Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis W. Wynkoop

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus‎. With no prejudice against renomination. That page should not have been blanked. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis W. Wynkoop

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Francis W. Wynkoop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An entirely blanked article because it fails WP:NBIO and has WP:COI issues. Somehow, nobody thought about making a deletion discussion throughout all of this process. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ping @Left guide and @Arch2all to see what arguments they have. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the redirect, because it linked to a page which is not directly related to Francis Wynkop. I haven't deleted the previous content. It is not an acceptable solution to create misleading redirects in this case. Keep the old content or delete the whole page, if no one can create acceptable content here. Arch2all (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wynkoop is with 2 Os; and the redirect (although I think the page should be kept) was not misleading. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per the edit summary argument which is still fully valid:

    fails WP:NBIO, virtually all of the coverage available for this person is paid sources, passing mentions, and questionable sources that don't count towards notability

    Also possibly the product of COI/UPE based on the banned article creator's history. Left guide (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure your general assessment of the sources as a whole is correct but WP:NPEOPLE indicates that persons meeting the following criterion may be considered notable: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here. Your redirect was not misleading (see above) but I consider it is not necessary.
    Also, @TeapotsOfDoom pinging the 2 contributors who redirected/blanked the page respectively might be seen as inappropriate, although it was limited, open and neutral in its wording, as the audience might fall under the category "partisan". I am certain you did it in good faith and both users were not selected for their opinion on the subject but their opinion on the subject was obviously clear to you before you pinged them. Thank you all the same.
    Anyway, despite strong indications of notability, I stand by my procedural SK !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment, I see no grounds for a speedy keep as BLAR is normal part of editing. Please focus on notability and not procedural issues. Star Mississippi 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I will focus on procedural issues, though. Please look at the history of the page and of this AfD. And please read my comment with more attention. "Blaring" is not an issue. Blanking a page, however, is not, I must insist, normal part of editing. At all. And nominating a blank page, even in good faith, is sufficient ground for SK in my view, at least for procedural keep. See first !vote and see nominator's rationale. So, as your comment is apparently made in quality of administrator and my input seems to be the only thing you notice here, please kindly read: Wikipedia:Page blanking. It's a guideline. As for the rest, I mentioned notabilty too, myself (twice), but AfDs are not always about notability only and when a procedural flaw is patent, it is relevant to mention it and it is permitted if not recommended, to !vote accordingly. Thank you for your time and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The history is accessible and anyone participating in an AfD should look at the current and past state of an article when evaluating an AfD (Prod, MfD, etc.) for necessary information. There are no procedural grounds that invalidate the nomination. If Wynkoop is found to be notable, it will be retained. If not, it won't be. Neither instance requires a procedural restart to the discussion, which might be the case if there were Rev Del or other factors that impacted non admins from seeing the history. My comment is that of one admin, you're welcome to continue asking for others to weigh in. I think your (collectively) time would be best spent assessing notability. Drive by comments (not yours, the one you refer to) are regularly disregarded by closers. Star Mississippi 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if blanking is OK with you and nominating a blank page as such too, perfect, but you might want to change the guideline then. As I've already told you, I've already replied in regard to the notability issue with 2 comments, that you apparently haven't seen. But I'll do it one more time, although I think I am wasting my time with a completely irregular debate. Frank Wynkoop is a notable architect, creator of various very notable works, some listed on the page, with solid references, and he thus clearly, fairly and easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and in particular the criterion I quoted above, but let's go, I'll quote it again (if anyone mentions bludgeoning, I'll direct them to you, hope we agree on that): "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here: https://www.atomic-ranch.com/interior-design/designers-craftsmen/frank-wynkoop-the-butterfly-house/; Dramov, Alissandra, and Momboisse, Lynn A.. Historic Homes and Inns of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Arcadia Publishing Incorporated, p. 8 (quoted on the page and perfectly acceptable); https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/ad-goes-inside-carmels-iconic-butterfly-house; Papp, James. San Luis Obispo County Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, 2023.p.121 ; Engineering News-record. (1962). McGraw-Hill, p. 50; Landscape Architecture: Home landscape, Publication Board of the American Society of Landscape Architects, 1980, p. 164.; etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No concern with bludgeoning. You're making the case that he's notable - great. That's what the closer will need. It's not an irregular debate. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there any reliable indept sourcing for any works apart from the Butterfly House? On a cursory look I've not seen any. