Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chasan Villa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There have been, quite frankly a plethora of points made in this discussion that do very little to advance the discussion such as the comparable notability, photos, title construction, claiming sources exist without pointing to them, pointing to primary sources, etc. All have been given very little weight.

There was a dispute as to if Film Daily sources are reliable enough to count for notability purposes. I would have preferred a discussion at RSN, but the ad hoc analysis was compelling that it is not. I suggest that editors further explore this issue.

There was a late proposal to merge the article into Roslyn Chasan. I considered a third relist, but decided against it. The discussion was already longer than the majority of AfDs and had a wide swath of editors involved. If editors would like to place a redirect on-top of the deletion and merge in some of the content, they can through normal editorial channels. Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Chasan Villa

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Chasan Villa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are all passing references in the small local newspaper, referring to landslide which undermined multiple residences, not just this one. Only more significant sources referenced talk about further landslides in area 30 years after this house was destroyed, don't mention the house at all. Also, can't find any sources that refer to the house as The Chasan Villa. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have been following The Chasan Villa and related pages (as well as making minor contributions) for the last few weeks. Looking at the examples above, I agree that this property is at least (if not more) notable than many of the other properties in its categories like Bently Nob Hill, William O. Jenkins House, Jackling House, Athenaeum at Caltech given the number of sources that mention the villa. From a naming perspective, looking to Beverly Estate as an example, The Chasan Villa's name is following the same naming convention as other existing properties even if not directly stated in its sources. 199.192.65.251 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And now we have a keep vote from another IP which has been actively editing only topics related to the house's owners. Not suspicious at all. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I specifically mentioned this in my comment, I did not try to hide the fact that I have lightly edited the topic in discussion here over the past month or so and have been watching the discussion. Not sure about the others, they are not posted by me (I have an IPV4 address, the two BubbaJoe123456 mentions above are from IPV6 addresses which are assigned by the ISP not by the user) 199.192.65.251 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All your edits have been in relation to the Chasan family. Do you have a connection to the family? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, BubbaJoe123456's statement is not true, if one looks at Special:Contributions/199.192.65.251 one can see the edit history goes back nearly 10 years from 2014 to present across a myriad of topics that are unrelated to this family. 199.192.65.251 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A look at that history will clearly show scattered edits from 2014-2019, one in 2022, and then a surge of Chasan-related edits starting on February 28, 2023. So, to ask again, do you have any connection with the Chasen family? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No I have no connection with the Chasen family 199.192.65.251 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, why did you suddenly start adding large amounts of content to the Fred Chasan, Roslyn Chasan, and then Chasan Villa articles a few weeks ago? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also not true: I added no new content to Roslyn Chasan (made cleanup changes of +91 characters in total or 0.4% of the article as can be seen by its page history) and then completed BubbaJoe123456's request for The Chasan Villa, by adding four additional sources and improving NPOV that BubbaJoe123456 had started. My edits to the article were not the addition of new content as can be seen on the page's history, rather sourcing of content that was already existing on the page. Given the Roslyn page referenced her husband Fred who was also notable, using the sources suggested by Wikipedia's find sources guidelines which directed me to Google, I researched and wrote the initial content for Fred Chasan, a page not in question, which was given a good rating by other editors as noted on its Talk page. 199.192.65.251 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The naming of article is fine, not an issue. FWIW i mostly edit about historic places including houses and weigh in on most AFDs about historic houses in the U.S. and worldwide. Photos and existing article are convincing of significance. About former buildings, the argument which always governs is "once notable always notable". I dunno if there's sentiment about this being a rich family's "villa", somewhat of a mansion, as opposed to the attention that might be paid for another's, but the amounts of money involved are part of the substantiveness. And the photogenicity of the house, and availability of photos for use in the article and usage of photos in past coverage are part of the substantiveness too. