Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McAndrews Estate


 * 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   no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

McAndrews Estate

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Disputed PROD. An article about a former estate on the grounds of a New York park with no obvious claim to notability. It appears to fail the GNG; the references and links listed consist of a town history published by the town council, a city council document that mentions it in a list of 59 "MPC places of importance", a New York Times article that does not mention the physical estate at all (only the battle over the inheritance that presumably contained it), and several maps of the grounds. It's possible that the first qualifies as a reliable secondary source giving nontrivial coverage, but I think the others are a stretch. A bit of what's here could potentially be moved into the Crugers, New York article. Khazar (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because it is basically trivial. This is just real estate. Every parcel has its own history, in other nations generally going much farther back than in New York state. If plans go forward and it is restored to be an historical site, then an article could be considered. I wish those involved well, but delete the article for now.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So does this mean no parcel of land is ever a candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia? This is a 100 acre property that was once a grand estate, owned by prominent members of the civic and buisness community, foreign diplomats, and contemporaries of the Rockafellers. Furthermore it has been an area that generations of residents have interacted with and have interest in. The group involved in researching (and possible preserving/restoring) the property grows every week, a valuable process that Wikipedia has clearly been a catalyst for. If preservation efforts move forward it will provide context for this historical significance, but that significance already exists. Wespomeroy (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think the bar is being set too high on this. It's not a slam dunk, but the article and the primary reference listed do indeed meet the guidelines documented directly in the GNG and related articles. In particular:


 * Reliable_sources / Reliability - The primary source for this article is a book called "The History of the Town of Cortlandt", which was *not* written by the 'town council' but by a group of local authors and historians that made up the 'Town of Cortlandt Bicentennial' committee. The book references hard research - for instance court, land, and tax records maintained by Westchester County. It may also be worth noting that Cortlandt is not a tiny village. It in and of itself is rich in history, one of the first areas on the continent settled by Dutch and English immigrants. This wasn't Bill and Marla deciding to write a book. It was a government-sponsored, professional, endeavor.


 * Independent_sources - The authors of the primary reference material had no personal connection to the topic. They had no ownership stake in the property, or family connections to anyone who lived or worked there.


 * Significant coverage - The 'History of the Town of Cortlandt' mentions the property in several areas, following it's history across almost a century, relating it to other localized events and locations of historical significance. The mentions of the McAndrews Estate are not 'trivial', they are substantive.


 * Sources - The main reference is absolutely a 'secondary source'. The guidelines clearly state that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage". In this cases the amount of information in the article is tangible but not extensive, thus the reason why there is only one primary source. Furthermore the guidelines state that "Multiple sources are generally expected". Note the terms 'generally' and 'expected', as opposed to 'always required'. This is not a frivolous or commercially-oriented topic. It relates to local history in what is a very historic region. If this isn't a situation where one reference would suffice, what is? The other references and external links (which I agree are questionable standing on their own) are intended to corroborate the research and facts stated in the primary reference.


 * Independent of the subject - Neither the author of the article (myself) or the authors of the reference material reference work are 'affiliated with the subject' (e.g. self-publicity, advertising, etc.)


