Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ira C. Allen 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    merge into an article for the district, which has yet to be constructed. I suggest it be done by moving this article to the appropriate title, and then adding material.  DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ira C. Allen Mansion

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Subject is not a notable politician, military officer or diplomat. Fails WP:POLITICIAN; WP:MILNG; WP:MILPEOPLE; WP:DIPLOMAT; WP:NRVE. Five bedroom bedroom B&B built by descendant of notable person seems more WP:SOAP. Vttor (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Good God! How did this not get speedy deleted? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Speedy deleted? Under what criteria? The nominator has apparently failed to read the article, and the policies cited in the nomination statement are completely irrelevant.  Yes, it's true that the subject of the article is not a notable politician, military officer or diplomat; that's because the subject of the article is a historic house.  The article is not even about a person, therefore WP:POLITICIAN, WP:MILNG, WP:MILPEOPLE, and WP:DIPLOMAT do not apply.  The article is about a historic landmark, specifically a 145-year-old, 22-room, 8000 sq. ft. mansion in Vermont.  The mansion is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places.  There is pretty much no question that this makes it over the notability bar.  ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _  13:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)  Changed vote, see below.
 * Historic? Can you tell us what historic event occurred there? I followed the ref link provided (the only one) and it does not refer to the Mansion, but to the Fair Haven Green Historic District. The house is "historic" in the same way every town has an "historic" district, when really all they mean is relatively old. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that somebody failed to read the article, but it wasn't the nom. The house is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. From the article: "Of the more than one million properties on the National Register, 80,000 are listed individually. The remainder are contributing resources within historic districts." This house is a contributing property, as the lede sentence in the article plainly states. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This was submitted for discussion about the merits of delete or keep. The article was created subsequent to the Lt. Col. Greg Parke article.  The Parke article would certainly qualify as non-notable and was submitted under WP:PROD, and I was looking here for a solution to the underlying commercial intent of the Ira C. Allen entry that was created as Parke began his new commercial endeavor at the mansion/B&B.  Using the search tool provided by the article it can be established that the Fair Haven Green Historic District exists but I can find no entry for the Ira C. Allen building.  The creator of the article provides no WP:RS.  What is known of the history appears to come, in some parts verbatim, from the Parke business website found under External Links in the article.  True, it's a nice old building but that doesn't in and of itself establish notability.  Perhaps a substantial edit plus merger to the Fair Haven, VT article might do but I don't know. Vttor (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And how exactly do "WP:POLITICIAN; WP:MILNG; WP:MILPEOPLE; WP:DIPLOMAT; WP:NRVE" apply to this building? ‑Scottywong | spout _  20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to downgrade my vote to Keep for now, only because I've been unable to find the mansion in the NRHP search. I'll keep looking to see what I can find.  But let's be clear that this article doesn't satisfy any WP:CSD requirements, nor are any of the guidelines cited in the nomination statement relevant to it.  ‑Scottywong | spout _  20:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NRVE applies. And this is not a speedy deletion. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just so that we're clear, I didn't nominate this article for Speedy Deletion. You'll find that the text I used was related to that which I used at the Greg Parke article.  Sorry for any confusion but I see the two articles as more than merely tangentially related and didn't want to pretend otherwise.  My purpose was to get discussion and determine some sort of consensus.  I'm not that experienced and so hadn't realized that moving on from just WP:PROD so that discussion would occur would then lead to a voting process.  It is my view that notability has not been established, thus WP:NRVE.  Given the link to the business, its history page and the history as described in the article, WP:SOAP is also a consideration. I hope that helps to clarify.  Vttor (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand you didn't nominate this article for speedy deletion. My comments were in response to Tom Reedy's deletion rationale, which is "Good God! How did this not get speedy deleted?"  ‑Scottywong | chatter _  23:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just my opinion but I think you spinning this up more than it needs to be. Tom Reedy's remarks were an aside.  I'm presuming that yours about me, "The nominator has apparently failed to read the article," and that the "mansion is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places," thus far unproven, were similarly intended.  Now the meme that a speedy deletion was being sought has bled over to the Article Rescue Squadron from which you've sought solace (below).  Could you turn this down a notch or two?  