Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/969 Hayes Street

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. Mailer Diablo 14:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No different from any other random really old house. Tried {{prod}} but creator removed the notice. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Completely unsourced, and the only relevent Google hit I could find was this map. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above; notability not established. --Alan Au 07:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Dionyseus 09:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fail to see anything notable. By the way ESkog, this isn't anywhere near really old, it isn't even old! I live in a house built in the 1880s, as do millions of other people in the UK (and no doubt elsewhere in the world). Knock a couple of hundred years off, then it may be considered old. Knock a millennium off, then it might even be really old. Markb 09:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And there are those whose homes get demolished at 30 years. The wonders of government-provided public housing. :) Kimchi.sg 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside: It's fairly old for San Francisco, four-fifths of which burned down in 1906. Doesn't make it notable, of course. bikeable (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In complete agreement with Markb about the age issue. Dionyseus 09:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The age of the house is irrelevant. Whether histories of this house have been published outside of Wikipedia is. For houses such as Anne Hathaway's Cottage, the Beauvoir, and Monticello, there is plenty of already published source material about te subject. For this house, however, I can find nothing (apart from listings on real estate agent sites). The article cites no sources. This is original research, the first publication of a novel history of a subject that has not been published anywhere outside of Wikipedia. The place for this is a historical journal, a magazine, a book, or the author's own web site, not Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 11:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable Fram 12:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is irrelevant in this case; even if it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, lived in by Attila the Hun, and served as the birthplace of Ben Roethlisberger, the article would have to be deleted, because it's original research, per Uncle G. It's good research, of course. It's good research that is deserving of being recorded somewhere -- but not here. Powers 13:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like a nice old house, but not particularly notable. fbb_fan 15:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Coredesat. Green caterpillar 18:45, 12 July 2006 (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.