Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Dexter 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 no consensus. Opinions were split between keeping and merging. Since the latter can be done outside of the scope of an AfD without any admin assistance, this seems like the best option. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Dexter 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)

no apparent evidence for notability, unless every house where George Washington slept for one night is notable. There is no evidence that the building is on any historical register. If it is, it would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Town and historical society documents ([1] and [2]) indicate that this property is located within the NRHP Dedham Village Historic District, though I have been unable to determine if it is a listed property. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep List of Washington's Headquarters during the Revolutionary War, may just indicate that "every house where George Washington slept for one night is notable', especially if it is still standing, and certainly if it is a contributing property to the Dedham Village Historic District, which [3] clearly indicates it is. This article is less than one week old. Further research will likely reveal more sources and there should be no delete, but rather expansion to this very specific piece of American history. Djflem (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't readily count the number of AfDs I've seen where a previous AfD a decade earlier closed on the basis of "further research will likely reveal more sources" ... never to have done so, obviously. This notion has always flown in the face of settled policies and guidelines requiring such sources to have already been produced. In any event, I haven't seen any notability guidelines explicitly granting presumptive notability to buildings in which Washington (allegedly) slept, but NOTINHERITED definitely covers whether every building in a historic district is notable: thankfully, not, because the notion of a Wikipedia article on the tenement apartment building in which I lived for three years (and which just happened to be in the boundaries of a NHRP district) is a gigglefit. In any event, if there are sources discussing this building in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, they should be produced. If not, the content can be merged into the historic district article, which is just a scanty paragraph long itself. Ravenswing 02:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, Wikipedia:BEFORE, was cursory, since several sources were easy to find and could easily "be produced",as this building clearly saisfies Wikipedia:NBUILDING, which states:

"Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable."

Addtionally, stated at contributing property:

"Properties within a historic district fall into one of two types of property: contributing and non-contributing. A contributing property, such as a 19th-century mansion, helps make a historic district historic, while a non-contributing property, such as a modern medical clinic, does not. The contributing properties are key to a historic district's historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological qualities"

Keep. I can see few situations in which a large 18th-century house would not be considered notable anywhere in the world, whether it had associations with someone famous or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing. Rockphed (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: With the sources found by TheCatalyst31, I think this passes GNG. However, I think the article can't really be expanded beyond the current size much. The sources, after removing all the verbiage about how they determined the history, all pretty much just said when the house was built, who built it, and that it was where Washington spent a night (with more or less information about any of those items). From the primary sources listed in the article we can get information about the house's construction, architecture, and decorations, but I am not sure how much that information will add to the encyclopedia. No, really, I have no idea; hence my "keep or merge" vote. If adding that sort of thing will make the encyclopedia better, then keep it. If it won't, then merge. Rockphed (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While buildings that are on the National Register through historic districts are only independently notable if proven otherwise, this house actually does seem to be independently notable. The MACRIS inventory file (click the INV link to download the file) suggests that the house actually would be historically significant enough to be listed on the National Register independently, though a listing wasn't pursued since it was already preserved as part of the historic district. There are also plenty of sources here to meet WP:GNG; in addition to the ones already in the article, there's this extensive section of a journal, coverage of the interior design in this book (free to borrow with an account), and sections of this book and this other book. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Dedham Village Historic District, of which this building is a contributing property. Neutrality^talk 17:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dedham Village Historic District. The rather limited notable information about this house would be better served in the context of the district article, rather than a separate permastub. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per nominator "There is no evidence that the building is on any historical register. If it is, it would be notable." Since it is on the National Register of Historic Places, it would be notable. Djflem (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several good sources in article and elsewhere, per TheCatalyst31. Clearly notable. Station1 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current version of article greatly improved. Meets GNG per sources found by TC31. MB 03:45, 10 October 2019 (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.