Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Neill Wilson


 * 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. JForget 02:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

H. Neill Wilson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

*Delete No assertion of notability, as well as no sources, for this minor figure. Keep more information and sources have been added.Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete . Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [[Image:Achtung.svg|20px|]] — Duplicate !vote: Alan Liefting (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above by virtue of being the nominator.
 * Comment. Despite considerable FUTON bias due to the era when the subject was alive and productive, there seems to be a reasonable amount of information available. While the New York Times obituary appears to be short, it doesn't appear (based on the snippet of text to be found in the Google news archive search) to be a paid death announcement, indicating editorial discretion. His contributions to the building mentioned in the article stub have been mentioned in numerous books, such as Cincinnati landmarks: a Bicentennial exhibition, Book of Rockwood Pottery, and Rookwood and the industry of art: women, culture, and commerce, 1880-1913. He has also been noted in Architecture in Cincinnati: an illustrated history of designing and building for work on the Mount Adams Building. If the nominator and/or Kitfoxxe has undertaken the steps recommended in WP:BEFORE, perhaps they could provide more detailed rationales. Bongo  matic  03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks okay to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been substantially changed since I put it up for AfD. Hmmm, an AfD should not be a catalyst to get an article up to a decent standard. I still don't think it meets notability criteria even with the changes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "[A]n AfD should not be a catalyst to get an article up to a decent standard." Why not if it is not and can be - it seems to me that's a good thing. Lady  of  Shalott  03:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith, I assume the nominator meant that it is unfortunate that it requires a deletion nomination to spark good sourcing, which in fairness, is the case here. However, I would suggest that the nominator here would have less to complain about had he done a little WP:BEFORE rather than make this WP:SEP. Bongo  matic  03:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to meet WP:CREATIVE criterion #4. Considering the considerable difficulty of finding sources for the time period, and given the fact that considerable online sources have been found in that direction, my call is that the tie goes to the runner in this case. Bongo  matic  09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A remarkable number of sources found considering the time, with significant commissions. The fact that many don't exist today does not diminish their significance, especially given the inherent biases in WP and the FUTON problem.  Acroterion  (talk)  21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fellow of the AIA + multiple reliable sources = clearly meets our notability standards. Lady  of  Shalott  03:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Has four five buildings individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places (about which I added some to the article). --doncram (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is DYK pending about this article, by the way. This is ready to close.  I don't know the etiquette of my possibly doing the close, as i !voted above, but it is ready to be closed as now-obvious Keep.  All participants besides nominator have !voted keep now, i think (in edit window now, i am not sure that 100% of others actually voted). --doncram (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: none of us who have voted should close the AfD. Lady  of  Shalott  22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Extremely well-sourced considering the era of the subject. Edward321 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2010 (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.