Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9250 Cordell Drive

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. If anyone wants the content userfied in order to create a broader article about Cordell Drive generally (and consequently create a new redirect), let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9250 Cordell Drive[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable home. All sources are discussions of various sales of the property, which has had some famous owners, but WP:INHERIT should apply to that. There is an entire book on another of Errol Flynn's home, but that isn't this one. Really no sources found with any meat on them. All are sales pitches. John from Idegon (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are reasonably in-depth and primarily about the house, not its owners. I wouldn't characterize them as sales pitches; the newspapers and other media ran the articles because their readers like to know about expensive houses. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally hundreds of articles like these each and every day in newspapers across the country. If we are basing Keep on that, why don't we have articles on houses occupied by nobodies? There is nothing distinguishing about this house except its occupants. So are we saying INHERIT doesn't apply here? Honestly, 3.8 million dollar houses are not all that rare in the US. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have we got Bill Gates's house? The brave celery (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) WP:OSE 2) $147 million houses are NOT run of the mill. 3) Although it isn't cited in the article, I recall reading several detailed articles on the tech in the house well before he ever went to sell it. John from Idegon (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reliable sources do go into detail about the house. It's connection to icons like Flynn and Moby as well as a notable architect further its notability. --Oakshade (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run-of-the-mill non-historic Hollywood home. It does not get notability from being own by celebs. As pointed out, properties owned by celebs always get headlines when they are put on the market (because their purchase price and sale price are public record) but that does not merit encyclopedic entry. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far we have 3 keep (including me, the article creator), 2 delete. The brave celery (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You now have four to one (not including the nominator who doesn't have to overcome the hurdle of finding his way here by chance), but consensus isn't a ballot. It is based on weighing the merits of arguments (at least in theory). That said, the arguments for deletion have zero merit. James500 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain and Oakshade. Satisfies GNG. The sources are about the house, so 'inheritance' is not an issue. I should also point out that Cordell Drive as a whole is notable, so deletion would violate ATD anyway, since you can always merge a location into the wider area. James500 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect or Merge to Moby who last owned the house. No real reason to keep the article since there's tons of West Hollywood homes that have been owned by 3+ famous people. Redditaddict6 9 16:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every source is about the house being bought, sold or rented - but there's no coverage otherwise. That to me knocks this down from notability, since every house is bought, sold or rented sometime. It's not a policy, but just my personal feeling on what makes a home notable. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A house. What can I say more. There are thousands of houses owned by famous people. Do we need to give them all an article? No, per WP:NOTDIR. » Shadowowl | talk 16:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not provide significant in-depth coverage. WP:ROTM, just a house. MB 01:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this single-family home owned by a non-notable person. Press coverage of WP:MILL real-estate transactions does not make this house notable, and it doesn't inherit notability from the fact that Errol Flynn lived there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's been owned by independently notable people, but your argument about it being run-of-the-mill could potentially have merit. (I don't endorse this because I'm the article creator, but this has happened before with my work and I try not to be biased when stuff like this comes up.) Furthermore, it's gone from a dispute about inherited notability to a dispute about whether it's run-of-the-mill. I had thought this would have been closed earlier, either as no consensus or delete, but at this point we haven't had a keep vote in weeks, so can we please close this and preserve the history of the article? Thank you. The brave celery (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't "preserve the history" unless there's a redirect target. Neither Errol Flynn nor Moby seem reasonable, and Cordell Drive is a redlink. West Hollywood, California seems the best, but this house will never be discussed on that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What about actor Paul Lynde? He owned and lived in 9250 Cordell Drive for many years. The brave celery (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The obvious solution is to move the page to Cordell Drive, as I suggested earlier. The director George Cukor was at number 9166, for example, amongst other celebrities and there is an enormous amount of coverage for the street as a whole. James500 (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The article is now located at Cordell Drive. The former homes of George Cukor, Spencer Tracy, Ronald Reagan and Jane Wyman have been added. There is a great deal more coverage to add. Editors !voting for deletion above should probably reconsider their position. James500 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I should also point out that the run-of-the-mill argument has no basis in policy or guideline. GNG is only interested in the volume of coverage, not in editors' subjective personal opinions about importance. The 'inherited' argument is even more preposterous. The history of a location is not a separate topic from the location itself. To say that a location can't inherit notability from its own history amounts to saying that it can't inherit notability from itself. It is a complete non sequitur. James500 (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - James500, moving an article in the middle of an AfD is clearly not an uncontroversial move that can be done boldly, and you clearly have no consensus here to merge the content of this article even if the move were within policy. I'll be reporting this at AN to get your actions reverted immediately. John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is completely absurd. The only possible objection that you could have to that page move is that you know perfectly well Cordell Drive as a whole is notable, and the article is now likely to be kept, something that you are determined to obstruct. James500 (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Personal attack removed). This article clearly fails WP:NOTDIR (Infact, you made it look more like a directory) and your keepist activities come close to a COI. » Shadowowl | talk 12:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - you know perfectly well Cordell Drive as a whole is notable
    - Based on what? Some random addresses on that street you scraped off of a Google search? Which of your random passing mentions talk about Cordell Drive itself? --Calton | Talk 10:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MILL. Couldn't find any other sources establishing notability. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This started out as an article about an undistinguished run-of-the-mill celebrity home in Hollywood, with no content to indicate that the house itself (rather than its occupants) is of any encyclopedic significance. It has now suddenly been transformed into an article about a street, without any content describing the street or indicating why the street is notable. There are no references that devote significant coverage to the street itself. Instead, we have a variety of run-of-the-mill real estate sales coverage that indicates that various celebrities bought and sold homes on the street over the years. The only mention of the street is address listings. How foolish. Streets do not inherit notabilty from their celebrity occupants. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources that deal with the buildings themselves. I am under the impression that, for example, Cukor's house at 9166 is considered architecturally exceptional. Here, for example, is one description of it. I did not add them because I only have one pair of hands. James500 (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most beautiful by who? I could say my house is beautiful and it still does not warrant an article about it. » Shadowowl | talk 12:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The house or houses are not independently notable, and notability is not inherited. Brad v 14:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just an overview of the sources:

