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. Missvain (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madis Eek

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

Madis Eek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail of WP:GNG. No indication of any significant contributions to his field. nearlyevil665 09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No This is an interview piece Yes Reliable newspaper Yes Significant coverage, as this is an interview ✘ No
Yes Independent coverage Yes Nothing to suggest it isn't reliable No This is an article covering the planned construction of a bus terminal and commercial building, with just a passing mention of the subject, mentioned in a single paragraph ✘ No
Yes Major newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No Article is behind a paywall. Article title's translated reads "In a glass egg competition" and the first visible paragraph suggests nothing about significant coverage of the subject. Looks like an article covering an architect competition, rather than the subject. ✘ No
Yes Major newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No The article is entirely about residents' protest against the construction of a cultural village. The subject is mentioned once in the article, as one of the authors of the planned project. Therefore, a trivial mention of the subject. ✘ No
Yes Newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No The article is actually a review of one of the buildings co-designed by the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED. Only a passing mention of the subject, mentioned once in the article. ✘ No
Yes English version of Estonia's Public Broadcaster Yes Reliable No Not significant. The article is dedicated to a failure in procurement and the subject was the one contracted to do it. It also includes bits of interviews from the subject. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
nearlyevil665 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is also a very indepth, three page article about Eek specifically in the September 2010 Oma Maja edition of Äripäev (pages 16–19, here). Also, disagree with a few of your assessments. The Eesti Päevaleht article: WP:NOTINHERITED can't be used, as the subject is the co-architect. The subject didn't "inherit" notabilty from someone else's sole abilities; the subject is the co-creator of the building. The Eesti Rahvusringhääling article: the article is indepth. The fact that it quotes the subject in small "bits of interviews"...well, it would be sort of remiss as a journalistic piece if it didn't. Not sure how that is a strike against it. Agree that several sources are passing mentions, but they are mostly about his work or buildings. ExRat (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An architect is not notable by the mere merit of having co-created a building which passes notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. None of the sources covering those buildings cover the subject to a non-trivial degree. The three page article you mentioned is nearly entirely an interview piece, hence not an independent source, hence not a source for determining notability. nearlyevil665 15:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The Äripäev article is absolutely not "nearly entirely an interview piece" whatsoever. It is a lengthy, featured profile of the subject, directly. He is quoted in the article. It is not merely some "interview" piece. This is an interview piece. This is not. You also still seem to not understand WP:NOTINHERITED: "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." A co-creator, equally in partnership with another person, is not "inheriting" the notabilty of their associate when the weight of an article is given to both equally (or, minimally, as you suggest). I also never claimed that the subject was "notable by the mere merit of having co-created a building." It is the totality of his work. ExRat (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Miscommunication here. WP:NOTINHERITED was used in reference to the articles covering his buildings. You linked several articles that have significant coverage of his buildings (look at my source assessment table) and my point was he is not notable just because buildings he designed have received coverage. And the Äripäev article is absolutely an interview piece. The entire article is 688 words long, with 472 words (68% of entire article) of direct citations by the subject. The remaining 32% of content is either regurgitation of said citations or a lead-up of what is to be said by the subject. This is, for all interests and purposes, a pure interview piece and not an independent article. nearlyevil665 05:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further participation and discussion based on the presented sources may help generate consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 17:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: For making further discussion easier I have expanded on my previous source assessment table to include both the references presented here as part of the keep vote as well as the original references present in the article:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No This is an interview piece Yes Reliable newspaper Yes Significant coverage, as this is an interview ✘ No
Yes Independent coverage Yes Nothing to suggest it isn't reliable No This is an article covering the planned construction of a bus terminal and commercial building, with just a passing mention of the subject, mentioned in a single paragraph ✘ No
Yes Major newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No Article is behind a paywall. Article title's translated reads "In a glass egg competition" and the first visible paragraph suggests nothing about significant coverage of the subject. Looks like an article covering an architect competition, rather than the subject. ✘ No
Yes Major newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No The article is entirely about residents' protest against the construction of a cultural village. The subject is mentioned once in the article, as one of the authors of the planned project. Therefore, a trivial mention of the subject. ✘ No
Yes Newspaper in Estonia Yes Nothing to suggest lack of reliability No The article is actually a review of one of the buildings co-designed by the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED. Only a passing mention of the subject, mentioned once in the article. ✘ No
Yes English version of Estonia's Public Broadcaster Yes Reliable No Not significant. The article is dedicated to a failure in procurement and the subject was the one contracted to do it. It also includes bits of interviews from the subject. ✘ No
Yes Independent union Yes Reliable No Membership of said Union is not a precursor to notability. In fact I'd even question the notability of said Union. ✘ No
This is just a cv page This is just a cv page No This is just a cv page with about three sentences about the subject ✘ No
No This is an interview piece No Interview piece Yes The entire article is 688 words long, with 472 words (68% of entire article) of direct citations by the subject. The remaining 32% of content is either regurgitation of said citations or a lead-up of what is to be said by the subject. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
nearlyevil665 07:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2021 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madis_Eek
No tags for this post.