Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Lishman's underground house

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. Sandstein 20:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lishman's underground house[edit]

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

No evidence of importance for the house. ; the content is already in the article on the person, and the present title would not even be a useful redirect DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same content already in the person's main article. Gm545 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I created this article is that the focus of the Bill Lishman main article is on his activities as an inventor, his exploration of bird flight, etc. The house is of interest to a completely different community, as it is a specimen of unorthodox individualized approach to architecture that sometimes goes under the name of "visionary environments". While I agree that the present article does not provide much useful contents, I would contend that the stub has a purpose, as it supplies appropriate categorization, connects to other articles on similar subjects and creates good potential for further expansion, and I request that it should not be deleted. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even stubs need to adhere to rule WP:42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gm545 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is almost duplicated at Bill Lishman. Until secondary sources cover the house in depth (no pun intended) it doesn't pass notability standards. Even then what is probably notable is the concept of an Underground house, not any individual structure. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please make some constructive suggestions as to what can be added in order to make it possible to keep the article as a stub? Just references to secondary sources?

That it is "duplicated" from Bill Lishman is not an argument. Much better to remove that subsection in Bill Lishman and keep a separate article that connects to other articles on similar subjects and establishes a meaningful database structure.

It's a strange idea that individual underground buildings cannot be notable. Can ordinary buildings be notable? There are hundreds of articles on individual buildings on Wikipedia. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. When secondary sources say something substantial about the house then it would be considered notable on WP. The mere facts that a building has a cool owner/builder and is underground do not make it notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This is a reasonable position, and I will try to look for relevant sources. It is counterproductive, however, to delete the stub. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability. I have prodded Bill Lishman, also for lack of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Whattttt?????? Who is notable then? Only American TV celebrities? InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bill Lishman as there doesn't seem to be individual notability with this house. I've un-prodded the Lishman article as The Star articles about that person are in-depth and significant.--Oakshade (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2014 (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.