Of course, if I've misunderstood the tenor that these discussions are intended to immediately escalate to, my regrets.  Thanks.  Vttor (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 23:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it mentioned in the book Insight Guide: New England? I see "Marble Inn" and "marble mansion" but not Marble Mansion Inn. Can't search inside properly to see what it says. If its not on the National Register of Historic Places or some notable state list of significant places worthy of mention, then it might not be notable.  D r e a m Focus  23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems off from the description in the article by about a decade. The room numbers also seem a bit off - 13 from the article you've found vs the 22 mentioned in the Ira C. Allen Mansion .  Marble is a common material used in this region for the construction of homes during the 19th and early 20th century, so there are plenty of varying sizes and styles which could account for the apparent differences between the structure in the article and the one you found via Insight Guide: New England.  Can one notation from what appears to be a travel guide confer notability?  Thanks.  Vttor (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't like sources taken from a snippet book view. I see too many of those types of Google book search sources, and they should be banned. We don't figure out what we want to say and then go searching for a source to back it up; an encyclopedia article is a comprehensive summary of the most reliable information about a subject. I really tire of editors who think that sourcing an article from the internet is scholarship and editors who think Wikipedia is some kind of marketing tool for their benefit. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd need to concur. At the ARS that now has been gone to, in lieu of meaningful discussion, I mentioned that I'm seeking a text, I believe it's published by the Vermont Division of Historic Preservation, that may be helpful.  Snippets may serve as a starting point but without the full context any number of conclusions may be drawn.  Reliance solely on the content available on the Intertubes is overrated.  Vttor (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge with a Fair Haven Green Historic District (not to be confused with Fair Haven Village Historic District which surrounds the FHGHD). Vttor (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate vote. You're the nominator, you've already voted by nominating this article for deletion.  ‑Scottywong | chat _  14:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unstruck. So we are clear, no one is "voting"; no straw poll is underway.  My stated "purpose was to get discussion and determine some sort of consensus."  My present position reflects what I have learned both here and at the list of content for rescue consideration that you went to for assistance.  Or are you the only person who is allowed to learn and change your opinion of from *Speedy Keep to * Speedy Keep?  Please refrain from seeking to alter my opinions by any means other than discussion.  My mind remains open to factual presentation.  Who knows, you might even convince me to *Keep although that seems a remote possibility, at best.  Vttor (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Vttor, please familiarize yourself with the norms of AfD before accusing me of altering your opinions. When an administrator comes to close this discussion, they're going to look at the bolded votes.  As the nominator, you're assumed to be arguing for the deletion of the article.  Therefore, inserting another bolded vote may confuse the administrator into thinking that you are a new participant in the discussion.  Comment all you want, but please refrain from entering something that looks like a bolded vote, to avoid confusion.  Note that I'm not accusing you of doing this purposely with the intent of confusing the closing admin.  ‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#224422;">| confess _  21:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Often what are perceived to be norms versus what is allowed or prohibited can be confused. Since you've brought this up here, please state unequivocally whether one may re-consider one's opinion in an AfD that was proposed by that person.  Thank you.  Vttor (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply/Comment: Yes, one can, but you need to make it clear as to what you're doing. In this case, the bolded text should have read "Revised nomination !vote to delete or merge" or something similar. You can even withdraw your nomination, which only closes the discussion if no one else has supported deletion. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The only problem is the fact that your comments are formatted to look exactly like a vote from a new editor.  I have no problem with you letting us know that you've modified your opinion, I only have a problem with the way you've formatted it.  The bold text is all I'm complaining about.  But, considering that we've sufficiently beaten the dead horse, I think the closing admin has plenty of warning that there are duplicate votes.  Btw, the tool you referred to below isn't malfunctioning, it's just getting confused for the same reason a closing admin might get confused (i.e. because the nominator appears to have made a second bolded vote).  Anyway, I'm done discussing this, I'm going to move on to something else.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#444444;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#442244;">| gossip _  19:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jorgath: Thanks.  I'll be certain to remember that for the future.  