Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summerwind


 * 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. Delete !voters' attempts to dismiss the sources provided are unavailing; Oakshade, in particular, presents stronger arguments. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Summerwind

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a supposedly haunted mansion in Wisconsin - entirely sourced to paranormal and ghost/supernatural enthusiast sites and books. Objective and independent coverage that would demonstrate notability is lacking. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Topic has received very extensive book coverage  as well as articles in the Huffington Post, Quad-City Times and Wisconsin Trails. .  The Discovery Channel did an entire, if cheesy, documentary about this topic. --Oakshade (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC) EDIT: added another book. --Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Most all of the books you cite are of the non-serious paranormal entertainment genre, for example, from the foreword of the book you just added: "Our goal is to at least make you jump a little when the doorbell rings. If not completely disturb you to the point of sleeplessness". Authors and publishers who openly state their purpose is to scare readers are definitely not to be used as a reliable source of fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if it is of your opinion that sources are "non-serious", "non-serious" sources, provided they are in-depth, reliable and independent of the subject are considered valid sources establishing WP:GNG. Even Identifying reliable sources states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."  Any sources being of the "paranormal" genre does not in any manner negate them from being valid sources solely based on that them being of that genre. --Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Oakshade, but add that the mansion is connected to (in fact built for) Robert Patterson Lamont, a former United States Secretary of Commerce. Paris1127 (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a source besides Von Bober's ghost story that says Lamont owned that property? Did his book reference land records? How much of the backstory is true if it is in a ghost story book? --Dual Freq (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post : "In 1916 US Secretary of Commerce Robert Lamont who served under the Herbert Hoover administration built Summerwind for himself and his family on the shores of West Bay Lake in northeast Wisconsin, the mansion was an escape from the pressures of political life in Washington D.C. during the summer months.”, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/Wisconsin Trails,: "Summerwind Mansion was built as a fishing lodge in the early 1900s and remodeled in 1916 by Robert Lamont, who would go on to be U.S. Secretary of Commerce under Herbert Hoover.” --Oakshade (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They're just retelling Von Bober's ghost story with the background he provided. We still don't know if any of that is true or which parts are true. The travel article is written by Chad Lewis, "Paranormal researcher" He also writes stories about UFO's and Bigfoot. The article should be about the ghost story, the structure is basically a character in the story, similar to what I was saying with the Amityville horror book. The house there is also real, it is a real location, and it is also a character of sorts in the book. This is the same thing. The notability is in the tale, not the house. We should not be telling a ghost story on wikipedia and pretending we know what's true and what's not in these sources. We should not be presenting this stuff as facts. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that Huffington Post reporter Corey Schjoth or Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/Wisconsin Trails writer Chad Lewis didn't do proper research and only decided Robert Patterson Lamont remodeled and lived in the mansion from reading Von Bober's story or is this just your original research speculation?--Oakshade (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The evidence I have is that in the context of ghost stories, these types of stories are not reliable as references for historical facts. We could use them to cite the fact that there is a ghost story that is being told, but not for real historical details about a real location. They are not serious sources for real facts, just fun stories to entertain with extra details which may or may not be true. If it was a source that was making a critical analysis of the legend then that would be a source that could be used. One that we are certain did due diligence and independent research beyond taking "facts" out of The Carver Effect . These are not purporting to state serious facts with critical analysis. They don't pass the smell test. Entertaining, yes, factual? We can't know that since they don't make clear where their information is coming from. (most likely they come from Von Bober's original book, which is the original source of all of this) See also The Amityville Horror. Its the same thing, a scary story set in a real location. Story is notable, location is just a regular old, non-notable house. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your context speculation is not evidence, just original research speculation. Do you have any shred of actual evidence that these working writers didn't do basic research work (looking up property records, etc.) and based there content that Robert Patterson Lamont remodeled and lived in the mansion from reading Von Bober's story?  I should remind you that WP:BLP applies to non-article space and slandering reporters by claiming they based their content on an un-reliable source is subject to removal of that claim.--Oakshade (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ask around. The reliability of Huffpo is typically judged on a case by case basis. They do a lot of factual reality-based reportage, and they also do a lot of tabloid sensationalism: Dumb Crime, UFO, Conspiracy Theories, World Records, Paranormal, Anatomical Wonders, Zombie Apocalypse, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of people don't like the Pulitzer Prize winning Huffpo. In each of those "challenges", the community shot down those charges of Huffpo "unreliability." Of those links, have a look at this one where every response practically laughed at the Huffpo "unreliablity" charge with dubious sources to back up those unreliability claims.  Anyway, is there any actual evidence of the slanderous claim that working writers Corey Schjoth and Chad Lewis didn't do basic research work (looking up property records, etc.) and based there content that Robert Patterson Lamont remodeled and lived in the mansion from reading Von Bober's story or is this original research guessing?