Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watermelon 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 Delete The consensus was that this was somewhat interesting, but not notable. The image is available at [File:Watermelon House - Logan Circle.jpg]. Mandsford 01:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon House

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

Fails WP:Notable. Some folks paint their house to look like a watermelon. The local paper (Washington Post, which is more important than the average local paper, but still this is just local news) does one story on it to amuse their readers. No other coverage in any media. No claim in article as to why this is important or has any effect on anything else. Wolfview (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC

Keep - The Washington Post piece is significant coverage, despite the nom's personal opinion that its "to amuse their readers." It in fact was also feature in the web series Orange Juice in Bishops Garden [1] --Oakshade (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I don't think amusing their readers is a bad thing. :-) Wolfview (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought about this for a while, but that Washington Post article is simply not significant. If that counts then any mention of any address in a major newspaper counts, and that's simply not Notability. Anyone who's interested, look at the short article and ask whether or not it satisfies notability. Even mainstream papers can mention non-notable things. Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not all newspaper articles are equal, especially given the enthusiasm with which newspapers cover 'novelty' stories of local interest. In this case, I don't think the story is sufficient to establish notability. --Korruski (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's a great idea, and although I believe that the Washington Post is a reliable source, there isn't much anything else. There's the Washington Post, which is reliable, but that's about it. The house looks tasty though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was cute too. The article is very well-written as well. Too bad about pesky WP policies. Wolfview (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there is a little bit of original research to give more information on the 3 people than can be strictly found out from the source. This is not a reason to delete, lack of notability is enough for that.Wolfview (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2010 (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.