Talk:Isaac S. Taylor

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the person whom it is about is important. Read the introductory paragraph. Furthermore, there is ample documentation of his life's work. He's an important architect in the American Midwest around 1900.

Just because you say he is important does not mean he is. You need reliable sources. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the friggin' first paragraph of this article?????? People who are involved in designing entire World's Fairs and major office buildings in great metropolises of the United States are important and such knowledge is encyclopedic. Get a grip! Absecon 49 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean he is notable, you need reliable sources. He is not notable because of unsorced info. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weegeerunner, back off. There's a citation at the bottom of the page, as as people write articles, they insert footnotes and citations. I have a Ph.D. in Art History from the University of Pennsylvania, specializing in modern architecture, with an extensive scholarly publication record; you can check my CV here: https://wolfsonian.academia.edu/PeterClericuzio/CurriculumVitae. I **THINK** I know what I'm doing. Absecon 49 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One source does not mean instant notability, and your level of education does not matter here, we are talking about the article, adn whether the subject is notable enough. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my level of education *DOES* matter, as I'm an expert in the field, and I'm trained to decide whether or not something is important enough to be notable. It's my profession and I do it for a living. Articles take a few hours to a few days to write, so why don't you go find something else to do? Would you rather have people who have no idea what they're doing writing articles like this? I've even written featured articles for Wikipedia before (see New Orleans Mint. (talk) Absecon 49 (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist my words, all I am saying is, we need reliable sources to prove the subject of the article is notable. If you find some reliable sources, than alright. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read your own words. I'm merely responding to exactly what you said: "your level of education does not matter here, we are talking about the article, adn[sic] whether the subject is notable enough." And it takes a few hours to actually type in all the citations. So hold off the hot button about deleting every new article that gets created. (talk) Absecon 49 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you should be doing, that's throwing this conversation off track. And usually the sources are put as soon as the article is created (I might be mistaken though). And please calm your tusks, and assume good faith. I am not trying to "delete every new article that gets created" Weegeerunner (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, as you said, "Just because you say he is important does not mean he is. You need reliable sources." (1) It's my JOB to decide what's important in this field, and (2) Yes, there are reliable sources forthcoming. (I think I know a little bit about it, since that's kind of the cornerstone of academic writing.) Furthermore, it's hard to assume good faith when you tag the article like this less than an hour after someone else creates it. (talk) Absecon 49 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your job does not mean you have more say in things on wikipedia. And I am a New Page Patroller. That's what I do. We cannot just ignore WP:AGF Weegeerunner (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the sources you just put aren't cited correctly, check out Help:Referencing for beginners. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I know how to do inline citations. Check out New Orleans Mint. And as to "Your job does not mean you have more say in things on wikipedia." Fine, maybe it doesn't, but who do you want writing content on this site about these topics? Experts, or any average Joe Schmo off the street? (talk) Absecon 49 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not the free encyclopedia that experts can edit Weegeerunner (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not exactly true if you insist on Wikipedia containing verified, cited content. You don't want just "anybody" editing content on Wikipedia, otherwise it loses its usefulness and credibility. I'm sure you're an experienced Wikipedia editor and writer, otherwise you wouldn't have the authority to patrol pages, presumably. If so, you know how long it actually takes to write a good article, and that most "good articles" don't just appear out of nowhere in the span of an hour. So, all I'm saying is back off and let people who have some actual knowledge of the subject construct the content before you tag things to be deleted. Use a little common sense here. (talk) Absecon 49 (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they have sources, they can edit, I expect there to at least be one source when an article is created. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Absecon: @Weegeerunner: Please stop bickering. I declined the WP:CSD#A7. I have two comments, one for each of you. @Weegeerunner, you are absolutely wrong that an unsourced article should be speedily deleted. Speedy deletions do not depend on sources. An article may be speedily deleted per A7 if it has no credible claims of significance. It does not have to be sourced, although obviously sources help. @Absecon, I declined the A7 based on what you already have in the article, but, honestly, it would have been better for you to work on this in draft space so that it's more complete instead of having so many empty sections in article space. I would be happy to move it to draft space for you. Please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, i'm so stupid. Sorry about that. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bbb23 -- Thank you. Yes, please do move it to draft space so that I can finish it without leaving so many empty sections. Much appreciated. Absecon 49 (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Absecon: Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]