--Oakshade (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Oakshade-Summerwind is part of the history of Vilas County, Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If Summerwind was a legitimate historic landmark it would be easy to find on sites such as Wisconsin Historical Society or the Nation Register of Historic Places. I'm having a hard time finding it on any legitimate (non ghost) sites, so maybe someone could help me. The article makes a lot of WP:REDFLAG claims: e.g. a human skull was found on property but not reported to police, that owner Hinshaw suffered a breakdown due to the hauntings, his wife attempted suicide driven by supernatural events, and the house would change its dimensions to prevent workers from measuring it. All this stuff is cited to very WP:QUESTIONABLE sources: Unsolved Mysteries, Ghosts of the Prairie, A Guidebook to Ghostly Abodes, Sacred Sites, UFO Landings, and Other Supernatural Locations, The Carver Effect: A Paranormal Experience, summerwindmansion.com, and more. Such sources fit the profile of "poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight, websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or Move to The Carver Effect or The Carver Effect: A Paranormal Experience and focus on the 1979 Von Bober book. This is based on the treatment of the much more famous The Amityville Horror book article. If any allegedly haunted structure is worthy of its own article, I would think it would be that house. In my opinion, this Summerwind story seems to originate solely from Von Bober's book similar to the Amityville story. The history is based on Von Bober's stories on his website and I'm not sure that it can be considered a reliable source. IMHO, the structure itself is not notable, non-historical, but the "Carver Effect" story of the supposed haunting is probably notable based on the media stories, Discovery Channel and books that followed talking about alleged hauntings. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Update - I'm fine with deletion. The house itself is non-notable, the ghost story, which originated from Von Bober's book is the thing that all the sources are writing about. They all appear to originate from Von Bober's book, The Carver Effect, and like the Amityville Horror, it is the book / films / story that is notable, not the house. I'm fine with an article about Von Bober's book, but lets not pretend that this article has more than that one source. All the post 1979 sources originate from Von Bober's tale and cite it. There are no reliable sources here that are doing anything more than retelling his story and there are no sources older than Von Bober's book. No newspapers, books, nothing from 1916 to 1979. summerwindmansion.com is Von Bober's website. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That non-existent article would be about the Carver Effect. This topic and all the sources are specifically about this house.  As per WP:GNG, if a topic has received significant in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources as this topic has in abundance, then it is considered notable.  All the sources listed here, not the Von Borber book, either give zero mention of the Carver Effect or give a very small percentage of coverage to it as compared to the location. --Oakshade (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My point was that there appears to be no ghost story until Von Bober made one up in the late 1970s. The rest of the stories come from the lore he created. All the history in this article comes from Von Bober's website. The house was not notable or historical before the book and it is the ghost story that people are writing about, not the structure itself, which doesn't even exist anymore. The evidence here is much thinner than the Amityville house and the articles on wikipedia are about the book and films, not the house. The current article would simply be moved to a new name and slightly reworded to be about the book and the lore that followed it. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And that lore can be included in the context of this article. We're not talking about the believability of the evidence - I don't believe it, but the notability of this location based on the coverage this location was given.  Even if the evidence of the actual is thin, that still doesn't make the coverage of this house disappear.  A supposed haunted house can be be notable because of the thin evidence.  The Amityville "hauntings" were a gigantic hoax in my and others opinions, but that doesn't make the house less notable as it easily passes WP:GNG regardless if it was subject to an actual haunting.  The same goes for this.  As long as the proper coverage is given to it, it's considered notable per WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As for your additional !vote comment, GNG doesn't negate later significant coverage and the topic's continued notability due to the notability originally being instigated by an earlier source.--Oakshade (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The topic of the ghost story has coverage, but the topic of the house does not have reliable sources that don't come from Von Bober. The rest of the post 1979 sources are using what Von Bober said. His book is not a reliable source about real estate, but it would be a reliable source about the haunting story, since it originated it. The house has no significant coverage, while the book and the coverage of the ghost story the book was about are covered. I'm sure you must see the distinction between a source retelling a ghost story and significant reliable source coverage of a piece of real estate. That is why I suggested just moving it to an article about the book. The book exists and has been referenced. The rest of the sources you linked above are not reliable for the purposes of historical accuracy regarding property ownership, etc. Since they appear to have simply copied Von Bober, there really is only one source. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the coverage is about the house. Sure, some sources include some of the Von Bober history, but there's mostly either pre-Von Bober coverage and more contemporary coverage of its current state.  I don't see the Huffington Post article or any of the other sources simply writing about "what Von Bober said."  When a a reliable source calls this house "the most haunted house in Wisconsin," they're not saying "because Von Bober said so."  My point is, even if all the notability of this house was due to "what Von Bober said," that doesn't change the notability of this house.  All the sources listed here are not Von Bober but secondary to Von Bober.  No matter how much that coverage of this house is due to Von Bober, that secondary coverage is what our general notability guidelines are concerned with.--Oakshade (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strange Wisconsin: More Badger State Weirdness is not a reliable source on real estate history especially for the purposes of an encyclopedia. It's a ghost story book and what it contains is a retelling of Von Bober's tall tale. As for the huffpo, that's not a serious news article, it's a "fun" ghost story article. It's not the Associated Press or the New York Times. Neither of them research it on their own, they are just retelling a legend that originated from Von Bober. Maybe they didn't say, "Van Bober made this up" since that would ruin the narrative, but that's what they did. The notable "topic" here is the ghost story, the house is not notable. There is a difference. This is content blog quality stuff, not for an encyclopedia. Look at the in line refs of the article, its all cited by Von Bober. