Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Mickle Smith

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mickle Smith

[edit]
Walter Mickle Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable engineer, fails WP:BIO. Hasn't received significant attention in reliable independent sources. While he has technically "designed" a number of NHRP listed buildings, he is not noted for his designs, in fact one of the sources cited in the article literally stateson page 21: "Smith and other design engineers needed to fill in the details.[...] They accomplished this with little innovation." The sources given are about the registered places, not about the engineer, apart from the "who's who" from 1922 which lists every engineer apparently, and is hardly discriminate. Fram (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field": he was chief design engineer for the Illinois Waterway which connects the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. There are adequate sources already included in the article, I think. And as noted at Talk of the article, there exist additional reliable, secondary sources available in the form of NRHP nomination documents, not yet obtained by me or by the deletion proposer, which are reasonably expected to provide additional biography and explanation of the importance of this person. Contrary to what's stated in the deletion proposal. Also those NRHP nomination documents will include bibliographies of additional sources. --doncram 08:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please show where his contribution has been "widely recognized". According to the sources, he only supervised the building of standardized waterworks, where he "only needed to fill in the details" and did this "with little innovation". I fail to see how this matches "a widely recognized contribution". Fram (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He must be important to have enemies calling him a mere hack! :) Anyhow, you haven't consulted the sources. Why PROD and then ignore discussion at Talk page of the article, by the way, where it was explained to you that sources exist. You could better have discussed there than opening this AFD immediately. There is plenty of reason to expect there will be plenty of coverage of Smith in offline sources. --doncram 09:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't consulted the sources? I am quoting from them, what more evidence do you need? Notable people, certainly from the US, usually have plenty of information available online. I have made enough articles about people from the same period to know how much you usually can find for someone who is notable. That doesn't mean that more info can't be available offline of course, but that is pure speculation. As for the NRHP records: the long texts in the nomination pages are not really "published sources" in the normal sense of the words, they are primary sources. Fram (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You haven't consulted the offline sources known to exist. It's not speculation that the NRHP nomination documents exist, and they are secondary sources, including references to multiple primary and secondary sources. --doncram 09:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The offline sources about the waterworks where he had a minimal creative contribution and a major supervising role? No, I haven't consulted those, and neither have you. You are supposed to have evidence of notability before you create an article, not just a guess that some offline documents will provide that evidence. Fram (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Evidence of Smith's notability includes that he is credited with 5 works listed on the National Register, and there is coverage about this in Historic American Engineering Records also non-trivial. I am sorry that "Illinois Waterway Navigation System Facilities MPS" turns out not to be online, and that the individual NRHP nomination documents aren't online. I disagree completely with you about when it is appropriate or not to start the wikipedia article about a person who is pretty obviously wikipedia-notable. Do let's just agree to disagree. --doncram 10:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another kind of reason to create and keep articles like this, is that it serves as a short list-article, linking to and from notable works of this person. Reasoning like this was discussed in another AFD about an architectural firm, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson, where biographical details were lacking, but consensus was that wikipedia was served by having the article. In the Walter Mickle Smith article case, there are now 6 mainspace wikipedia articles linking to here, and removing this article would impoverish each of those. It simply is sensible to include keep biographical details and a list of works in one short, central article about the person, rather than repeating that information in all the separate articles about the person's works. --doncram 12:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it doesn't make sense. These articles don't need biographical details about the supervising engineer, since his input in these was minimal. We don't include biographical info on the director of the company either. In fact, it would probably make more sense to combine the five entries in one Illinois Waterway Navigation System Facilities MPS, since that was also the way they were presented to the NHRP. But if merging them for some reason isn't feasible, then a list that focuses on that aspect instead of the WM Smith aspect would be more logical, since they haven't been nominated and registered because of the WM Smith link, but because of the Illinois Waterway Navigation System Facilities link. Fram (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it does make sense. Note there are, i think, 3 separate HAER documents about 3 of the works, and the HAER document writers including the one you find to be derogatory, choose to include biographical details about Smith, because he is a significant person to explain about. Likewise, in the 6 NRHP documents that exist, the MPS and 5 individual NRHP nom docs, it is likely that biographical details will be given, about this person who gets credit for these important works. It is simply part of responsible writing about a related set of works, by HAER or by NRHP or by wikipedia, to include short biographical details about a person named again and again. It serves wikipedia to put the index of works and the biographical details in a short article about the person, titled either by the person's name or by "List of works by" the person. It serves wikipedia to identify, in one central place, whether a person named in multiple NRHP listings in the "architect, builder, or engineer" field, is in fact an engineer, or what. I'll stop now and hope others will comment. --doncram 13:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I can tell from the very short mentions in those HAER documents, Mortimer Grant Barnes was the more important engineer on these. There even is a plaque in his honor at the Starved Rock Lock and Dam. No such thing seems to be done for Smith though. Note that one of the three HAER documents doesn't include any biographical details about Smith. Oh, and another one doesn't either, they just note that Smith was the engineer on the project. So in fact, there are indeed 3 HAER documents about these constructions, and only of the three even found it necessary to spend a few lines on Smith, and then indicated that his input was minimal. If you are using that as evidence of notability, then your standards are way too low. Fram (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it is your standards that are too low, IMO. In terms of what Wikipedia should provide as info to readers, when a person is named repeatedly in multiple articles. My goal is for there to be some reasonable info about such a person, and to provide means for a reader to navigate between the articles that mention the person. Your goal might be to protect wikipedia from there being any "inadequate" bio articles, I suppose, but IMO you need to adjust your expectation for articles that serve both bio purpose and list-article / navigation purposes. I think some info ought to be provided, right away, and I hope for the article to evolve and improve as a standalone bio article, too. Again, let's just agree we have different philosophies, or we are working on developing wikipedia in different ways. --doncram 17:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chief design engineer for a major waterway system. Of course he's notable. Meets the criteria of WP:CREATIVE and also of WP:COMMONSENSE. You cannot apply the "if there aren't any sources online then he can't be notable" argument (which is weak at the best of times) to someone who was active in the early 20th century. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chief designer? The sources given indicate that he didn't design it, he executed and supervised the existing designs with minimal detail changes. Which criterium in WP:CREATIVE would that match? And you can't argue that someone is notable without providing the sources to establish this. Fram (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, actually. The HAER documents do, in fact, indicate that he designed many of the important structures. For example, the HAER on Brandon Road Lock and Dam Historic credits Smith with designing the lock, dam and ice protection wall. The HAER on Dresden Island Lock and Dam credits Smith with designing the control station, lock, auxiliary lock, and dam. The HAER on Marseilles Lock and Dam credits Smith with designing the lock and old control station. And the HAER on Starved Rock says he was the chief design engineer on the lock and dam. These structures are all listed on the National Register of Historic Places and are important parts of the Illinois Waterway connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River. Cbl62 (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' I'm a strong believer in the principle that when the subject has a dedicated champion at AfD, we can assume that he/she has beat the bushed for notability-bestowing sources. Based on what's in the article + above, not even close. EEng (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added some additional sources and informaion. He was one of the design engineers on the Panama Canal and Panama Canal Locks. He then became a design engineer for the NYC water system -- one of the largest in the world. He also spent 27 years on the Illinois Waterway system (a modern engineering marvel) including many years as the chief engineer. His death in 1953 was covered by the Associated Press and newspapers across the country, and I've added some of those articles to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The AP obit is still just one source, no matter how many papers picked it up. Please call out which of the sources has substantial coverage of him -- not just mentioning him in narrative of the various people who participated at various stages of design and construction of one project or another. EEng (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The AP obit is just one source, but it is not the only third-party source used in the article. The fact that the obit was carried by the AP and picked up by newspapers in at least 4 widely separated states is indicative of this man's notability. --Orlady (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the substantial further development of the article, including 27 sources, at least three articles authored by him, five of his projects listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and an obituary covered in newspapers across the country, do you still truly believe he's not a notable engineer? Really? Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your hard work in bloating the article with every reference you could find makes it conclusively clear that he's non-notable. Here are the article's sources as of now [1] -- numbers are the cite numbers in the article:

  • Sources with zero notability value:
    • 5,7,14,16 and 17 are works by, not about, Smith
    • 18-23 are census images apparently giving names and addreses of Smith and his family -- primary sources whose use in article is OR, BTW
    • 8 does not appear to include the word Smith
    • 9 -- unable to identify exactly, appears to be a list of waterways facilities not mentioning Smith
    • 2 Entirety of text on Smith: From Associate Member to Member: Walter Mickle Smith -- routine bio detail from primary source
    • 10 Top-level page of National Register of Historic Places, nothing specifically to do with Smith or his work or anything in the article
  • Sources with little if any notability value -- these are mentions of Smith as one of the designers of various projects, in apparently comprehensive survey of projects. Given that he was a designer for the state, unless he just did nothing all those years he naturally will show up as the designer of various things:
    • 4 Entirety of text on Smith: Divison of Waterways Chief Engineer Barnes hired Walter Mickle Smith as Chief Enginee for thet Warerways projec. Smith had worked with Barnes on the Panama Canal project, and, like Barnes, had resigned in 1907 to join the New York Board of WAter Supply. The two men had also formed a hydauling and contruct eng practice together ... The 1919 Waterways Act stipulated only dimensions and general location of the dams. Smith and other design enginers needed to fill in the details ... In that year, a paper authired by Smith and LD Cornish, Asst Chief Engineer for the the division, asserted that the "structures to be buit [at Starving Rock and two other site] will consist of a dam, lock and hydroelectic plant combined."
