Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitler 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. postdlf (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hitler house

 * – ( View AfD View log )

So the Huffington Post has a picture of it in its "comedy" section. WP:N? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just trivia. Sgroupace (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Mindless "cool pic of the day" bouncing around the internets. Hopefully the "omg reliably sourced!" crowd can be kept at bay on this one. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reports of an '"omg reliably sourced!" crowd' are quite exaggerated. Tarc is referring to me (see my Delete vote below); if rules like RS get in the way of his preferences, I suggest he give a rationale for the invocation of IAR or point out a flaw in the rule, as I do, rather than attempt to categorize editors. I could build a house that looked considerably more like Hitler. Anarchangel (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per the two comments above. NickCT (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the three comments above! Pointless trivia. Ynyrhesolaf (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am not averse to coverage of lasting memes, but the few minor and ephemeral mentions found here do not notability make. Anyway, this house ought to be in Minehead.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a very minor internet meme with no claim to notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete N has not been shown; WP guidelines or WP rules do not extend to the preoccupation of the media with trivia; the article passes N with RS. Neither will I quote essays, as they are merely WP:CREEPy clones of guidelines. As there is no guideline preventing it, trivia could be included at WP, but the consensus here and on countless other AFDs is surely that it is not, and in this case I agree that this is trivial. Therefore I must invoke WP:IAR, and assert that RS to establish N is flawed in addressing sources rather than their individual content, which allows trivia from good sources and excludes good content from otherwise poor sources. It is always the ad hominem, the mis-targetted arguments at the heart of WP rules that is their greatest flaw. Anarchangel (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2011 (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.