Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largest residence in Beverly Hills


 * 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) 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Largest residence in Beverly Hills

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication that this residence is independently notable. The references only mention this house in a trivial manner, and it is not even clear that the references was not hyperbole. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Reference is a state licensed reputable real estate broker. "Near the end of 1995, JBN sold a home in Beverly Hills at 1156 Shadow Hill Way ( at that time the largest private residence in Beverly Hills)" A newspaper need only print a retraction for an error, but real estate broker has real liability for accuracy, not just financial but criminal. Liability for misrepresentation as to size would be enormous. Its also the 14th highest property taxes in Beverly Hills.. Most of the early listed residences on the property tax list are notable. PPdd (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The broker's description may be accurate, or it may not. However, we require sources that are independent of the topic, and that discuss the subject in depth.  A real estate broker has an enormous financial stake in this matter, and therefore what the broker writes is not an independent source.Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If the broker wrote "at that time the largest private residence in Beverly Hills", then that implies that it is no longer the largest residence in that city. Therefore, the specific notability claim made in the title (dubious though that claim may be) appears likely to be false.  That's another reason to delete. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - One can't argue with Cullen328's last comment, as the article title is wrong. PPdd (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think Aaron Spelling's House at 594 South Mapleton Drive Los Angeles is the one that is now bigger (though not technically in Beverly Hills). Spelling's is at the bottom of Beverly Hills (near UCLA), 1156 is at the top of the knoll. PPdd (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Does anyone know what happened to List of the largest single family residences in the United States? Here is the list on another Wiki. PPdd (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I started a new article Largest residences in Beverly Hills, and moved all the content there (and reworded it), plus added the Aaron Spelling residence. Propose delete and redirect the article to Largest residences in Beverly Hills. PPdd (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At the risk of pedantry, I have to point out that the Spelling house is not in Beverly Hills. The scope of the proposed redirect article is unclear, which makes it difficult to endorse the proposed redirect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Cullen328. In addition, 1995 is 16 years ago. How do we know it's still the largest residence? Finally, who cares? What justifies an article about the largest residence in Beverly Hills or even the largest residences (plural)? What about the most expensive, even if it's not the largest? What about the least expensive (in BH, arguably, more interesting)? If needed, such information could be added to the Beverly Hills article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I created this article and voted to delete above. I redirected it to the appropriately named artice, Largest private residences in the Beverly Hills area, which fully contains all of this article's info. If any editors voting to "keep" think it merits its own article, please undo the redirect. PPdd (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would probably vote to delete the residences (plural) article, so I don't see how its creation plus a redirect resolves anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom and other comments. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 01:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - subject of article does not appear to pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am going to reverse the redirect; that was an inappropriate action to take in the middle of an AfD discussion. Let's discuss the article on its merits, and if "redirect" is the consensus, do it then. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G10, without a redirect. Now that I have read the article, I find that the subject (the house) is not notable, and the article itself contains unsourced, negative information about a living person. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 2 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.