Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Huber Residence

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. No compelling, policy-backed arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. Notability is not inherited or transferred. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Huber Residence[edit]

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

Smalltown building with no evidence of any coverage whatsoever from sources that are both independent and reliable, but creator (who added a pile of unreliable sources, and a copyvio) removed my prod without any explanation. First off, several of the sources aren't reliable. Source 1 and Source 2 are church websites talking about their activities; no substantial coverage, and not reliable sources. Source 5 looks like a media source, but it's not: it's a community website produced by this company, which is basically running some information pages about the city in which it's based. Source 6 is an autogenerated webpage; it's only as good as the phone book. Source 4 is from the county historical society, and source 5 is from the local newspaper: while they're reliable with other things, we've always held that local sources aren't independent enough to convey notability. For example, this is the reason why WP:POLITICIAN excludes routine local politicians: like this building, the mayor and councilmen in this city have appeared in the local paper and various other local sources, but unless they appear in regional or national sources, they're considered nonnotable, and the same is true of this building. Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable for its architecture, connection to a very prominent family (it was built for Edward Huber's son Frank), and was designed by a very notable firm. Plenty of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. One of the many articles cited has a series of stunning photo of the mansion's interior (vintage and contemporary). Hard to believe anyone with an interest in architecture or experience working on architecture subjects would think this building worth deleting from Wikipedia. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually write articles about architectural subjects, so I know that these aren't sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Let me remind you that notability is not inherited from notable architects, and when we have only local sourcing, it's not sufficient. Otherwise essentially everything would qualify, since we can pull up local documentation from virtually everything. Let me remind everyone else that Candleabracadabra's idea of a reliable source includes autogenerated source #6 and small-company-produced source #5. If you think that's the kind of thing on which encyclopedias are written, you're going to find tons of things that look reliable. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not show why this former residential home is notable. Claim is that it was the home of the son of .... Rest of the article is about the building lots and the son of .... Maybe interesting for a local historian on his home page, but not for an encyclopedia. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see any real justification for this article. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 12 January 2014 (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.