Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoddard House


 * 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Stoddard House

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable building, WP:notability states - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. It seems that this building hasn't. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as with this editor's other articles, it exists solely to promote his tour. With no sources other than his tour, it's not encyclopedic. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I object to the tone of that remark. It would be absurd to suggest that the author is trying to promote the tour in order to gain financial fortune, if that is what you are implying.  Otherwise, you don't know and can't know what is the author's entire motivation.  You should just focus on saying why you believe the article is not wikipedia notable, and leave out the speculation. doncram (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I object to the editor in question's contributions—he's got a COI, he doesn't use summaries, he    without discussion, he has zero edits to article talk pages, he creates articles that duplicate material elsewhere in WP, and so on... I have trouble AGF with him, because he doesn't appear to want to create a better encyclopedia—only a better Oyster Bay encyclopedia. And that's not what WP is about, imo. If he starts to work with others to create a single good-sized "History of OB" article, I'd be much less cynical. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced the problem is so serious it cannot be solved through editing the tone of the article. Have you tried to find sources? - Mgm|(talk) 09:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I am far from sure as to the merits of the building as such. However, it appears to have had significant contents, namely a collection of genalogical material (now removed).  The article might be restructured into one on Townsend Society of America, currently a redlink.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Neither the house nor the society are notable. We might next look at Oyster Bay History Walk, and those building named therein that are not actual historical monuments. DGG (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would very much support having one central discussion about multiple articles, rather than separate AfD's. doncram (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest central discussion should be held at Talk:Oyster Bay History Walk, which could result in expansion of that article and in converting some currently short articles into redirects to it, per a suggestion by User:Tim Ross. doncram (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Currently the article is short on material, sources about the house itself. The photo is great, and should be used as a side thumbnail illustration and/or included in a subsection on this house in the walking tour article and/or the "History of Oyster Bay" article that has been suggested in another one of these multiple discussions. doncram (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2009 (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.