Janet Irene Atkinson. "George Cukor Home". Los Angeles County Historical Directory. McFarland. 1988. Page 21. Google Books.

John Eastman. "Tracy, Spencer Bonaventure (1900-1967)". Who Lived Where: A Biographical Guide to Homes and Museums. Bonanza Books. 1 March 1988. Pages 430 and 502. Google Books
A Scott Berg. Kate Remembered. Simon and Schuster. 2003. Paperback edition. 2013. [1] [2]
Ralph Gary. The Presidents Were Here: A State-by-state Historical Guide. McFarland & Company. 2008. Page 15. Google Books.
Anne Edwards. Early Reagan: The Rise to Power. Morrow. 1987. Pages 282, 320, 342 and 343. Google Books
Hearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry: Hearings Before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, First Session. United States Government Printing Office. 1947. Pages 213 and 532. Google Books
"9250 Cordell Drive". www.zillow.com. Retrieved 2018-08-09.
"Paul Lynde villa fetches close to its asking price". SFGate. 2002-01-27. Retrieved 2018-08-09.
David, Mark (2009-02-24). "Moby Leases Out Hollywood Hills House". Variety. Retrieved 2018-08-09.
Leitereg, Neal J. "Former Hollywood Hills home of Errol Flynn, Moby comes to market". latimes.com. Retrieved 2018-08-09.
Chancellor, Jonathan. "Former Hollywood home of Errol Flynn listed". www.propertyobserver.com.au. Retrieved 2018-08-09.
David, Mark (2015-04-21). "Former Errol Flynn House Above Sunset Strip Lists for $6 Million". Variety. Retrieved 2018-08-09.
Leitereg, Neal J. "Hollywood Regency with ties to Errol Flynn and Moby fetches $3.875 million". latimes.com. Retrieved 2018-08-09.

The brave celery (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that those book references are regarding OTHER houses on Cordell Drive, and were added during User:James500's bit of monkey business in moving the page. And even if they somehow WERE about this specific building, they would be passing mentions. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the life of me, despite all the wordage above, I cannot see how this non-historic house should have an encyclopedia article. It is simply not Notable. The closer should make note of that simple fact. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural note - since this article was moved without consensus during this discussion, I'm asking the closer to delete both Cordell Drive and 9250 Cordell Drive, the redirect left behind by the page move. John from Idegon (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Never mind. (Channel Emily Latella). Didn't notice an administrator actually had moved it back. John from Idegon (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- The editor who moved the page back is not an administrator. The actual administrator, Joe Roe, said that the page did not need to be moved back. James500 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - So. What. --Calton | Talk 10:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Celebrity real estate sales notices and a real estate website listing don't even come close to suggesting notability, let alone proving it. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But those aren't real estate listings. Nor are they advertisements, which John from Idegon said they might be, because they are concerning a private home, not a tourist destination; this house is not the White House or Buckingham Palace, it is not open to the public. I don't know what you'd call those sources, but they simply aren't real estate listings or advertisements. The brave celery (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But those aren't real estate listings.
Nor did I say they were. At best, they're real estate advertorials, puff pieces filling out a newspaper's real estate section to encourage sales and to keep the advertisements from bumping into each. Yet another thing you got wrong, like attempt to pad the source list above. --Calton | Talk 21:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.