Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu Houses


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Xanadu Houses

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Some rather legitimate concerns were raised by Mattisse on the talk page:

I agree. Mason invented the Xanadu House, a specific example of a hi-tech house, and promoted it via his 1983 book. The promotion was picked up at the time and mentioned in a few places, including a business publication and apparently was promoted as a tourist attraction. However, there is no evicence of an enduring effect of the Xanadu House concept. Are there any mentions in architectural reviews? Any recent mentions that the Xanadu House plans are even remembered? Is it still a tourist attraction? Are the three houses still standing? I have modern architectural reviews of the period that do not mention it. The two "Further reading" books appear to deal with how technology affects the economy, rather than addressing specifically the effect of Xanadu House.

I agree with every word in Mattisse' argument. Of the 18 refs in the article, only #7 seems to be non-trivial secondary coverage, but even then it seems to be only in the wake of Mason's promotion. Indeed, these houses seem to have gotten only a brief flurry of news coverage after their construction, and none whatsoever after the fact.

Yes, I am entirely aware of that shiny gold star at the top right of the article, but I'm also aware of the Primary sources tag that has been up since August, which screams "Obviously not featured content." The fact that it took four years for anyone to notice its questionable notability is immaterial — I have every reason to believe that this subject's notability is almost nonexistant, and obviously I'm not alone in that department. (As a post-script, featured content has been deleted or merged in the past.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting one. I'll start with a summary demote from FA status because TPH and Matisse are clearly correct about that. The article was promoted to FA in 2005, and it definitely doesn't meet current standards. However, I do not share the notability concern. If something was ever notable, then it's notable forever; a well-established principle on Wikipedia is that notability is not temporary. And Wikipedia contains information about all kinds of topics of purely historical interest, which is as it should be. I agree that there are no recent mentions, but who cares? That has nothing to do with our deletion criteria, which is also as it should be. The sources exist, they are checkable and they are cited, and that suffices.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had already listed it at FAR, but Sandy Georgia deleted my FAR subpage because I had already placed another FAR only a couple days ago. Stupid rule. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First, there is no such thing as a summary demote from FA status; second, WP:NN is quite distinct from WP:WIAFA. The question here is whether the article meets notability, not whether it warrants FA status.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As a drama-reduction measure, rather than answer this here, I'll simply nominate it for FAR myself.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  17:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That would solve one problem, but for it to go to FAR with a completely unsubstantiated notability tag isn't quite right :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, hold up. AFD or FAR, not both. Let's play this out, then see if it gets kept. With two editors doubting the notability, I don't think the notability tag is unsubstantiated. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: After considering Ten Pound Hammer's good faith request on my talk page I have retracted the FAR.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Library of Congress holds a copy of the book, Xanadu : the computerized home of tomorrow and how it can be yours today! Obviously they think the topic is important. -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  18:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that it's a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Try to stay on topic. The fact that LOC owns a copy of the book says that the subject of Xanadu houses is notable. -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  19:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * keep- I have no comment on the featured article status of the article, that's a bit over my pay grade. That said, I think there's enough there for an article on the subject. Umbralcorax (talk)
 * Comment: I found some news coverage that doesn't seem to be cited in the article: (this one could be used for some of the claims in the "Demise" section),, , .  A decent number of mentions in various books, some several pages long. --Chris Johnson (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a feminist critique of the smart home that discusses Xanadu along with two other smart home concepts. According to Google Scholar versions of this paper have been published in a few places, and one of them's fairly well-cited. --Chris Johnson (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, clearly notable per above feedback. The AFD should be speedy closed so other issues can be addressed at WP:FAR.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This looks to be an especially well-written and well-sourced article complete with relevant images (though I didn't check whether they were free or not).  Whether or not it qualifies as a good article or featured article is another question.  The fact that an article does draw from primary sources is insufficient reason for deletion of such an evolved article. Robert K S (talk) 19:22, 6 November 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.