Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidential Village, Maynard, Massachusetts


 * 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 keep. Sources identified during the course of this AfD have convinced those originally arguing for deletion to change their opinion. No consensus on a possible title change; if you wish to pursue that, continue to discussion on the article talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Presidential Village, Maynard, Massachusetts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deletion proposed for lack of notability. Presidential Village is an informal name for a small part (approx 250 houses) in Maynard, Massachusetts. This is not a town-identified historic district. All of the information is already covered in a list of sites of interest in the entry for Maynard, Massachusetts. Page is getting only 1-2 visits per day. David notMD (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is no argument for deletion provided. "250 houses" is not an argument.  Wikipedia article viewership is not a reason.  The article has two sources which are not disputed at all.  There are many articles in Wikipedia about neighborhoods, and this sounds like a well-defined one, with sources.  About whether more sources exist, it would be necessary to search on alternative names stated in the article, too:  New Village, Reardonville, and Mahoneyville.
 * (and try without double quotes)
 * (and try without double quotes)
 * (and try without double quotes)
 * To reiterate, though, searching is not necessary if there is no deletion rationale provided. In fact shouldn't this be a Speedy Keep? -- do  ncr  am  03:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The following passage:"In 1901, the Reardon farm and in 1902 the Mahoney farm were purchased by the American Woolen Company, it erected one hundred and twenty tenaments, with their own sewerage system. The streets were named after Presidents of the United States - Harrison, McKinley, Roosevelt, Cleveland, Hayes, Arthur, Grant and Garfield. This section of the town was at one time known as 'Reardonville' and 'Mahoneyville', but with the laying out of streets and building houses it became known as the 'New Village'. In 1918, the Gorham Brown farm was purchased by the American Woolen Company, tenaments built, and one of the new streets named for Frank J. DeMars, the first Maynard man to fall in battle in World War 1."
 * appears in this Maynard Street Names webpage. -- do ncr  am  03:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't see the actual article, but the following found in one of the Google Scholar searches (after stripping quote marks) appears to have coverage: "From Mill Town to Mill Town: The Transition of a New England Town from a Textile to a High-Technology Economy", by John R. Mullin, Jeanne H. Armstrong & Jean S. Kavanagh / Pages 47-59 | Published online: 26 Nov 2007 / Download citation  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944368608976858 . -- do  ncr  am  03:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This huge academic article on the Assebet Wool Mills and related housing and more is something i found linked from the external links or references section of the Maynard, Massachusetts article. There is extensive info on the mill's choice to develop worker housing, etc., which seems to be about this area, although I am not familiar enough with the area and these sources to work it all out exactly.  However, this establishes there is plenty of material around, IMHO, and I will stop now. -- do  ncr  am  04:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: My proposal for deletion was for lack of notability, not lack of references. (NOTE: Neither of the last two proposed references, Mullen 2007 and Mullen 1992, touch on Presidential Village.) I would have proposed Merge, but the content is already incorporated into "Sites of Interest" in the Maynard, Massachusetts article as "New Village," which is how it was described when being built. David notMD (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Your deletion nomination and this statement are both false, if interpreted as asserting that all content is in that Maynard article. Not all of it is there.  And, what is there is subject to deletion there, if it does not link to the article with sources and more substantial info.  Also, the article currently asserts that the Presidential Village neighborhood was started by the American Woolen Company "in 1903 as rented mill worker housing - small houses on small lots", and the Mullin sources include info about the company's worker housing, so it seems to me that the Mullins sources are relevant.  But I do acknowledge that I am not familiar with this area. -- do  ncr  am  20:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I will make this simple. In my opinion, "Presidential Village" fails GNG. I have read both of Mullin's documents. Neither is any way touches on Presidential Village by that or any other name. The one you found access to but it appears did not read deals only with mill and worker housing while Maynard family still involved (to 1898), while the other deals with the decline of the mill, its closing in 1950, and after. The neighborhood in question is not designated a historic district by town or any other agency. I am familiar with the history of Maynard, being a member of the Maynard Historical Society and having had published two books on the history of Maynard. David notMD (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do grant that you obviously seem to know a lot more about the topic area, and I am inclined to want to defer to you. A small "on the other hand" is that a local expert can be too critical of their own area and may be overly negative about the notability/merit of the local history.  There certainly are many worker housing areas near manufacturing plants elsewhere which have been designated NRHP historic districts, and there are also many coherent neighborhoods built up in the 1900s which are designated historic districts, and I think from afar that it is possible this neighborhood is as worthy as some of those others.  But if there really isn't any documentation available anywhere about this (and that is what you must be saying in your judgment that it does not meet GNG), then i will indeed defer.  I won't strike my "vote" in case this leads to informed others commenting too, but I don't mind being out-voted if that is what happens here. -- do  ncr  am  03:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comfortable with that. When I nominated this for deletion I did notify the creator, who has yet to comment, so will see if more information is provided. David notMD (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

