Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilham & Hopkins


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Kilham & Hopkins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no inherent notability from the buildings they designed/constructed. The references are only passing mentions or historical records. I checked for additional sources but found none that contained any depth. Fails General Notability Guidelines and Organization Notability. UsedEdgesII (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep The architects were important in 1912, as documented in a 30 page article from that year cited in the Wikipedia article. And they have since been recognized as important in the listing of at least 7 of their works on the National Register of Historic Places. The article serves both to document these architects, and to serve as a connection between at least 7 mainspace articles sharing the architects. It functions as a "List of works by Kilham & Hopkins" which would be a valid list-article on its own. -- do ncr  am  17:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment. I do see that they have been listed as having numerous buildings on the list of historic places; however, it is the buildings that are listed as historical, not the architect. Again, notability is not given to the company because of their work. They must have independent and reliable sources about them in order to be considered notable. The buildings would have Inherent Notability by being listed in the National Register of Historic Places, but not the architect. Also, the article was written as a stand alone article, not a list so that point is moot. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Apart from the recognition of the firm's work in multiple registrations to the National Register of Historic Places, the firm and its work were the subject of a 30-page retrospective here in Architectural Record, the official record of the American Institute of Architects. Cbl62 (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is another scholarly work about the firm: "Early Twentieth Century Reform Housing by Kilham & Hopkins, Architects of Boston," by Richard M. Candee and Greer Hardwicke (1987, University of Chicago Press). Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Snow keep given the sources highlighted in Cbl62's comment. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2012 (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.