Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pehr W. Palmrooth

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus is notability is established. I leave title determination to an editorial decision. If there's anything blocking a move, just ping me. Star Mississippi 02:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pehr W. Palmrooth

[edit]

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

Pehr W. Palmrooth (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)

NN architect. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep, see sources in the Finnish article. /Julle (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • But yeah, really needs to be moved to the correct spelling of his name. /Julle (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - There are references above to WP:NARCHITECT#3, but I'm not seeing anyone explicitly point out the sources that satisfy the second sentence in addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). The articles for the wikilinked churches are both very badly referenced, and I don't see anything better in their fi.wp articles.
    @Julle and Alexandermcnabb: Did you look at the fi.wp sources in detail? #1 and #5 are database entries, with #1 being just the DOB and DOD, and #2-#4 appear to be WP:SPS. I'm not sure what fi.wp references you refer to (hah). -Ljleppan (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your source evaluation here above my own, and strike my !vote. /Julle (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also note that simply saying There's a lot out there if you look for it is largely useless, unless one actually points out what sources they refer to. Ljleppan (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a lot of his churches and a source to the article. I think that's enough for WP:GNG. I'm honestly not interested enough to do more than that. My vote and rationale for it stands. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the en.wp article we're discussing here? The one where the references consist solely of a name+DOB+DOD in a database (ref #1, Structurae), a database entry of a cathedral he designed (ref #2, kyppi.fi), another database entry consisting of name+DOB+DOD (ref #3, Kringla) and a list entry of a total of 130 characters (un-numbered ref Sveriges och Norges statskalender)? That's incredibly far from reaching WP:GNG. Ljleppan (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the coat of arms of the city suffices, otherwise Unless someone reads Finnish I think we can call WP:IAR on explicitly requiring newspaper articles about a 200 year old cathedral that survived a battle and an occupation. —siroχo 08:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Finnish, and searched for Finnish language sources. The refs used at fi:Kuopion tuomiokirkko are all rather bad. Searches for both the architect and the Kuopio cathedral both just return useless hits, like a news blurb about how "there are still a few open slots in the summer for marriage ceremonies". Even the Finnish Heritage Agency listing is just stuff like "Made of stone, building started in X by so-and-so, halted in Z, continued in W, seats replaced in Y". By your call for an IAR keep, I take it that you too have failed to find anything that would actually meet either WP:GNG or WP:NARCHITECT#3. Ljleppan (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read Finnish or Swedish (or Russian for that matter) and don't have access to newspaper archives in either language either. I actually tried to find pre-1900 newspapers in those languages (not even about this topic, just find the newspapers so I could query about the topic) but I literally don't know the languages well enough to find the archives in a reasonable amount of time.
    I'm invoking IAR for this because I believe WP:ARCHITECT#3 applies in spirit here. The purpose of the clause you're querying about really is not to exclude verifiable architects of notable buildings from 200 years ago. It would not serve the encyclopedia to follow this guideline to the letter here. Instead, let's follow the spirit of the guideline, and recognize that it better serves the first and second pillars to include an article about a verifiable architect of multiple notable structures from 200 years ago. —siroχo 11:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe the guidelines should be changed, you are naturally free to propose the change on relevant talk page. I'm also rather confused why you keep bringing up pre-1900 newspapers, nothing in the guidelines says the references must be contemporary. Perhaps you are misunderstanding "periodical" in periodical articles or reviews as "period"? Ljleppan (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I happen to have access to archives of historical newspapers and other publications published in Finland, and I can't see any relevant hits in either Finnish or Swedish newspapers. There's someone called "Carl Palmroth" going about; a reverend "A. Palmroth" does something or else; someone called "C. O. Palmroth" has levied a bunch of money from various bank accounts as part of some debt recovery process; a dentist called "R.W. Palmroth" advertises his services; a land survey commissioner called Palmroth is traveling to Hamburg in 1881 (nb: our subject died 1825); someone called "Georg Juhana Palmroth" gets a diamond decorated ring from the Russian Emperor in 1882; a lieutenant Palmroth is going about around 1807 doing something with a first platoon, etc. etc.
    The only even potentially relevant hits are non-news things like this, which lists the name of "Pehr Vilhelm Palmroth" as an ensign of the Royal Uplands Regiment, and this which says the same guy is a conductor in 1809. These contribute nothing towards a GNG pass. Ljleppan (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If this comes up multiple times I may propose a change, but I don't see a need now. Appreciate your input. —siroχo 11:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • source I added a source in Swedish to the article. Good article and clearly stated about him.--Patricia (Talk) 10:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source no. 5:here.--Patricia (Talk) 10:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be a self-published source and mentions the subject only in passing. It's neither a good article nor clearly stated about him. Ljleppan (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS? by whom? He died 200 years ago--Patricia (Talk) 15:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "self" in "self-published" does not talk about the subject of the text, but the author. I suggest you (re)read the linked policy. Ljleppan (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
