Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kit Houses of Ypsilanti, Michigan


 * 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   redirect to Kit houses in Michigan. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Kit Houses of Ypsilanti, Michigan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think it would be appropriate to list a bunch of addresses of private homes on WP even if the subject were encyclopedic. PROD removed by creator. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (see further commentary below) - if Ypsilanti really is well-known as a centre of kit home construction or something then that (provided it is verified by reliable sources) could be added to Kit houses in North America but a directory of local homes is unencyclopedic and a BLP concern. Stalwart 111  15:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete  - I see no evidence that "kit houses of Ypsilanti" is a notable topic in itself, given an apparent lack of sources, and it seems rather wp:run-of-the-mill. Nothing indicates how this would be different from "kit houses on Anywhereville, USA". There is one source about a specific house, but that doesn't extend to the topic at hand. Kit Houses of Ann Arbor, Michigan, however, presents sources that make me think that that might be notable (though it has similar issues to Ypsi). Chris857 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing to redirect to a Kit houses of Michigan/Kit houses in Michigan when such is written, as that seems a broad enough, notable enough topic that can have useful content. Chris857 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The kit houses of Ypsilanti (and Ann Arbor) are relevant to the urban development and architecture of the early 20th century in these towns. The listing of the addresses of the homes presents no more of a privacy concern than the listing of any other significant architectural feature in public or private ownership. If this is a relevant argument than none of the homes of Frank Llyod Wright, listed here, should be allowed as many of them are still private residences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kithousefans (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FLW buildings are iconic, many of them are considered notable in their own right. Our own article suggests more than 100,000 kit homes were built accross the United States. Do you plan to list every one? If someone buys a FLW home, it's more than likely they understand they are buying a piece of architectural history and that their address will be listed in a good many places like reference books and Wikipedia. I don't think someone buying one of 100,000 kit homes would expect the same. Besides which, being relevant to the history of these towns does not necessarily make them notable. Stalwart 111  23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The argument for deleting the page was that it listed the addresses of the homes, some of which are private residences. The same is true of the FLW houses. Is there a Wikipedia policy against listing addresses? Or is that just the arbitrary position of a particular user being used to justify deleting the page?


 * Also, while there have been claims that over 100,000 homes were built across the US, the number of homes remaining is much less than that. The importance of these homes in the context of these communities is likely more relevant than examples like FLW homes. FLW homes, while often notable, tell little to nothing about the historical development and architecture of these communities. In comparison, the presence of kit homes within a community tell a great deal about the history of these communities and their continued presence are notable examples of an era of architecture and industrial production in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kithousefans (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Then we need reliable sources (WP:RS) to verify (WP:V) that. You need to demonstrate that they are notable enough in that context to justify a separate article. That there are kit homes in that location is not evidence in and of itself that those kit homes are notable in that context. The inclusion of addresses isn't a reason to delete the article (because that content can be removed via editing anyway and the nominator suggested the subject was unencyclopedic) but it's worth noting that even the FLW list you cite above doesn't including individual addresses - some of the articles themselves include a street name (without a number) but going through a random sample, I haven't actually found a specific address yet. Stalwart 111  23:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * All of the FLW homes that I reviewed are geo-mapped which is effectively no different than listing the address. If you review the proposals for deletion by 'Roscelese', its based on the listing of private addresses as if that violates some Wikipedia policy, which you have acknowledge is not the case. It also appears that 'Roscelese' is using the claim that these articles are unencyclopedic as a justification for deletion when the real reason seems to be the objection to the listing of addresses. 'Roscelese' even made derogatory comments about the sourcing of the articles when the authors of those articles included a couple of experts in the field who have been published in numerous local and national publications along with being published authors themselves. That point is more relevant to the effort by 'Roscelese' to have the Ann Arbor page deleted when that article is well-sourced but highlights what appears to be a personal bias which shouldn't be part of the discussion about deleting the article.Kithousefans (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't see any "derogatory" comments but discussing sourcing is fairly routine given we require sourcing to verify content. At the moment, the article in question has one source - an article written by a local who lives in one of the houses. That source isn't particularly valuable for verifying much of what is in the article or for conferring notability on the subject. Listing addresses might be objectionable but a lack of notability is the bigger problem. Stalwart 111  01:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That comment was made in the request to delete the Ann Arbor article. Questioning the sourcing based on the publication doesn't raise confidence that the review is being done in an unbiased or an informed way. The Ypsi sourcing was not written by a "local who lives in one of the houses" but was published by the local historical society and includes its own sourcing in the article. As far as listing addresses, I've found another example of that with the list of Lustron homes that not only lists addresses but owner names as well!Kithousefans (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * From that source:
 * The local historical society might have then elected to publish it but we would still need much better sourcing, preferably some that demonstrates this might be considered a notable topic outside of a particular local area. And that statement isn't "derogatory", it's based on Wikipedia policy. Stalwart 111  01:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank your for the clarification. None the less, the article itself contains several citations beyond the author's on words and the work of the local historical society. Also, I haven't seen any Wikipedia policy that discounts works by noted authorities because they appear in a local publication.Kithousefans (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It does, but 2/3 are citations to other local coverage. The only one that might be considered okay is the preface of America's Favorite Homes by Robert Schweitzer and Michael W. R. Davis (both locals, published by a Michigan university). Reviewing that, the section that mentions the subject (kit homes in Ypsi) relates to a single class that one taught and the other attended in 1981 which seems to have inspired them to write the book. Reading it, it doesn't really discuss the subject but talks about architecture in Ypsi in general, some of which was later identified as being related to kit home construction. Like I said, it might be okay, but it's not very strong and isn't of much value in building an article. Stalwart 111  02:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your suggestion of consolidation these into a Michigan-based article is worth considering. That said, Schweitzer is a nationally-known expert on kit homes, having been published in national magazines (including American Bungalow), and "America's Favorite Homes" has been cited in numerous scholarly works. The fact that he's local to Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and that he did much of his initial research in those communities, is treated as something that detracts from the value of his work when the opposite is true, it highlights the importance of those homes to the topic. This would be like diminishing the scholarly work of an author on the US Presidents because the author happens to live in Washington DC and has their work published by a nearby university. Strange.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kithousefans (talk • contribs) 03:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Kit houses in Michigan with this draft as a base. There aren't enough sources, I think, to support articles about kit houses in individual towns. But the State of Michigan had a particularly notable role in the development of the kit house industry in the United stated during the 20s and 30s. I'd be keen to know if Chris857 would support that solution and I've started a conversation with the nominator on his talk page. Stalwart 111  04:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 12 October 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.