Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Heymann

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

David Heymann

An associate professor of architecture who fails WP:PROF. Only possible bit of fame is designing a house for George Bush. Seems to be part of a "Get as Many UTexas People in Wikipedia as You Can" campaign. Calton | Talk 04:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - subject is a notable architect who has designed the house at Prairie Chapel Ranch for the current President of the United States. Article was just created today as a stub and has not had much time for expansion. I'm not sure what the nominator has against people who attended a certain university. Johntex\^talk 04:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have something against alumni of any university blindly using Wikipedia to promote their alma mater. Was that clear enough, or are you going to twist those words, too?
  • And as for his big commission: it's a HOUSE: not Fallingwater, not Dumbarton Oaks, not Monticello, just a McMansion for the President. You misuse the word "notable". --Calton | Talk 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you implying that I am blindly creating articles? If so then you are mistaken. His name was redlinked in another article, he seemed notable to me, so I made a stub. You are free to disagree with me about whether he is notable or not, but I think you are violating WP:CIVIL by accusing me of having anything other than the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Johntex\^talk 04:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • ...but I think you are violating WP:CIVIL As opposed to your extremely civil and fact-free accusation that I hate UTexas people. Uh huh. Consistency not a virtue in Texas?
      • Maybe "blindly" was a poor choice of words. Promiscuously? Thoughtlessly? Without regard to actual encyclopedic merit?
      • Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with WP:PROF and ask yourself how this guy overcomes the "average professor" test, or even the "average architect" test. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:PROF does not now, nor did it ever, represent consensus. Wikipedia doesn't even have an "average Pokemon" test. Monicasdude 04:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
          • • That's weird: you often refer to a non-existent "Air Force Amy" test, but have trouble with an actual guideline? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
              • WP:PROF isn't a guideline; it's mentioned on a guideline page only as a proposal, and if you bothered to follow the link to the proposal itself, you'd see that the version you favor has been rather solidly rejected, and the existing proposal (still under development) is quite different. As for Air Force Amy, I cite the recent Afd [1] as a precedent (as other editors cite previous AfD decisions), and don't pretend that that there's a consensus WP:Air Force Amy policy or guideline. Monicasdude 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Not only does WP:PROF not represent consensus, the nominator has not even produced any evidence that Heymann fails the so-called test. Johntex\^talk 05:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
            • It's called a "standard" -- they DO have standards in Texas, right? -- and it's widely accepted as such, no matter how much handwaving you and Monicasdude do. More to the point, as a standard for article creation, it's not up to me to prove anyone fails it, it's up to you to prove he passes it -- or are tests done differently in Texas? --Calton | Talk 05:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
              • It's not a matter of how things are done in Texas, its a matter of how they are done on Wikipedia. The deletion process states "When in doubt, don't delete"[2] In other words, the default position is always to keep the article - the burden of proof falls to anyone who wants it to be deleted to achieve at least rough consensus to do so. And I notice that once again you make a gratiuitous comment about Texas, rather than sticking to the substance of the issue at hand. Perhaps that is because there is no substance to your nomination for deletion? Johntex\^talk 05:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Johntex. Royboycrashfan 04:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I created the article with info from another Wikipedia article, which may have been out of date. According to this he is now an Associate Dean - I'm still investigating. Johntex\^talk 04:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, an assistant academic bureaucrat! That's notable! --Calton | Talk 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Johntex. Nomination appears to be part of a "Get as Many Academics Out of Wikipedia as You Can" campaign. Monicasdude 04:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per John and MD. I warn Calton to be civil and comment on content not contributors (or their origins or affiliations). We have to remember that Wiki is not paper. There is an article about something that he helped to design and build. He certainly merits this article about him. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - there doesn't seem to be a perfectly applicable policy here, but being selected by the President to design a house does seem to imply greater notability than the average professor. --Hyperbole 08:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neutral - see comment Far more notable professors have been cheerfully deleted. Only conceivable reason to keep is that he designed a house for a notable person but notability is not contagious. Dlyons493 Talk 09:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment His publication list seems non-existent - he's a good teacher who built a house. Keeping him as a professor would set a whole new standard for professors. He not only fails the average professor test, but probably fails the fourth quartile professor test! If he's to be kept, it can only be as an architect. I've moved some material around in the article to reflect that. Also removed some personal details