    • 11 Entirety of text on Smith: Walter Mickle Smith of the State of Illinois designed the lock, dam and ice protection wall under the supervision of LD Cornish, Assistant Chief Engineer.
    • 12 Entirety of text on Smith: Walter Mickle Smith, Chief Design Engineer for the State of Illinois, is crdited with desiging the control station, lock, auxiliary lock, and dam.
    • 13 Entirety of text on Smith: Engineers with the state of Illinois designed the Ohio River Standard Navigation Lock and state engineer Walter Mickle Smith designed the control station ... MG Barnes served as the divisions Chief Engineer, while Walter M Smith the the Chief Designing Engineer.
    • 15 Entirety of text on Smith: Walter Mickle Smith, Chief Design Engineer for the State of Illinois, is crdited with desiging the lock and old control station.
    • 1 Routine directory. Absent evidence to the contrary, almost certainly listed any member of the profession who cared to submit biographical data for publication.
    • 6 Webpage listing Smith (with bio sketch) as one of the approx 17 past directors/chief engineers of the department. Little or no notability value since not independent of the subject -- the Department was Smith's employer and such lists of past officers are routine in government departments, as in corporatations.
  • Sources with potential notability value -- if you would tell us what they say about him:
    • 24 Obit of his wife
    • 3,25,26,27 These are all the same obit off the AP wire, repeated in several papers. There might be notability value here, depending on what they say. So far all the article mentions is that he worked on design of parts of the Panama Canal -- without leaving Washington, DC, by the way, and resigning before even two years on the project.

Unless you can tell us what the obits say about Smith there's nothing here at all. The fact is that plenty of good, creative people worked in relative obscurity, and Smith may be one of them. EEng (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Late flash! I was wrong! The obits aren't all the same! Here's what the St. Petersburg Times said about Smith and his accomplishments, in its entirety:

WALTER MICKLE SMITH, 85, former chief engineer of Illinois State waterways and from 1946 consulting engineer for the State of Illinois, Thursday in Spartandburg, S.C.

I notice, BTW, no mention of his work on the Panama Canal. Really, this is absurd. EEng (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since he never worked in Florida, the mere fact that the newspaper picked up that death notice indicates something... As for the Panama Canal, I agree that it wasn't a major part of his career. My totally unsupported hunch (this is original research, please don't quote me, folks!!) is that he didn't work on that project long because he didn't want to die in the jungles of Panama, so he left the Army Corps of Engineers for another job. --Orlady (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Late flash! EEng is not going to change his mind no matter what. Fortunately, his/her deletionist outlook is not yet the majority view on Wikipedia. And, no the obits are not all the same. The one in the Dixon newspaper is far more detailed and is now linked in the article. Cbl62 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The casual reader here might conclude that the obits are the only biographical sources. Let me point out that most of the article content that I added was based on his entry in Who's who in engineering in 1922 (15 years before he retired), which entry is the longest one I found when I skimmed about a dozen pages of the book. Another biographical source is a bio published by the Illinois Office of Water Resources. Both of these sources contain information about work and accomplishments that I have not yet added to the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casual reader's aren't those of interest here; of interest are careful readers who look closely at sources and apply their critical faculties to comparing those sources to notability guidelines. The Who's Who and the Ill. Off. Water Resources page are dealt with in my list above -- the mere fact of inclusion in them does not lend notability, because these are routine compilations of "everyone" (every engineer, every director). I will certainly change my mind if you will point to substantial, independent coverage of Smith. This is now the third time I'm asking: which sources are those? I've made clear arguments above why none of the sources you supplied qualify, except perhaps the obit, and I've requested that you tell us what in the full obit supports notability. Instead of answering, you're focusing on me, which is a surefire indication that you have no answers. EEng (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. The fact that neither of you seems to grasp the notions of OR and primary vs. secondary sourcing [2] [3] or what constitutes a reliable source [4] explains a lot of the mismatch in our opinions here.[reply]
My reference to "the casual reader" referred to the casual reader of this AfD discussion. From the amount of verbiage here focused on analysis of the newspaper obits, other AfD participants might get the mistaken impression that these are the only sources upon which the claim of notability is based.
