Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mansions

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mansions

violates WP:NOT (this is not a place for lists of indiscriminate stuff); also violates WP:OR (original research) Mhking (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my Father's house are many mansions... and the same with Beverly Hills and Palm Beach. This looks like original research using the zillows.com site and saying, "that looks like a mansion". The problem is that if three houses on South Mapleton Drive in Beverly Hills are on the list, other houses ought to be as well, and the list would go on and on. Mandsford (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete it is possible that the web site is in fact a RS for this sort of information. The data is ultimately derived from the tax rolls, which are official primary sources. We cant compile it from there, but if some responsible source does, we can certainly use that source. It is NOT indiscriminate, because there's a size cutoff. If this was done from a sort on their data base, though, I do not think it sufficiently reliable. i tried to do something similar and found a considerable number of obvious errors--maybe the ed. here analyzed it further, but that might indeed be excessive synthesis. But depending on how it was done, it just possibly be a suitable selective list. DGG (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disclosure: I created this article. The list is certainly not indiscriminate, only homes above 20,000 square feet of living space are included as noted in the header of the list. I felt that was a sufficiently high cutoff as to not include too many properties, and so that properties of that size are "notable" for their size alone (as some buildings are notable for their height alone), but perhaps as the list grows the cutoff can be moved higher. I have changed the name to clarify that the list is not indiscriminate. However, the list is not complete, and I have changed the header to reflect this. Given the number of sources required to create a truly complete list, I feel that requiring a complete list sets too high a bar. Sourcing is a work in progress, but the vast majority of the sourcing is to Zillow. I do not see this as a problem, since zillow uses public records (primary sources), but would of course be happy to see more sources. I also hope to create more links to other Wikipedia articles where notable properties that appear on the list are referenced. Individuals are to be linked to their properties only when they are the publicly known addresses of notable individuals.NewtyW (talk), 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep and consider a name change to "Largest homes by square footage"
Delete the idea for a list of large residential structures is nice, but sourced only from zillow, and not even every address sourced? not good. of course, the title of such an article would have to be changed, but im not sure even what you would call it, and if so why such a list would be notable. i can see famous mansions, or homes with record selling prices. it would have to be noted by the author how s/he was thorough in not shorting some regions, etc . i recommend the creator of the page do more work on the subject before creating the article, especially multiple references to houses, and creation of some stubs for some addresses.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is indiscriminate and severely incomplete; I suspect there are more mansions in the U.S. (not to mention the rest of the world). Pastor Theo (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG delete Putting a list of people's addresses up on Wikipedia because of their listing on a quasi-reliable real estate site goes beyond original research, it's asking to get sued. While the notability guidelines don't generally apply to the contents of an article, I think it's important for the houses to be distincive outside of their square-footage alone. We should respect these people's privacy and not report on them until they've been reported on. Themfromspace (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still considering my own comment, but I have to comment on yours. (1) The people listed as the owners are only mentioned for already known residences with an article which are supposedly verifiable and non-private (2) Listing someone's address is not a privacy violation. In the Netherlands we used to have books with zipcodes which did it all the time. No one is going to sue anyone for listing their home address unless it reveals details that aren't public. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a a front/coatrack for zillow.com. Some verifiable data may be salvaged to Mansion. NVO (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia. Proxy User (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I strongly disagree that this is indiscriminate. We have articles on lists of skyscrapers above a certain height; I don't see how a list of largest single-family residents by square footage is any less notable. I think a list of largest or most notable residences is certainly an article appropriate for Wikipedia to have. Sure, maybe the criterion for conclusion needs to be refined and the list culled a bit. But it's against the spirit of Wikipedia to delete an article that can be improved into a good article, even if it needs a lot of work. Antony-22 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with List of tallest buildings in the world is that these are all buildings that have articles themselves. The majority of the ones on this list are not generally known. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could limit the list to residences that are notable enough to have their own articles, or have notable occupants, as one way of refining the inclusion criterion. I'm sure there are enough of these to justify keeping the article. Antony-22 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, Ick, geez. Yea, we should allow articles that have promise to have time for improvement, but this article should be improved in userspace, not in mainspace. It really is a mess of a directory right now. There is little context to the list and houses are just listed by address instead of their names (I am sure if they are the biggest homes by square footage, they have names). In fact, I don't think the addresses are relevant at all to the list, especially if the property has been named. If the house is actually notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then move that info there. Don't make it hard to recreate, but this should be worked on elsewhere for now. SMSpivey (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2009 (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.