Vttor (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Scottywong: I'm not so sure that adequately explains why your device assigns someone else's so-called "vote" (although I seem to recall reading that such tallies are not precisely what occurs), yours in this case, to me.  Your "vote," attached to your signature, has been assigned to my signature.  To me that seems to point to a defect rather than mechanical confusion.  Since you've moved on, I suppose the "vote" assignment glitch or confused operation will be something for someone else to correct.  Oddly, when I "voted" on the AfD that I'd proposed here, no one felt compelled to tamper with said "vote."  Perhaps a word of counsel to me as was done by Jorgath or Tom Reedy might have been the more judicious, as well as less contentious, course to take, but then, as you said, you're done discussing this so I'm not anticipating an explanation.  Vttor (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've received a text that may be of considerable benefit to this discussion. It's "The Historic Architecture of Rutland County; Vermont State Register of Historic Places" published by the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, ISBN 0-9619912-0-8 wherein it states that "(t)he activity that is the subject of this publication has been financed in part by Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior." The Fair Haven section is covered in pages 121-140. Pgs. 121-127 covers the history of the town and residents. Pgs. 128 & 129 are of maps, Town of Fair Haven and Fair Haven Village, respectively. Pgs. 130-132 describe 105 "Sites Listed in the State Register of Historic Places" in the Town proper. Starting on page 133 is a section about the Fair Haven Green Historic District (map on page 134), with a listing that commences on page 134 of the buildings that comprise the Fair Haven Green Historic District. The building in question is number A33 (page 135), described as "House, 1867, Architect/builder A.C. Hobson.  French Second Empire style, stone, Mansard roof, 2 1/2 stories.  Features: belvedere, marble, porte cohere, hood moldings, transom, quoins, enriched cornice, enriched frieze, Italianate porch." Also listed on the property are two out buildings: A33a Pump House c. 1885, and A33b Carriage Barn c. 1875. No building in the district is singled out as a separate landmark, while the Fair Haven Green Historic District is labeled as "Listed in the National Register of Historic Places" (pg. 134). Vttor (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IOW, no notability, unless every contributing property in a historic district in every town of the U.S. is notable. According to National Register of Historic Places, that would be about 920,000 buildings, with 30,000 added every year. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Changed from keep above, my assumption that this house was listed on the NRHP was incorrect. There doesn't appear to be enough sourcing available to substantiate the mansion's notability.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#772277;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#777777;">| chat _  21:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge I am reiterating my opinion that this article should either be deleted from Wikipedia in its entirety or merged to a prospective article regarding the Fair Haven Green Historical District.  My reasons for such have been stated above.  Absent a written policy, I do not recognize <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#772277;letter-spacing:0.2em;">Scottywong 's authority as an administrator to somehow freeze my opinion for the sake of his counting device or to strike it for same. Unless some policy has been disclosed that allows <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#772277;letter-spacing:0.2em;">Scottywong, as an administrator, to impose undeclared and unannouced conditions to consensus discussions, I must insist that my Delete or Merge position remain, no matter how that might impact his hidden crowd counting tally ticker.  Afterall, and somewhat ironically, his device assigned me his own original "vote" of Speedy Keep.  Looks like Scotty's tool needs some work.  Vttor (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool tool; bookmarked for future use.
 * See WP:Guide to deletion. "Nominations already imply a recommendation to delete the article, unless the nominator specifically says otherwise, and to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations." I believe an "or Merge" option would render a listed opinion from the nom acceptable under the "unless the nominator specifically says otherwise" exception, though.
 * And all admins make mistakes; be thankful you ran into one that will admit it. I've run into a few who won't, no matter what they promised when they first ran for the position. Be forgiving. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd thought I'd been clear and had a grasp of the policy. My inclination is to follow the evidence and decide accordingly, even if that means a shift in my position, which I believe I'm ethically obliged to do.  What I find troubling is the unnecessary tone that seems to arise in these dscussions.  Experience has taught me that often when someone comes out firing for no apparent reason, there's an underlying cause whch has nothing to do with the matter at hand.  I think we find that here.  I do appreciate it when I find someone who, from what I can see, is new to his role and has the fundemental character traits necessary to become an asset in that role.
 * Thank you for the kind counsel. Vttor (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2012 (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.