*Delete: I'm at a bit of a loss as to see how a nomination that began with "Deletion proposed for lack of notability" doesn't provide a rationale for deletion, and perhaps WP:ATA should be amended to add WP:IONLYREADTHEPARTSIDISAGREEWITH or some such. That being said, no one familiar with AfD needs reminding that the mere mention of a subject by sources does not meet the GNG; those sources must give "significant coverage" to the subject. None of the sources presented do that, and the simple fact that sources exist referencing Maynard's past as a mill town is nothing either unusual or by necessity granting significant coverage to this particular neighborhood: New England is riddled with milltowns, and the small rural municipality in the Berkshires in which I live have three with independent identities. Barring reliable sources that discuss this one neighborhood at length -- and we cannot just make airy assumptions that they exist ("seems to be about this area" seemingly code for "I haven't the faintest idea, actually"), it must be demonstrated that they do -- there are no grounds for keeping this.   Ravenswing   13:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ravenswing, FYI i interpreted the first short sentence "Deletion proposed for lack of notability" as a topic sentence, followed by other sentences which did not support it at all IMO. There was no mention of performing wp:BEFORE or any specific comment on availability or not of sources.  In further interaction, the deletion nominator did provide further info, but I think my initial reaction that the nomination was not supported by any valid arguments was justified.  I take your suggestion of "I only read the parts I disagree with" to be amusing but not applicable, in all fairness, to my participation here. :) -- do  ncr  am  20:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Me, the nominator, and the one person who is NOT a Platinum Star Editor, is going to tiptoe out of this discussion and await whatever happens to my first AfD. David notMD (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, to be absolutely frank, Doncram, before you take noms to task for (putatively) not fulfilling WP:BEFORE, you should be examining the sources you do find for applicability to the subject. Throwing up a source that you haven't even read and claiming that means that there "appears to be coverage" is sloppy and does the process a disservice.   Ravenswing   21:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, au contraire. I provided one reference which I clearly explained that i did not have access to, and it is unfair to complain that I did not read it.  I provided another reference link to a long text which I did browse in enough to explain what I saw, and I further acknowledged being unfamiliar with the area so I was unsure of its exact relevance, but it is turning out that it was indeed relevant.  This is not strident advocacy of one position, this is constructive discussion.  Hectoring another editor, and doubling down with insults when challenged, is the only disservice I see present on this page.  And it seems to be turning out that it was your impression of the topic, not mine, which was the incorrect one. -- do  ncr  am  19:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This housing estate built by a woolen company appears to have been something of a thing back in the day. WP:HEY, take a look at the material I added from the Boston Globe.  From back when it was called New Village. (apologies for the paywalled source.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking my delete vote; those are good cites, E.M.Gregory, and good work digging them up.   Ravenswing   19:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Category needed I know we must have a category for mill workers housing. America's old mill towns have lots of housing estates and tenements built by by factories and rented ot workers. I've never seen one that looks like this.  Even the ones that have rows of single-families, are cookie cutter.   User:doncram, do you know what that category is called? - maybe you know.  I also wonder if this gets written up in the scholarly literature under some other name, like the name of the company. Extremely novel in this category WP:OR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just created Category:Company housing, surprising, really, the major categories no one ever thought to create.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to be an interesting company town, passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From the nominator - I was not aware of the Boston Globe article. I am willing to withdraw my nomination, but will ask if this should be renamed "New Village, Maynard, Massachusetts" rather than "Presidential Village, Maynard, Massachusetts" as the first is the more appropriate historical name? However, people who live there, when asked where they live, either say the presidential district or just a street name. At 115 years after creation, no one refers to it as "New Village." David notMD (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2017 (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.