Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu Houses (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Xanadu Houses
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

To reiterate a quote from 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 agreed with Mattisse in 2009, and still agree today.

Looking at the keeps from the last AFD, one thought that the subject was notable because the subject's book was in the Library of Congress, which is fallacious on its face. The others were two WP:ITSNOTABLEs and a WP:PRETTY from an editor with a long-standing vendetta against me. Also, I think the last AFD was swayed because the article was ranked as FA at the time despite being woefully lacking. As a result, I procedurally withdrew the AFD and took it to FAR, where it was demoted.

However, there hasn't been an iota of improvement since it was demoted. Almost all of the article is sourced to the architect's own book. Sources #7 and #13 are tangential mentions in the subject of something greater — #13 gives two whole sentences. I couldn't find any better sources. The article has been tagged since August 2009 for primary sources. It's still completely devoid of non-trivial secondary source coverage, because none EXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There were several secondary sources with non-trivial, non-local coverage provided in the last AfD, and they are no less valid now. In addition to those, it didn't take long to also find this from Compute! magazine in 1982. I believe that the primary notability of this subject lies in its curiosity as a tourist attraction rather than as a concept that had any impact on the field of architecture, but it is notable regardless. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Orange Suede Sofa. Sorry TenPound, but the precedent is against you, unfortunately isn't around here today and Mattisse is currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  08:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Here's a 1352-word article about the subject from The New York Times. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment not a key building in the history of architecture but clearly above current threshold of notability for similar articles. If this was a delete, thousands of other articles would need to be deleted as well. Seems however somewhat overlinked-to with 40 articles linking to it. For example I doubt that it's demolition in 2005 was of significance in the history of architecture. --Elekhh (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are lots of Google News hits about the Kissimmee one and a few on the Wisconsin one.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2011 (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.