Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael G. Turnbull

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael G. Turnbull

non notable architect. only google hits are wikipedia pages. this page was written by the same IP adresses as the Mark G. Turnbull page, which is also up for deletion Alhutch 19:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn-bio. Nothing here meets my criteria for notability.--Isotope23 20:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of significance. Depite the length and name-dropping, there's no real claim to fame. It's better written and less obvious than most vanity we get, though. Friday (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - He is current Assistant Architect of the Capitol. While this may not be the most glorious position in the Federal Government, attaining this position still sets him apart from the thousands of other architects in the United States. Epolk 16:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment as I pointed out in the nomination, searching "michael g. turnbull" on google turns up only wikipedia pages. searching "michael g. turnbull capitol" gets a few more hits (5 or 6). If he's so important, then why doesn't anyone know who he is?--Alhutch 17:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Response I reviewed the Criteria for inclusion of biographies and it is a close call as to whether he deserves an article. Two possible areas he fits under are Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office and Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. If this was just an architect who worked for Joe Blow & Associates Architecture firm, or if he was an orphan article (he is linked from Architect of the Capitol), I would be all for deleting him. The fact is, he is employed as the number two person of a U.S Federal Government ageny. His architecture work involves some of the most well known structures in the United States (and possible the world). The number of people that know of him is not the only factor in deciding whether he gets an article. I think there is room for him on Wikipedia. That being said, as always on Wikipedia, majority rules.  :) Epolk 17:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I have come to see that Epolk's reasoning makes sense. Since it's not an orphan article, and since this person has some significance, I think that we have to keep this article. Having changed my mind, i struck through the non notable part of my nomination.--Alhutch 20:59, 12 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.