As for "Who's Who", it did not list "every engineer"; rather, the main inclusion criterion was full membership in one of four engineering societies, which status apparently involved some degree of significant accomplishment. Further, my observation that Smith's biography was much longer than most indicates that there was more to say about him than there was to say about the typical engineer.
As for the compiled biographies of "every director" of the Water Resources Office, you could say the same things about a compilation of the biographies of the members of the United States Congress. The fact that the current staff of the Water Resources Office consider their past directors to have been persons of sufficient importance that their biographies and portraits deserve to be published on the internet. To my way of thinking, that publication is not by itself sufficient for general notability, but it is one indication of such notability. --Orlady (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the indent -- didn't realize. On what do you base the idea that membership in any of these societies indicates any special status other than e.g. holding the appropriate educational qualifications + paying the required dues? And as already stated these works are primarily based, as they always have been, on self-supplied information. Maybe Smith was simply less modest, or changed jobs more often, than others. As to the "Director's" site, my original comment still holds: it's common for organizations of all types to jazz up their sites with brief histories of past officers; these are not independent of the subject and have zero notability value. The focus on the obit is for good reason -- it's the only thing I can see that is independent of Smith and talks about him. So, for the fourth time... What does the obit say? Please answer, or let your continued silence on this point speak for you. EEng (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No silence. The obit has been linked in the article since before you left that comment. Somehow, though, I'm guessing it won't change your mind. Maybe you'll surprise me! Cbl62 (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's behind a paywall, but by blowing up the thumbnail it appears to be find sentences. Can you tell us what it says, please? EEng (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the obit is a copyrighted work, I can't recite the full text, but in essence, the obit (headline "Former Illinois Waterway Engineer Dies") reports on Smith's death in Spartanburg at age 85 "after a brief illiness." It then reviews a number of his career highlights, including service as chief engineer of Illinois state waterwas, as a consulting enineer on preliminary work for the Panama Canal, as an engineer with the New York City Board of Water, and as a consulting engineer to the Illinois waterways division from 1937 to 1946. Various iterations of the obit were run in multiple newspapers. Very few engineers get covered in newspapers across the country. As stated by Orlady, the fact that his death received widespread coverage (beyond Illinois) is strong evidence of notability. And, of course, his role in the design of the Illinois Waterway (a 20th century engineering marvel) and his personal design of at least five historic engineering works deemed significant enough to receive NRHP designation set him apart as well. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The creation of the article may have been premature (before sufficient information for an article had been assembled), but Mr. Smith should be considered notable. He designed some major engineering works that still stand, and he was recognized during his lifetime for his expertise and his work in design and construction of those engineering works. (I recognize that a lot of folks at Wikipedia deem porn actors and beach volleyball players to be more significant than any engineer possibly could be, but I think we need to occasionally acknowledge that the designers of dams, canals, and water-supply systems have an effect on human lives, too.) --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I abhor the mean-spiritedness apparent in that comment, and in other back-and-forth within this AFD discussion. The point of editing in wikipedia should not be to score zingers and to insult and humiliate other editors. I don't like seeing sarcasm applied to me, or to other editors present, or to other classes of editors not speaking here.
I partly object because the comment was partly directed at me, suggesting that I should not have created the article. I completely disagree with that. There is no wikipedia policy or guideline that supports the editor's view. I was obviously correct that the person is notable. Whether I was right or wrong in starting the article, though, doesn't need to be discussed here, as the AFD decision is clearly going to be to Keep the article.
Also I object that the editor participated in stirring up unnecessary confrontation here. I don't want to make enemies, or to have enemies made for me. I did go back and forth in comments with editor Fram, above, but I think that had a different tone. The suggestion here is perhaps that others really should contend against me, that they would have been justified. I don't want or need that. Frankly, I don't care to see this editor's comments about me, anywhere; i have previously requested this editor cease following me and contending in what has been many years of wikihounding. Perhaps some might view the above comment as "support", which I should not object to. I don't want double-edged support like that. To any other reader, consider: if you knew you had pushed it too far over the line into what can be seen as hatred and bullying, and that has been pointed out to you, would you persist? Why the hell not back away, completely. What does it take to get a bully to stop.
I don't want to engage in discussion here and probably won't respond much to any followups. I do want to register that I object to the pushing in here with unnecessary contention and sarcasm. The AFD should be closed as Keep, obviously. --doncram 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, doncram, but Orlady's comment was not in any way mean-spirited or sarcastic. You need to calm down and reread it. If you have had previous altercations then that is another issue, but there was nothing wrong with the comment you are objecting to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Necrothesp. Orlady's comment was actually supportive of your position, doncram. Cbl62 (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Walter_Mickle_Smith&oldid=1079392260"