style on the outside, and of Craftsman details in the interior such as pocket doors and more.
 * There's more to say, with sources, and this is already too big to merge, so keep. --Doncram (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Sure, there's a little bit of unsupported new stuff to be removed if sources not immediately found, e.g. that "In the early 2000s, the kitchen was remodeled and modernized, and a fence installed around the property. In 2020, a large koi pond was installed in the backyard." But the fact that this home is used as a major filming location for at least one movie and three episodes of a recurring show adds to the notability of the place, and is interesting, and is indicative that this is an extraordinary place. --Doncram (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment While I note more information has been added to the article, it is mostly remarking upon the unremarkable. Fine American Arts & Crafts house? Check. Notable, subject to multiple articles in RS? Uncheck. Merge to Henry T. Oxnard Historic District by all means, but this property (currently being marketed for $1.5 million I can't help but note - that's what the American Bungalow source is, a sales listing!!!) does not merit a standalone page IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That listing was in 2017; i presume it is not for sale now. For historic properties it is often when they are up for sale that a lot of good coverage happens;  I recall that about some Arts & Crafts house designed by Ward Wellington Ward in Syracuse New York (and listed on the National Register) that there was a multiple-page article in the Syracuse papers about the house's history and detail, when it was open for visiting at real estate open house, when it was up for sale.  The coverage was fine, whether it was in a Real Estate section or not I don't recall, it was still coverage of general interest to regional readers and had accurate info about that house's tilework from a Syracuse-area tile producer (Syracuse was in fact a significant center of Arts & Crafts, BTW) and stained glass in interior french doorways, etc., which I went to visit.  I lost some text from a computer crash in my earlier post above; i was also skeptical about the American Bungalow source, and don't know if it only covers houses for sale, i.e. is a real estate sales vehicle or not.  But the article does include photos and is valid to include in the article at least in an external source reference kind of way.  Suppose one disregards that as a source, though, there is still plenty else. --Doncram (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep satisfactorily ref'd for GNG; merge would be disproportionate to district article.Djflem (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2021 (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.