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We could probably do with some additional analysis from more experienced users. Something is certainly unusual here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fancy old house that collapsed. I can only find sourcing about theaters in Africa that compare something with the same name to the Avengers compound (like from the Avengers movie). If this wasn't registered in the NRHP or the local equivalent, it isn't a notable structure. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in Gscholar, Jstor, the NYT, Gbooks or Gnews. There is no coverage of the place. Photos are also contributed by a red-linked user which is apparently the family archives, but have no edits outside these photos. Appears a COI. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding claim "If this wasn't registered in the NRHP or the local equivalent, it isn't a notable structure", what does that say about all the NRHP-listed places, before they were listed? So no more places will ever be NRHP-listed, because if they were notable they would have been listed already? And certainly there are lots of notable structures that are never NRHP-listed due to owner preferences or other reasons. (I !voted "Keep" above.) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking the first reference provided in last !vote before relisting, I see that [4] is very substantial coverage, making argument why this house is notable while others destroyed by water leaks eroding cliff are not. It seems to be an important/interesting case of the city having liability, hence settling. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That filmdaily.co site definitely doesn't look like an RS to me, rather as a spam site dressed up to look like a news site. The "author" who supposedly wrote that article has also "written" articles in the past week on everything from "D*Face's Artwork Skyrockets in Value as Global Demand Soars" to "Enchanting Karnataka: A Perfect Destination for Your Dream Wedding." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a conjecture. RE: Why they are writing on multiple subjects? it is something that we are unsure of, so better avoid aspersions. Better place to check its reliability would be WP:RSN. Editchecker123 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coverage exists in Google Books. Use search term "901 Paseo Del Mar" to locate them. Some prominent litigations, include [5], [6], [7]. Thanks. Editchecker123 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUILDING. While there are reliable sources that mention the house, I am not seeing any reliable sources where the house itself is the primary subject or where the house is addressed in detail other than a few WP:PRIMARY sources like the court documents listed above (which don't count towards GNG as PRIMARY sources) or in unreliable sources. Likewise I am not seeing any evidence that the house meets any of the criteria at NBUILDING. Measurements like an official NRHP listing matter because we have to have some ways of determining notability for building that is objective and not subjective. Outside of meeting one of those criteria at NBUILDING, we are only left with GNG and that standard has not been met.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, the secondary sources such as the filmdaily.co article are dismissed by at least one !voter here essentially because they are secondary (i.e. written by someone who writes about a lot of things); the primary sources (thanks Editchecker123 for identifying the litigations and that 901 Paseo Del Mar is a good alternative search term to use) are to be dismissed because they are primary? Also I am not familiar with a "rule" that primary documents "don't count towards GNG", but even if that is, it remains that the primary sources make more material available for explicit development of the article and also provide depth for readers, i.e. as links which a reader can follow for more details. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a pretty good summation at WP:PST. The gist of it is that primary documents don't analyze and interpret the material the way secondary sources do. If we engage in analysis ourselves, we run afoul of WP:SYNTH, so we use secondary sources. The rest is just an attempt to ensure the secondary sources we use are reasonably accurate. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not seeing the notability here. The filmdaily.co site is definitely not a reliable source as there is no listed editorial board, no indicia of editorial control such as corrections or updates to prior articles, and the site presents me with spammy links such as "View John Wick 4 online" and "Purchase Instagram followers cheap". The others are genuine but fall into 3 basic categories: articles that deal with the landslide, and treat a number of properties as a group; articles that are primarily about the owners that mention the house; or municipal government/court records involving the house. None of these speak to notability in my opinion. In the article's favor, verifiability is not a problem, so I could support a merge to Roslyn Chasan, the former owner. She is mentioned in a couple of the articles as designing the house along with the (apparently non-notable) architect. More importantly, while I haven't done an in-depth check it appears that her article may have the sourcing to survive an AfD; I am considerably less confident that is the case for the other possible target Fred Chasan. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:46, 10 April 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Chasan_Villa&oldid=1149164891"