Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Northmere


 * 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 redirect to Max Maltzman.  MBisanz  talk 20:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Northmere

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. The only source is an IMDB listing for a move which hasn't been released yet. I searched, but found nothing better.

The article was created by a now-banned sock farm. It looks like the building is for sale (or was very recently, at least) so this was probably created as spam. Grayfell (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge, and redirect to Max Maltzman [was "Keep"]. It is an illustrated, modest article about a building that appears notice-worthy to me.  Why not let Wikipedia be the go-to source for info about the building, when the movie comes out?  And it seems notable, though it would help to find some sources that are likely offline.  I expanded it somewhat, with an online source.  The building has its fans:  see multiple comments about The Northmere in comments about article about 410 North Rossmore, another building by same architect, at "The Bizarre Saga of 410 North Rossmore Avenue" blog post.  I highly doubt that there is any commercial interest in there being a Wikipedia article like this one; I rather imagine that it was seen as an obvious topic for an article.  Not asserting my opinion counts in any way, but the building looks to me like it would be eligible for listing as a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument or another historic register. -- do  ncr  am  18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, so it should not attempt to be the go-to place for info that's of questionable reliability or that's not first published elsewhere. The Maxmaltzman.com source is probably not usable at all, since it give no indication of editorial oversight, or having a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking required by WP:RS. Even if it is usable, it's raises WP:PRIMARY concerns. Since it doesn't say who published it or why, it's difficult to say for sure where this info is coming from. Is this from his firm, or from his kids or grand kids? That it links to Wikipedia raises WP:CIRC issues, as well. If the building becomes a cultural monument, then we can reassess, but hypothetical future events fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Something about those blog comments seem very odd to me (why is every comment posted on that blog precisely at 1:02? Why do the comments about the Northmere start almost two years after the blog post? Why do all the comments mentioning the Northmere, except one, contain nothing be effusive praise for that specific building and nothing else? The post is about a different, far better known building, so why so many comments about the Northmere at all?) regardless, that's not much use for Wikipedia. It looks like Vaughn could be considered an expert per WP:SPS, but he still would have to actually comment on the existence of the building for that to mean anything. Grayfell (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right about the comments at the blog post, and the MaxMaltzman.com site appears to be posted by a real estate concern to me, too. And there is not much here, and mention of the building could be added to the Max Maltzman article, so i change my !vote to "merge" to there. It is the kind of building--striking, and close to the street-- that provokes people to wonder what it is, and as a named building it is even more interesting, so it's too bad we don't have more about it. -- do  ncr  am  01:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's a very cool building, and it's a shame we don't have better sources on it. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. also as searches came up mostly blank, this one's easy. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:ThePlatypusofDoom, but why not Merge, and redirect to Max Maltzman? -- do ncr  am  16:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and mentioned as needed instead because I still question how this is solidly convincing to keep at the listed history. SwisterTwister   talk  04:30, 20 April 2016 (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.