Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Thorvald Andersen


 * 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  18:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Carl Thorvald Andersen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A Danish architect (1835-1916). Created since 2012 with no source provided. A WP:BEFORE cant find any sources to establish meeting WP:ANYBIO.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added some text translated from the Danish Wikipedia. He designed some notable buildings that (I think) are on the Danish counterpart of the National Register of Historic Places. This suggests that in-depth references exist, but since he died more than 100 years ago, those references may not be online. Eastmain (talk • contribs)</b> 08:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 *  Comment: Hi, adding additional info does not help towards meeting notability, but adding along with independent, reliable sources do. If he is notable, I believe there will be some architecture books talk about him and his work. Content in print or in any languages are welcome as long as they are independent and reliable. I AfD this page, as I cant find sources in EN internet on Mr Anderson (and there was another Thorvald Andersen (8 April 1883 in Aarup, Denmark - 3 May 1935 - who also was an Danish architect). Do let me know if you would find source to support the nobility of Mr Anderson, for I will withdraw the nomination and if not the AfD would stay. Thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>)

*Delete Non-notable Danish architect doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. Iamricednous (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet, !vote struck. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Iamricednous. Congratulations on jumping straight in to AfDs: unusual for editors as new to Wikipedia as you are, so you're very brave! Now, exactly which of the criteria for speedy deletion applies here? -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Hoary. It is my personal choice if I jump straight in to AfDs or edits. Your first contribution on Wikipedia was an AfD labelling Robert Cummings as "non-notable" so how can you question my contributions on Wikipedia? Iamricednous (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Iamricednous, I fear you are misreading something. I was congratulating you. I was asking not about your contributions but about the relevant criterion for speedy deletion. This has nothing to do with my contributions; but since (i) you bring these up and (ii) the name Robert Cummings is (by now) unfamiliar to me, I took a look at my earliest edit and found that it was this one, to the article Rangefinder camera. Now, which of these gents did I call "non-notable"? -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I notice that you have now deleted "Speedy", Iamricednous. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern I have taken it on board, for any discussions please feel free to do it on to my talk page rather than here. I have also noticied you haven't made a vote here but like to leave comments on other votes Hoary. Iamricednous (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, potentially speedily as per CSD criterion A7. Has no references, and next to no information as how he is notable. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me &#124; spy on me )  14:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep significant government architect, the images in commons of a series of handsome buildings in Frederiksholm are persuasive. Just tag it for sourcing and hope for WP had an editor fluent in Danish who is an architecture buff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I can find some passing references to him in reliable sources, but nothing substantial. E.g., . The only buildings of his that are on the national registry appear to be here, but it is an entire district that is on the registry and he is one of many architects who designed buildings in the district. It's possible that sources exist in books that have not yet been scanned by Google (or in periodicals) but I'm not seeing notability at this time. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how gBooks works. It did have "everything" a decade ago. But there was a lawsuit, and the result is that searches now only show random and partial contents of books. Just fyi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that WP:CREATIVE#4. REcognizes notability on the basis of leaving a body of work that is notable.  This is the rubric under which we keep articles on creative professionals of all kinds without requiring sources beyond documentation of the notable (painting, poem, design) work created. My argument here is that the group of Andersen buildings designated notable / historic by Denmark constitute such a body of work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the article needs to be expanded, there is already sufficient evidence of notability.--Ipigott (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Designed big 18th-century buildings still in use. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternative search term:


 * Week keep leaning week delete. First of all, do not search for Carl Thorvald Andersen, there is almost nothing to be found. Search for C. T. Andersen (use alt. search term). Andersen's ouvre is well described, and as such you could argue a "keep" vote pursuant to WP:CREATIVE#4, as does the good E.M.Gregory above. The question is then: is his body of work large enough for a keep per CREATIVE#4? He obtained the position as Bygningsinspektør (approx. Constructual Engineer), of which there were 9 in Copenhagen around the turn of the century according to da:Bygningsinspektør. Andersen's area was solely Holmen (lit. 'The Islet') which at that time was exclusively the naval base of the Royal Danish Navy. As opposed to his successor Olaf Schmidth who is well described in e.g. Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon, and who designed for other areas than Holmen, I find no sources  that mention Andersen having done anything apart from the 10-12 buildings on Holmen. So, is he a significant government architect?    A source or two indicate, that better sources  be available offline. And as the man retired in 1899 at the age of 64, and lived another ~17 years, it is very possible that some sorts of newspaper articles or retrospectical article from the first quarter of the last century exist. For now, with the limited availability of digitized Danish sources, this is all I can do. (Do anglophone editors ever think about how fortunate it is to have well developed digitized archives?) Sam Sailor 18:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: meets WP:CREATIVE. Sourcing & scope are acceptable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, because he squeaks past WP:CREATIVE, other and better sources may turn up, and unlike so very many biographees of whom similar comments could be made, he's been dead for a century, there's been no muttering about promotional editing, and a future descent into advertising is very hard to imagine. -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and the interwiki links prove that he is notable. <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 14:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.