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I remember correctly, the Seaburst House did, but the source was on the Internet Archive so I don't have access to it at the moment. It does have at least one piece of SIGCOV here. The Centralia Fox Theatre has SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fwiw, I've paged through newspaper hits for variations on his name & architect and found virtually nothing beyond he was the named architect on a number of schools. Best school coverage I noticed was Lakeside School was inspected by county groups (Modesto Bee And News Herald Newspaper Archives February 6, 1948 Page 17) which appears to have a few paras (can't read properly the scan quality is so poor). There's also a couple of Proquest hits mentioning his work renovating Bakersfield Hall of Records (Repository of county records celebrates 100 years of history. Shearer, Jenny.  McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington. 24 Jan 2009. & Best buildings of downtown: Take the tour. Self, Jennifer. TCA Regional News; Chicago. 18 May 2016). I'd suggest the possibility of a merge with Butterfly House (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), including a para or so about his life and other projects. With architects very predominantly known for one building that usually seems the best approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A merge makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the sourcing points to the fact he was just a local, run of the mill architect, without any significant coverage of him that would go beyond routine local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I've looked through the sourcing here and in the article - the best sources basically say he designed a house in Carmel, but don't really elaborate on him at all. The article uses a lot of short, routine newspaper clippings such as paid obituaries and marriage licenses to pad it out, which don't count. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This architect designed a number of notable structures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which apart from Butterfly House? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the subject. Whether the current contents of the page are blank or not matters not a whit, as Star Mississippi pointed out. And once a valid view to delete has been entered, an improper nomination is no longer reason for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I changed my vote to a normal notability Keep; but I am not convinced by the validity of nominating a blank page because (see nom’s rationale) it is blank...AND, precisely, the 1st D !vote before my SK procedural !vote did not seem valid to me BECAUSE the page was blank. (See vote’s content).. ,,so that, according to your very comment, a procedural K vote seemed.... perfectly valid. ........ Anyway, I changed my vote to avoid long debates about now side issues...Mushy Yank (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Weak delete’’’ - he was clearly an accomplished and successful architect who designed at least two beautiful houses - the photos are lovely. The majority of the text is antiquarian chuff, but that could be pruned if there is a core of notability here. But none of the sources shows real notability. Llajwa (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would endorse merging some of this content into the Butterfly House article, as another editor suggested. Llajwa (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know this is part of the Greg Henderson cleanup, but I think Wynkoop clearly passes WP:ARCHITECT criterion 3 as someone who created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work (i.e., the Butterfly House, which must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and passes that criterion with WP:SIGCOV in Architectural Digest, the Arizona Republic, the Wall Street Journal and other outlets. No prejudice against cleaning up or trimming the text. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dclemens1971 Is there a need for two articles, though? We have one on Butterfly House. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, because a biography of the architect isn't appropriate to include in an article on the building. This is not really an edge case; this is an unambiguous pass of criterion 3 of ARCHITECT/CREATIVE. This criterion doesn't provide only a presumption of notability; instead, such a person is notable (emphasis added). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not generally known for my deletionist tendencies, but WP:AUTHOR, which is the same guideline as WP:ARCHITECT, is almost universally held to require two books each with reviews, otherwise it defaults to an article on the book that briefly covers the biography. If an architect were known for a single, extremely major building that took decades to complete, perhaps... but Butterfly House is the architecture equivalent of a single novel. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The requirement is for multiple reviews, not for multiple works. (Wikipedia has lots of articles about authors who wrote a single book; see Kathryn Stockett for example.) NCREATIVE literally says a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. That's the literal reading of the text. Clearly we disagree about whether it applies, but I stand by the plain reading of the policy. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is even if WP:ARCHITECT is met, WP:GNG isn't. SportingFlyer T·C 01:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show me where WP:NBIO requires a person to meet GNG even if one of the additional criteria is met. (It doesn’t.) The SNG provides alternative paths to notability for biographies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I quote: meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Not meeting the GNG is an excellent reason not to have a stand-alone article on someone, especially if there's only one work they're considered notable for, as they can be discussed briefly in that article instead of having a stand-alone page. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the architecture guidelines met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Local architect that designed non-notable structures. We have confirmation of this, but architects all over the world design things. These buildings aren't on the National Register of Historic Places, nor do they seem to have any special association with any historical items. The Butterfly House was never nominated for any sort of award and it's not a registered historic structure. We have simply a architect that designed interesting buildings, neither of which is terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_W._Wynkoop&oldid=1258654837"