Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew McCulloch (civil engineer)


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  07:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Andrew McCulloch (civil engineer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article is about an engineer who worked in the early 1900s, there is little reliable information about him outside of a few local newspaper articles. The entire article has zero sources referenced and has remained as such since December of 2015. Dellwood546 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dellwood546 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete he was an engineer. He worked on some big projects. There isn't a clear rationale for his notability here, and sourcing is scarce. The biography linked from the article appears to be copied form Wikipedia. --- Possibly (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * its the other way round, the Wikipedia article is based on the article linked, see the first version. --hroest 00:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the article is based on the csce.ca article, then half the current WP article is copyvio. It's also such a weak effort at recognition that I'm not inclined to give it much weight. I can envision a manager telling a summer intern to "go and copy some WP biographies of Canadian engineers". --- Possibly (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * keep he is listed in the notable civil engineers section of CSCE which is good enough for me. There is a RS, there is notability, he should pass WP:GNG. --hroest 00:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh. Engineering societies were established to promote their own. There are some people on that csce.ca list that probably do not meet our notability standards.--- Possibly (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure why the book about him by Sanford already listed in the article wasn't more than enough to stop an AFD starting, it's was in print through several editions for at least 30 years! Also a WP:BEFORE failure, as easy to find numerous newspapers articles about him, even into the 21st century! I've added 7 references to the article (only one of which can be described as local, User:Dellwood54. Note User:Possibly, it's clear from reading Sanford, that much of the information in the Biography is sourced from Sanford, not an article on the Internet. Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm convinced the subject passes GNG by the new citations added and I also bet there are plenty of offline sources in historical societies, etc. The article just needs some clean up for the tone and layout. Missvain (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sanford's book, the articles in the Vancouver Sun, this Calgary Herald article, and this book by L.D. Cross provide more than adequate coverage to meet the GNG/WP:NBIO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.