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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walton Danforth Stowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I do not believe this man meets our notability guidelines. He appears to have been a prolific employee of the National Park Service, but I'm not sure he rises the level called for by WP:ARCHITECT #1. The article is clearly refbombed. My BEFORE did not find any SIGCOV beyond his obituary in either newspaper or scholarly sources. Bringing this to AFD rather than PROD because there is a previous deletion discussion. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and West Virginia. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article was not written from a "fan" point of view, it is entirely neutral. The external links are provided to document Stowell's accomplishments.

  Stowell was more than a long time park ranger. As documented in the article he was one of the first generation historical preservationists contributing the the Historic American Buildings Survey and well known by those in the field. He was responsible for leading the effort in 1979 time frame getting Harpers Ferry, a major historical site, on the National Register for Historic Places. He made measured drawings of important historical structures in Jefferson County, WV. He was responsible for the effort to save and restore the iconic Harpers Ferry Train Depot. And was responsible for surveys and designs for restoration of many historical structures throughout the US. And interpretive exhibits at many National Parks.

  This article should only being deleted if someone with historical preservation credentials says Stowell was NOT notable. Burgessdr (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia doesn't judge notability based on the opinion of "someone with historical preservation credentials." We have certain standards as I have noted in my rationale. The sources in the article merely note that Stowell existed and worked on various projects. They don't give significant coverage about him, as required by our policies. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Fundamental POV issues. It is also uncertain whether WP:NBIO is met, since there seems to be a lack of in-depth coverage of the individual in sources that are independent of his former organisations. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not much found, his son I think was an artist, I get a few hits for him. Nothing for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I could find nothing in my university library. I checked newspaper and journal archives and found nothing substantial. The sources with in-depth coverage in the article are all closely connected to the subject and lack independence. Many of them are primary sources as well. Undoubtedly this person would be worthy of some attention by a researcher and deserves coverage, but we are not the forum to do that per our policy of WP:No original research. Without independent reliable secondary sources, there isn't enough evidence to establish notability under our policies.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Draftify I can't believe that this article would be deleted because two editors didn't find supporting citations in their own searches. I just see dismissal of the sources, not much of an evaluation. If they are insufficient, I think that this article should be Draftified rather than Deleted so that it can be improved through editing. I don't see a necessity for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify article needs to be "wikified", but there is enough to work with. Djflem (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify I think the subject may be notable, but the article needs a major overhaul. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As nominator, I am also happy with draftifying. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:02, 27 October 2022 (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.