Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isidore George Beaver

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isidore George Beaver

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

I'm finding barely any substantial sources at all for him. The only one I did (https://www.unimelb.edu.au/culturalcollections/research/collections5/groves.pdf) find states that his partner did all the innovative work, not Beaver. I'm not seeing any evidence that he is credited with any notable buildings. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is of interest for his association with H. E. Fuller and Edmund Wright (who is truly notable in Adelaide) and for his vice-presidency of the South Australian Architects Association. Doug butler (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler:Notability is not inherited and he isn't notable merely because he worked with important people. Probably the best way to ensure keeping this article would be to identify some notable buildings that he designed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And an addition to an existing notable building probably doesn't cut it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything notable either. Being third in a partnership of unclear notability, or vice-president of a small local organization doesn't make him notable. --ELEKHH^T 01:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is fascinating how much harder it is to provide evidence of notability (16 references in the article at present, there were already eight when it was nominated!) for professionals on Wikipedia than sportspeople who are inherently "notable" because they once played a game in a national competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottDavis (talk • contribs) 12:06, 12 December 2015

@ScottDavis:If you think an article about an athlete should be deleted, feel free to nominate it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the sources are garbage. A one-line mention of routine news coverage from within his own lifetime is not evidence of notability, it's just what newspapers do. I'm going thru the sources and yet to find a single one that provides any in-depth coverage whatsoever of Beaver. I suggest any admin reviewing this discussion to actually review these sources before giving them any credit. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable architect of his period; a number of his buildings have heritage significance, and while it is now demolished, he also designed the nationally significant St Moritz Ice Rink in St Kilda. Oiyarbepsy misses ScottDavis' point entirely; Beaver is abundantly more notable than thousands of sportspeople who are inherently notable under our sports guidelines, but clueless people go to town on significant people in areas they don't understand. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep saying that word, but I see zero evidence that he is notable. Find an in-depth sources that is mostly about Beaver and I might change my mind, but the sources that people have added are evidence that he is not notable. You don't need to add these kinds of sources to write an article about a notable person. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Designing a nationally significant building (St Moritz deserves an article of its own long ago, surprised it hasn't got one already actually), the houses of notable people, and central public buildings in capital cities more than surpasses playing one sports game in terms of notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prove it with sources, prove it with sources, prove it with sources. How many times do I need to say that? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It took me five seconds in Google to establish that Beaver designed St Moritz, and the rest were already in the article. The case for notability is abundantly clear, it could always use more detail and sourcing, but I am disinclined to expand articles on the whim of someone who has no interest in the notability of the subject and is just disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merely verifying a fact is a far cry from notability. I'm not looking for a source that verifies a fact, you've provided that in spades. I'm looking for a source that proves that someone considered this person important enough to right a book or a lengthy article completely about him. You can pick any architect that ever work from 1850 to today and find one-line mentions in period newspapers that confirm facts, but that does not in any way demonstrate notability. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - St Moritz isn't mentioned in the article because the article is far from complete, but it was an obvious declaration of importance to anyone who knows anything about Australian buildings, and one I found on Google in five seconds. And if I was dealing with someone who was actually interested in the notability of the article, rather than continually trying to delete material sourced to indisputably reliable sources to make a point, I might be so inclined to dedicate my time to adding it; alas, this is not the case. You have an interpretation of WP:GNG that is just flatly wrong and wildly out of line with actual consensus at AFD (we have millions of articles on people without books about them, and plenty without lengthy articles completely about them), and a perusal of your edit history shows that it's far from the first time you've tried to delete valid material based on wild misapplication of policy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, if your sources provides some detail about how it was designed and constructed, it certainly would establish notability for the building (which the building obviously has anyway). A similar sources with some similar detail about another building would establish it for Beaver. I'm particularly curious why the building opened five years after he died (not denying your facts, just curious), and the source has to at least address that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good discussion. The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can (often) find out about |importance=low| places like Wedge Island, painters like Ruth Tuck, schools like Whinham College, doctors like Mary Page Stone that you bump into in general reading but aren't in adb. Beaver wasn't Frank Lloyd Wright, but he wasn't Joe Bloggs either, and he was chosen as a partner by quite famous (in SA at least) architects who are already well treated by adb. Meanwhile, can someone help me link the .pdf that I found with Google about the (heritage listed) Toorak Bowling Club pavilion (which literally calls Beaver notable) ? Also is it OK if I move the article to Isidor George Beaver? I'm embarrassed at getting sucked into that. Doug butler (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the St. Moritz thing - I'd missed that. Hardly surprising that implementation of Beaver's design took some time. This was, after all, the time of the Great Depression. Beaver had been getting fewer jobs (notice the paucity of calls for contractors), and may even have done the work pro bono (he was after all an enthusiastic skater, had shares in the Glaciarium and may have even been sponsor of an ice hockey team).Doug butler (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was half joking, but it turned out to be true. A beautifully written, concise article on Beaver may be found here [1]. Doug butler (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Low-importance but nevertheless notable subject. The age of the subject makes it difficult to find online references of significant coverage, but there are a handful provided which do establish a GNG pass. Huge numbers of less-than-significant newspaper mentions, in the context of being the architect on a notable building. The comparison with sportspeople is apt, as even quite minor players who have played a single professional game are considered automatically notable. If there were such a thing as WP:ARCHITECT, it would probably say something like "An architect is presumed notable if they have headed the design of at least one notable building". There are at least two such buildings - Goode House and the St Moritz Rink.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As the link attributes the building to the firm Wright Reed & Beaver, that would make the firm notable, not Beaver. --ELEKHH^T 03:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WP:ARCHITECT now redirects to the same place as WP:ARTIST as "architect" is listed in that section of the notability criteria. Valfontis (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - intrigued by discssion above, most of which is quite unhelpful, despite that, a notable albeit low profile one, of the article, not the discussion JarrahTree 01:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And your evidence based argument is...? --ELEKHH^T 03:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://icelegendsaustralia.com/1stIceChampions-builders.html#Beaver is sufficient in itself. JarrahTree 06:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but is not that evident for me that a blog by a hockey fan is sufficiently establishing notability. --ELEKHH^T 04:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find coverage in works such as The Making of a Profession: a history of the growth and work of the architectural institutes in Australia and Building a City: 100 years of Melbourne architecture. Andrew D. (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I completely understand the nomination (In its original state, I might have nominated it as well), the further discussion and limited additional sources (particularly Andrew Davidson's above) make me lean keep. Not a high-profile architect, but certainly one by which having an article in Wikipedia is a good thing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:17, 26 December 2015 (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.