Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Busse (architect)

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) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Busse (architect)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub with low notability, few references and limited views PenulisHantu (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; we should generally keep subjects that have their own German Wikipedia article as de.wp have more stringent notability guidelines than us. In this case however I have failed to see that our notability guidelines are met based on the online sources in that article, and I cannot find any myself. He may qualify for some subset of CREATIVE by virtue of this but I haven't seen anything that would quite satisfy all standards of GNG. de:Carl Busse (Baumeister)'s (haven't be able link interwiki links of late weirdly enough) sources no. 3 and 4 I'm going to AGF on as I think GNG would be met with those given what they are referencing and de.wp's stringent standards. The source in our article based on it being a widespreading Berlin travel book (without a preview, better than what the German-language book provides but not enough) and what it is referencing looks like it may fall just below the bar of significant coverage but I think that should be applied less stringently because of the wide scope of the book. TL;DR: I am willing to assume that two out of three sources contain enough to be construed as GNG-applicable. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not seeing any real grounds for deletion in the nomination. Stubs are valid. Limited views and few references are irrelevant. Notability may be an issue, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2020 (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.