Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frazier Forman Peters

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. Flowerparty^☀ 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frazier Forman Peters[edit]

Copyvio ?? A rather complicated one : text was taken from a blog, which in turn took it from an old Wikipedia article which was deleted as "junk". I.e. No sources, and as article claims it is written by "Nan Cutler, who knew Mr. Peters personally" I am assuming this is a copyright violation, or OR at best. Passportguy (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw the article, my first instinct was a copyvio. My best guess on the matter is that if this was the old article, then it's still a copyvio as the initial piece likely was. It's questionable, though; I would note that Google does turn up a book or two by him. Thus I'm not sure whether deletion is best in this case (he may meet the bare notability guidelines; the flipside is that the books are 60-80 years old and may not have been widely distributed), but at the very least the article needs a major cleanup to remove the block of copyvio-esque material (which may be an original essay).Tyrenon (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but rewrite. Tricky one...as it stands, there is a strong potential for copyvio and OR. A brief check on British Library records confirms the four works mentioned - but is he notable? I would say there is something to be rescued from this but it needs a proper rewrite and sources. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I made a start on cleaning & rewriting by cutting out all the guff, adding dates, places, names & a bibliography. Anyone care to continue?
Keep -- with reservations. Very weak article. My inclination is to delete, but if he's notable for 20th century stone house suburban architecture, then the article should be kept, or merged with another article.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion I guess this is a matter of cost-benefit. If you needed

wiki to fit in a book shelf in someone's home, you may delete. But, if you aren't killing any trees I would call this obscure rather than trivial. As long as it does no harm, either wasting time or creating clutter, I'd be inclined to keep. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by main concerns here is not primarily the content as such but rather WP:OR ~~and a possible copyright violation. Especially if it truns out to be the latter, it would have to be removed asap.~~ 14:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the the possible copyvio has been removed. Passportguy (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion The version I saw just seemed to cite the sources.

Is it OR because he opened a paper book or had to get up to find a source? I guess I like obscure things like this but again generally indifferent. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is OR because someone may have researched this by himself. Without reliable sources this cannot be verified. See WP:V Passportguy (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to think copyvio. And sources have now been added. The previous deletion was for an erroneous reason: no claim of notability, whereas the article claimed the authorship of a number of books. DGG (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (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.