Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madis Eek


 * 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Madis Eek

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fail of WP:GNG. No indication of any significant contributions to his field. nearlyevil 665  09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  nearlyevil  665  09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

nearlyevil 665  12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. has an article (although minimally sourced) on Estonian Wikipedia. There may be significant non-English sources. Mukedits (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. He has many indepth articles from non-primary sources written about him in the Estonian press: in a cursory look I found a lengthy article in Äripäev (a daily Estonian financial newspaper), mentions in the largest daily newspaper in Estonia Postimees (here), another major newspaper Eesti Päevaleht (here and here), article about one of his buildings in Eesti Ekspress here, a lengthy article (here) for Eesti Rahvusringhääling (Estonian Public Broadcasting). He also has an entry at the Estonian Association of Architects (here). That was all from about 3 minutes of searching. Should always do a WP:BEFORE. ExRat (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thank you for the research. As you have presented many sources I have gone forward and made a source assessment table to determine the merits of your keep vote. Based on the analysis, I still stand by my delete vote. Also, I don't believe there is consensus that an entry in the Union of Estonian Architects is a precursor to notability.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further participation and discussion based on the presented sources may help generate consensus.
 * Comment. There is also a very indepth, three page article about Eek specifically in the September 2010 Oma Maja edition of Äripäev (pages 16–19, here). Also, disagree with a few of your assessments. The Eesti Päevaleht article: WP:NOTINHERITED can't be used, as the subject is the co-architect. The subject didn't "inherit" notabilty from someone else's sole abilities; the subject is the co-creator of the building. The Eesti Rahvusringhääling article: the article is indepth. The fact that it quotes the subject in small "bits of interviews"...well, it would be sort of remiss as a journalistic piece if it didn't. Not sure how that is a strike against it. Agree that several sources are passing mentions, but they are mostly about his work or buildings. ExRat (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: An architect is not notable by the mere merit of having co-created a building which passes notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. None of the sources covering those buildings cover the subject to a non-trivial degree. The three page article you mentioned is nearly entirely an interview piece, hence not an independent source, hence not a source for determining notability. nearlyevil  665  15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Äripäev article is absolutely not "nearly entirely an interview piece" whatsoever. It is a lengthy, featured profile of the subject, directly. He is quoted in the article. It is not merely some "interview" piece. This is an interview piece. This is not. You also still seem to not understand WP:NOTINHERITED: "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." A co-creator, equally in partnership with another person, is not "inheriting" the notabilty of their associate when the weight of an article is given to both equally (or, minimally, as you suggest). I also never claimed that the subject was "notable by the mere merit of having co-created a building." It is the totality of his work. ExRat (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Miscommunication here. WP:NOTINHERITED was used in reference to the articles covering his buildings. You linked several articles that have significant coverage of his buildings (look at my source assessment table) and my point was he is not notable just because buildings he designed have received coverage. And the Äripäev article is absolutely an interview piece. The entire article is 688 words long, with 472 words (68% of entire article) of direct citations by the subject. The remaining 32% of content is either regurgitation of said citations or a lead-up of what is to be said by the subject. This is, for all interests and purposes, a pure interview piece and not an independent article. nearlyevil  665  05:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 17:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator: For making further discussion easier I have expanded on my previous source assessment table to include both the references presented here as part of the keep vote as well as the original references present in the article:

nearlyevil 665  07:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:00, 2 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.