Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Bond Lambert House

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 merge to Albert Bond Lambert. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Bond Lambert House[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. Every house in which Lindberg stayed is not therefore automatically notable DGG ( talk ) 10:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it is notable it will be as an historic building, not as somewhere where Lindbergh stayed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The St. Louis airport is named after Lambert, not Lindbergh. Durindaljb (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect into Albert Bond Lambert. I struggled to find WP:SIGCOV for the house. Missvain (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It sounds like it could be NRHP-eligible, but I checked and find the mansion is apparently not individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, nor is it a contributing building in any NRHP-listed historic district. There are other "Lambert"-related NRHP listings in St. Louis however:

Lambert Pharmaceutical Building (info available from selection at here)
Lambert Building (redlink currently) Maybe the same as above?
Lambert-Deacon-Hull Printing Company Building (redlink currently) (info available from selection at here)

Note also Lambert Pharmaceutical Co. is merely a redirect to Pfizer. The Warner–Lambert article would be a better redirect target. However a single article on the company and its building is probably better. --Doncram (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (was "Merge", probably into the Albert Bond Lambert article.) Each of the articles should link to the others. The mansion sounds substantial; it was significant IMO as the scene that it was; it is not merely a place that Lindberg stayed at, as the deletion nomination suggests. It seems plausible it was the setting where naming "Spirit of St. Louis" might have been proposed/adopted, by the way (tho that is not asserted, it is my speculation). It may not be significant enough as a mansion architecturally or otherwise to justify its own article currently, but if more info comes out or a big real estate sale price is achieved, it could become more clearly individually notable. IMO this merger is obvious as an alternative to deletion, and therefore there is no way this article should be outright deleted. By the way, why do we not have a list of places where George Washington slept? I looked for such a thing recently. That would be the top candidate for a list-article of that type, and I actually think it would be valid; there is substantial discussion (often sarcastic) about the numerosity of his sleepovers. --Doncram (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "Keep". Thanks User:MB for coming up with those sources in your comment below. I can't access The Atlantic article right now (too many reads by me this month), but its title "The Mansion of Early Lindberg Benefactor Albert Bond" sounds spot on. And you say the other one is more clearly a significant source. Also by the way I have begun an article on the mansion's architect George W. Hellmuth, who is indeed a noted architect. --Doncram (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here is one article about the house that qualifies as SIGCOV. Also another real estate listing type article in The Atlantic. This may be enough for GNG. MB 00:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this mentions the house, but is paywalled so I can't tell how extensively. There is some kind of ghost story about the house in this book, but an Amazon reviewer says it is bogus. (I came across another blurb somewhere else that said there were seances held in the house at some point). Here is a Page-1 New York times article from 1907 reporting an incident at the house (ST. LOUIS, July 29.—Some-Sticks of dynamite in a miner's trunk exploded ... Early this morning the Lambert mansion which he then hired, was damaged by fire.) And it is included in this book about St. Louis architecture. And this announcement - 3 story, brick, $45,000, architect. This is enough for me to say Keep. MB 01:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Albert Bond Lambert since it appears house is name for him, and body of this article is partially built on background info already covered in target. Djflem (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Albert Bond Lambert. The article does not appear to assert notability and I cannot find enough significant sources; a quick Google search turns up only something from a website named Curbed (here) and a listing in The Atlantic which is essentially a copypaste of that (here). I simply do not think that this is notable enough to include as a standalone article, but there is enough information that I think it could be included in the article about Lambert. NightlyHelper (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Albert Bond Lambert no evidence in article or this discussion that the house has any independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:15, 28 January 2020 (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.