Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry MacEwen

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. There just aren't any sources on this guy, at least, none that say anything. WP:V trumps; also, AED's comment has gone unanswered. Mangojuice^talk 15:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Harry MacEwen

Worthy architect who founded his own firm. Fullsome article. Claim that road named after him but no supporting source for the connection. Just five ghits here. I'm not seeing compliance with WP:BIO without further evidence. BlueValour 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) BlueValour 00:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Being a fellow of the American Institute of Architects is a higher achievement than simply being a member of the group. I added some stuff. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rod Propps, a developer of the Oaks Club admired Harry MacEwn's talent and presented his name to the Board of Directors of the Oaks Club. Harry MacEwen was a rare architect, he not only designed most of the residences but designed all the club buildings, china, guard uniforms and even the logo used today.

Even years after his death the homes he designed are still listing him as the architect. It would be worthy to provide information about the architect behind many buildings he designed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kferlita (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

• Delete. Not verifiably notable; article lacks reliable third-party sources. Large suspicion of copy-and-paste due to edit history and double-asterisk that appears in section regarding his employment history. -AED 05:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. REFER TO VERIFIABLE SOURCE -(www.tampatrb.com) Tampa Landmark Architect, Dead At 90, "Had Great Style'

PHILIP MORGAN; Tampa Tribune; Mar 2, 2002; pg. 4; - User:KFerlita 15:33, 5 September 2006

• Keep -- WP:BIO is not a policy -- as WP:BIO says, in BOTH its first and second paragraphs: WP:BIO spells out:

  This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies).

  • WP:BIO is merely an opinion.
  • In my opinion a nomination that simply cites WP:BIO is contrary to wikipedia policy, and I wonder whether the nominator would consider simply withdrawing their nomination. IMO, WP:BIO should be regarded as an informal shortcut to find articles that may violate WP:NPOV, WP:VER or WP:NOR.
  • Alternatively, if the nominator feels that they can present an argument that the article is in violation of one of the official policies. WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:NOR, then they should frame a nomination that addresses how the article does not meet the criteria of that real policy. -- Geo Swan 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - most everyone who is reasonably successful in their profession reaches the rank of 'Fellow' (and that includes me for what it is worth i.e. not very much). For all the words in the article, and the sources that have been pointed up, notable achievements simply don't seem to be there. I respect the work that Geo Swan is doing on the Guantanamo detainee articles but I think that he is misdirecting himself on WP:BIO; policy or not it is by custom and practice the standard against which keeping such articles is decided. BlueValour 02:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BlueValour--Peta 06:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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.