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strange Wisconsin: More Badger State Weirdness passes WP:RELIABLESOURCES as it was subject to third-party editorial review and is secondary to this topic. Unless you can provide evidence that Big Earth Publishing or its imprint Bleak House Books does not have any editorial review of the books it publishes, I'm not convinced it's "not a reliable source."  And for the Huffington Post article, WP:GNG makes no discrimination against  "non-serious" news-coverage unless that coverage is false and satirical in nature (it isn't). As stated above Identifying reliable sources states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."  Just because the Huffington Post wrote a "human interest" story on this topic and not a "hard boiled serious news" piece about it does not in any manner disqualify it from being a reliable source WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've been saying, reliable source for a ghost story is not the same as a reliable source for factual, historical information, ie. WP:HISTRS and WP:RSCONTEXT. Third party editorial review in this context means checked spelling and grammar. Not fact checking. When you finish reading a reliable source, your first question should not be, "boy I wonder how much of that story is true?" --Dual Freq (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I've been saying it doesn't matter if the legend is true, it's that the house along with it's likely un-true legend that have been the subject of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Nobody here is claiming this topic is notable because the ghost stories are true.  Places based on not-true stories can be notable and pass WP:GNG as this one is and does.--Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If the legend the sources are telling is untrue or questionable, how do we know if any of the history / backstory about the house and real estate is true. They come from the same unreliable sources. Which parts of these sources are true and which are false? How can wikipedia state the history of this house as cited fact when the sources are so unreliable regarding history. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just like many notable legends, hauntings, demonic possessions, etc., we might never know if they're true - we might never know if there were UFOs in Roswell or that Bigfoot exists as their original Von Bober-like sources are dubious - but that doesn't make those topics not notable.  There are sources are giving significant coverage to those topics as well as this likely not-true "haunted" house anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at our Roswell UFO crash and Bigfoot articles? They contain no "maybe the legend is true and maybe it isn't" equivocation at all. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The responding point to Duel Freq was the original sources on the validity of the legends are dubious as with the "haunting" of this house, yet as with this topic those are still notable based on the subsequent significant coverage of the likely un-true legends regardless of the original unbelievable sources. And just to counter the red herring point that those articles don't include the "maybe the legend is true and maybe it isn't" equivocation, in fact they do go into explicit detail countering the validity of the legends with entire sections dedicated to scientific scrutiny, contradicting "witness" statements and hoax evidence. --Oakshade (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no evidence of notability here. We need independent references from reliable third party sources. I am not seeing any. This case has not been covered in the skeptical literature, this is how non-notable it is. There are some credulous paranormal books on the article being cited - and not even page numbers being given. Seems a very desperate attempt to try save this article. If you cut these out the article would consist of some limited newspaper coverage being cited, nothing more. I don't think it is enough. Goblin Face (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are the Huffington Post, Quad-City Times and Wisconsin Trails, as well as coverage from the paranormal enthusiest books not independent of the house? I should point out that WP:GNG permits "opinion pieces" as sources and even WP:SOURCES states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."--Oakshade (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources cited by Oakshade. You don't have to believe a place is actually haunted to recognize that extensive coverage can establish the notability of the alleged haunting. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note-Hi-I ran an GNIS search for Summerwind and Lamont Mansion and nothing came up. I did run a GNIS for West Bear Lake and came up with a GNIS for the lake which is in Michigan and Wisconsin. I am surprise thatneither the Wisconsin State Historical Society nor Vilas County put up a historical marker for Summerwind since it was a summer home for a United States cabinet official. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so we are all on the same page here, there is nothing but rubble there now. Just a lake house that burned down, that one guy write a book about in 1979. It was really only a "haunted house" from the publication of Von Bober's book in 1979 to 1988 when it burned to the ground. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Current physical condition of the topic has nothing to do with notability nor WP:GNG. Nobody here is claiming the topic didn't start garnering significant coverage because of Von Bober's book or that the "haunting" is real.  But as Arxiloxos stated above, the paranormal activity or the haunting don't have to be real for this topic to be notable just as the notability of the Bigfoot and the Roswell UFO crash topics don't have to be based on an American ape-like creature or space aliens in New Mexico actually existing.  --Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note-Hi-I sent an e-mail to the Vilas County Historical Society about installing a historical marker near the Summerwind ruins emphasizing that it was a summer home for a U.S. cabinet secretary. I mentioned in the e-mail about Summerwind being controversial-the hauntings and so on. I am not sure if the Wisconsin State Historical Society would put up a historical marker; the Wisconsin Historical Society has specific guidelines and requirements. That is the reason I asked the Vilas County Historical Socity about it. I just want to let you people know. In the e-mail I left Wikipedia for I am not sure what the reaction might be. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2014 (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.