 * I feel the persistent effort to delete this page seem to be overly critical and at odds with Wikimedia's Mission_statement. How would the removal of this page (who's actual content does not seem to be in debate) serve the broader community? I understand the need to maintain the bar of quality and consistency - really I do - but this seems a classic case of cutting of your nose to spite your face, and I question if the criticism here truly reflects objective and legitimate concerns about the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wespomeroy (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - I agree the bar is being set far too high. I don't think it is trivial, it may well be of local interest, but locally it will be notable. Although there are some omissions and defects - for example, some photos would help and the text needs developing - this is the sort of article that pleasantly surprises you when you type in a subject name into the search box. Definitely keep. Rickedmo (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rickedmo, I understand finding the subject charming--I do too--but could you expand on how you see it as meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Again, the only source for this article appears to be a single book self-published by the town for its anniversary; I'm sympathetic, but I don't see how that clears the GNG. (Whether the GNG need to be rewritten, as seems to be the implication of the "Keep" comments here, is a worthy discussion, but one for another section & day.) Khazar (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think the point of the article is missing in the deletion debate. This is a county-owned property that is essentially an undeveloped park.  Whether the significant enough, and whether the property is listed as a landmark, should also be issues to consider. In this case, it is potentially notable.  Many other such properties have articles, from South County Museum to Old Sturbridge Village.  I'd like to find out more about this property's history and significance before taking a more definitive stand. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After a bit of research, I'm getting the idea that this should possibly be weak keep and move to Oscawana Park instead. The fight over the estate is not  major legal precedent.  However, I now realize that I've seen the park; the Metro North Hudson line and Amtrak trains cut through it, and there are free images available (see, e.g.,   ).  There are some developed trails, historic ruins, mapping info, and is an  official site for filming.  There are not a lot of news stories, but I think the sources already in there, as well as potential others, would add up to barely passing general notability. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (editconflict)Comment I'm surprised that other editors see this as an ambiguous case or keep; even the article's creator (Wes) appears to agree that at most, we have only one secondary source here, which is borderline for "independent", as it was published by the town itself. (For comparison, my own hometown chamber of commerce has published a book detailing the history of hundreds of shops and houses, yet it's hard to imagine this qualifying them each for their own Wikipedia article). Several eds, including Wes and myself, have searched for even a second source without success (see the article talk page), and nobody's proposed a separate criterion this should fall under rather than the GNG. Perhaps as the AfD initiator I'm just too close to see it, but doesn't the lack of sources make this a slam dunk? Khazar (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Berian's proposed Keep and move works for me, as the park appears to have at least basic RSs and potential for further expansion. Though some rewriting will be necessary to avoid giving the estate undue weight in the article as it only appears to be one section of this park. I'd also suggest that WP:COI advertising (the stated reason for this article's creation) for the restoration project be kept to a minimum, until this restoration attains some sort of notability as well (local news coverage, etc.) Khazar (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This topic got major press coverage today. See the latest reference that I added to the article Wespomeroy (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Comment - I think it's time to put this issue to rest. This topic has now recieved two major pieces of press, from the Journal News and the Peekskill-Cortlandt Patch, the largest print and online publications in this area. Over 70 people showed up at a tour this past weekend - quite a large crowd for a topic whose notability is being questioned. The main criticism here was in regard to 'notability', but again the GNG states that "Multiple sources are generally expected" and NOT 'always required'. Khazar essentially admits as much by saying the GNG may "need to be rewritten". It doesn't work both ways. Either the GNG is fine as it is and the article is notable, or the GNG needs to be changed and the article should still fine because it predates the rules change. But that should be a moot point, because again there are now multiple references. In addition, I seriously doubt the objectivity of Khazar, the main advocate for the delation of this page. I think this is becoming more about 'winning' or 'being right'. In addition to the inconsistency raised regarding the GNG, they also claim on this page that this is a "slam dunk" for deletion, only to then quickly agree that it should be a 'weak keep and move'. How can both be true? There was also an incident where they falsely accused me of being a spammer and using Wikipedia to "promote my personal projects". If there is a legitmate concern with this article, why is my every move being watched and false assumptions so quickly made? My point is that there is only one real critic here, Khazar, and their objectivity as a moderator on this system should be called into question. Finally, this deletion topic has now twice been relisted. There is obviously no clear consensus, and the references and notability of the article have continued to strengthen. Wespomeroy (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Brief Response: I agree that the local media coverage helps (though "major press" is a little optimistic) and potentially allows this to clear notability, though merging this into an article on the park overall still seems to me the best solution, as the larger park is more clearly notable. To clarify the issue that Wes regarding linkspam, the IP address from which Wes has been editing also has recently been adding linkspam on behalf of Wes's company (which turned out to be linkspamming and deleting links and information about rivals through other accounts as well); when Wes stated that he shared this IP with a coworker, I offered to delete my warning at his talk page. As for objectivity, I can only state that I have no personal connection to McAndrews Estate or Wes, and if other editors see the new sources as making this topic notable enough for inclusion, that's fine with me. In any case, since Wes seems to be interpreting this AfD as a personal issue between us, I'm happy to bow out after this note. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The last two sources are too local, and even with those there isn't enough to meet notability - frankie (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please expand on that? The Journal News is the only remaining broad-circulation newspaper in Westchester County. It reaches 122k housholds in an area with almost 1M people. Does something have to receive coverage on a national level to be consider notable (I doubt it)? Also, can you clarify which part of the GNG proves the notability of this topic to be insufficient? I've provided an analysis of the GNG guidelines above, which to this point no one has refuted. What is the point of having guidelines if they are applied subjectively? Wespomeroy (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the guidelines represent the community standing on the matter, but since it is not possible to foresee the specific circumstances of every case, the guidelines are written in a generic manner that is meant to guide editors in how to assess the validity of specific articles. That has the consequence that the guideline will be taken subjectively, and I believe that it is in the spirit of the project that we acknowledge and address our subjectivity as a personal issue, specially to identify whether we are being biased. Personally, after reviewing the available sources and searching for potential extras (which I couldn't find), I think that the coverage is not significant enough to meet WP:GNG. Local coverage is not automatically discarded but national coverage is certainly preferred, since local sources tend to provide undue value to local matters given that their main audience holds a keen interest in them - frankie (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Considering the size of the estate, the money that was associated with this estate historically, the notoriety of Guillaume Reusens that I infer from the court cases that get called up in a Google search on his name, and the estate's current use as a public park, it's a bit surprising that this isn't already established as an open-and-shut case of notability. No it's not all that surprising -- chalk it up to recentism. If the building had been demolished in 1999 instead of 1969, I believe there would be no doubt as to its notability. Additionally, news coverage about the estate has been popping up all over Westchester County . I predict that additional sources will turn up soon if the article is kept. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 10 June 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.