iam not sure but maybe this is one way: here. Patricia (Talk) 15:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also changed:Petter "Per" Wilhelm Palmroth. not move yet.--Patricia (Talk) 15:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Patricia Mannerheim for your updates. Thanks to them, I was able to find another in-depth source, added into the article, and I think its sufficient for GNG now, in addition to ARCHITECT.3 —siroχo 23:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: Help me out here, again: what sources do you claim constitute a GNG pass? Because as far as I can see, the Finska Museum ref is just two extremely brief mentions of the subject, same for Sveriges kyrkor. Do you have access to the sources beyond what is shown in the Google Books preview? If yes, please describe how they match the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews requirement of WP:NARCHITECT#3. It'd be best if you could write up a brief WP:THREE statement (from either a GNG or an NARCHITECT angle, whichever you believe is the strongest) to help the rest of us figure out whether we agree with your rather plain assertion on the notability pass. Ljleppan (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, asking for a friend and all that, but what is that long wooden thing over there? Looks to me a lot like a stick, I'd have to say... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of everyone, I went to scour the stacks and found the archival copy of Finskt Museum, vol XIX (btw, as far as I could determine, the book is not "in Finnish and Swedish" and the relevant article is only in the Swedish version). The two snippets shown by Google Books is indeed everything there is: two passing mentions. I also checked the separate index, and it contained the following entry: Palmroth, P. W., arkitekt F 1912: 63, 69.. So that appears to be all for that source.
While in the stacks, I also sought out Sveriges kyrkor by Bergman. It mentions Palmroth only a few times. One is in an index of figures on page 594. Another is on a spread, where four drawings are attributed to him in two separate captions (pages 346-347). These drawings are describe briefly in associated text (pages 344-345), in a total of two paragraphs. Palmroth is barely mentioned. He's also mentioned in a three-paragraph description of a 1796 church in Venjan on page 561. The description is an extremely bare-bones description of the church, with Palmroth only mentioned in passing as the architect. Finally, he is mentioned once on page 591 in an English language summary, which appears to translate the three paras from page 561 verbatim, which just demonstrates how bare-bones the description is.
My Swedish is rather rudimentary, so it's possible I missed something, but based on what I saw I consider precisely none of this helpful in terms of GNG. Ljleppan (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i wanna thanks to Ljleppan. Appreciate.I understand exactly what you are saying: work so much hard about sources and read them. but as a user who wrote this Article, still believed WP:NARCHITECT#3 per for the subject.--Patricia (Talk) 12:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting rather frustrating, with all the vague hand waving and poor sources presented so far. What sources do you base this on? What are the multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or [the] independent and notable work required by WP:NARCHITECT#3? Ljleppan (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Above keep !votes put forwards two arguments: either the subject passes WP:GNG (which is equivalent to the "basic criteria" of WP:NBIO), or that the subject passes WP:NARCHITECT#3. I cannot see any supporting evidence for either position.
    In terms of GNG, the references presented in both this article and the fi.wp article are all either bare bones database entries (e.g. Structurae, Kringla), database entries that only mention the subject in passing (e.g. kyppi.fi), passing mentions (Sveriges of Norges statskalendar), self-published (kauvatsankarjalaiset.net, upplandia.se) or combination thereof (pohjois-savonmuisti.fi). This also applies to the sources presented above during the AfD. For example, having looked up physical copies in the local archives, Finskt Museum is two passing mentions. Sveriges kyrkor is not any better. See above for extensive descriptions of my attempts to validate the proposed references.
    A search for Finnish sources, including historical archives of newspapers and other works published in Finland whether in Finnish or Swedish going back to when the subject was alive, reveals no further sourcing that would raise to the level of GNG (or WP:NBASIC or WP:ANYBIO, for that matter).
    As for WP:NARCHITECT#3, the above !votes all conveniently ignore the second sentence of that very point: In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). No such coverage is evident on the linked Wikipedia articles, and no such coverage has been presented in this discussion.
    The fact that Sveriges kyrkor - a compilation of literally 200+ books taking up several meters of space on shelves and discussing quite literally every Swedish church ever - barely mentions the subject or his works speaks volumes.
    In total, none of the keep votes have put forward the references required by the guidelines they point to. As such, I see no other policy (or guideline) based option but to !vote delete. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could I gently suggest consideration of WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:BLUDGEON now? The man is 200 years old. He is the (well) documented architect of many, many churches and public buildings in Finland and Sweden. The present clear consensus here is that he is presumed notable per WP:ARCHITECT. Let's leave it to other contributors, if any? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree . With full respect for all users.--Patricia (Talk) 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb: As someone who had argued keep, I disagree. I think that Ljleppan makes a reasonable case, with reasonable arguments, and that no one else is seriously engaging with the discussion about lacking sources. I looked up Palmroth in what I'd describe as the major work on the history of Swedish architecture in modern times (Den svenska arkitekturens historia by Fredric Bedoire), where he's once mentioned in passing because someone else's plans passed through his hands working at the superintendent's office, but there was no mention of his work as an architect. /Julle (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Julie Julle. To engage with the discussion about lacking sources, since the start of this discussion, it clear to me we now have a WP:HEY for WP:BASIC/GNG for the subject via sources now in the article. Consider, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. We now have that. I appreciate your source, and if you feel it helps I would appreciate you adding it, but I understand if you choose not to. Earlier, the discussion got a bit away from us, and that's completely fine, but I think that's why Alexandermcnabb raised their suggestion. —siroχo 02:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: I'd be happy to !vote keep if you just point out which sources in specific support such a position. But I'd also point out the sentence immediately following what you cited, as well as the explanatory footnote attached to it: trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. and Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing. See also the rest of the explanatory footnote about database sources. In this case, all we have in reliable sources is trivial mentions such as directory entries or mentions in passing. (Ps. it's "Julle" with two Ls, not "Julie") Ljleppan (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for misreading the other editor's name! —siroχo 09:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck and remedied it, thanks for pointing it out. —siroχo 09:26, 16 July 2023 (UT
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/Pehr_W._Palmrooth&oldid=1165889677"