Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everett Phipps Babcock


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Everett Phipps Babcock

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)


 * Delete per WP:CREATIVE. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, references adequately establish notability. Andrea105 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This requires some further digging but it is fairly clear to me that the subject is notable under WP:BIO. There were already a few sources in the article and I have found some more. In particular, there is an in-depth and detailed article about him in Los Angeles Times, July 2008 that discusses significance of his architectural contributions. There is also this document, from the City Council of Pasadena website, a portion of which (pp. 4-6) deals with Babcock and his work. There is a fair amount of biographical info there (e.g. it says that he died in May 1928 when a tonsils removal surgery went wrong) and it also says there that Los Angeles Times and Pasadena Star News had run obituaries about his death. I think this entry does pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per nsk92's LA Times find. If a pre-internet architect is being discussed 80 years after his death, that architect is notable. Also, having a building listed on the NRoHP sems to meet WP:CREATIVE #3 and/or #4a. Vulture19 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sources used + Nsk's link show the subject clearly meets our notability standards. Lady  of  Shalott  08:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - has received coverage in reliable secondary sources, including Los Angeles Times and The New York Times .  The left orium  12:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a useful article. It has sources.  There seems no reason to delete it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2009 (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.