which, while verifiable, have no relevance to his notability. Dlyons493 Talk 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Dlyons493, who beat me to it. :-) A U.S. president's doctor or personal attorney would not qualify for an article either, if that is their only claim to notability. -- Kjkolb 09:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, their attorney would automatically qualify, not sure about their doctor, but their archetect probably not. JeffBurdges 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think their attorney would qualify. By "personal", I meant someone who does an occasional will or trust or something, not someone who defended them in criminal/civil court or sued people on their behalf (even then, I think the case would have to be significant for an article, though). -- Kjkolb 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per johntex ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete He's an associate dean, a plus. OTOH, I can't find his publication list and his award is only for teaching excellence, and hence not relevant to notability. JeffBurdges 12:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll change my vote to abstain or keep if his publication list looks half way decent. JeffBurdges 12:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, none of the little bits taken alone would satisfy notability, but it seems that when you put it all together he makes the cut. --Deville (Talk) 12:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, article does asserts some notability. --Terence Ong 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete profcruft, pure and simple. At some point, we need to weed all these minor prof entries out pour encourager les autres. Eusebeus 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, he's looking at the notability bar at eye-level through those pretty glasses of his. Get some more impressive press coverage about the house-building thing than "cowboysindians.com" and for Wiki's sake he must have something decent on his publication list, he might sneak over. Deizio 17:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as an great example of what should be done when you think something should be kept. "The Heymann Standard" perhaps... Deizio 20:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I'm still researching the subject of the article. There are a lot of Google hits to wade through. I've expanded the article today with an another award he earned and press coverage on another commission - an interpretive visitor center for the Audubon Society. Johntex\^talk 17:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a well-sourced good little article. As well, if the President of the United States asked an academic to prepare a report that would well and truly establish notability in my book. The President of the United States asking a Professor of Architecture to design his ranch falls under the same category. It is now a notable building in its own right for all sorts of reasons and we have an article on it at Prairie Chapel Ranch. Capitalistroadster 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, per discussion above. Fishhead64 19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The client he designed the house for may be notable but that does not make him so. Nigelthefish 20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the article now details 5 awards he has earned. I've also added several other press citations. I'm still working through the Google hits on this guy. Johntex\^talk 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Very good treatment of this architect and academic. Thanks to Johntex for his work on this. -- JJay 22:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Prairie Chapel Ranch. The house may be notable, but I don't see any evidence that its architect is, other than the fact that he designed the house. Fagstein 04:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Verifiable and notable, imo. --Gurubrahma 05:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It should be noted that I have just completed migrating all of the external links to ref|ref style notation. This article actually has more references than some FAs I've seen out there. This certainly indicates verifiability and notability. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Scm83x. Your changes and those of Dlyons483 have made a big impact to the article. It is very much improved today compared to when this process began:diff Johntex\^talk 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The structure designed for Bush is more notable than just being for a president. The environmental design features incorporated into the structure are also noteworthy. As for the architect himself, he has received other honors aside from the presidential commission and other assignments worthy of note (e.g. Audubon). I am surprised this article is up for deletion consieration...must be some politics going on that i dont know about. Covalent 18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment have a look at the original article and see how much it's changed - Johntex has put a lot of work into it. It was perfectly reasonable, in my view, to put the original article on AfD - it was focussed on his work as a professor (which he's good at, but not especially notable for). Dlyons493 Talk

• The article was prodded shortly after creation and was nominated for deletion six minutes after objection from Johntex, an experienced user and the article creator.[3] No attempt at dialogue was made by this nom on the article talk page. That neither seems reasonable to me or very in keeping with WP:AGF. -- JJay 22:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the timings - certainly more time would have been appropriate (and a little more tact wouldn't have gone amiss) Dlyons493 Talk 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Teachers, no. Professors, yes. Also, passes WP:KIT. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:54
• Keep. I agree with Brian. According to the Pokemon test, he's notable. bogdan 19:05, 31 March 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.