Talk:Charles B. Cluskey

Notability

I question whether this person meets WP:CREATIVE. He seems like a local/regional 19th century architect with no particularly notable commissions or body of work. I'm not sure the "New Georgia Encyclopedia" is up to par for establishing notability. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Old Medical College Building --> U.S. National Register of Historic Places

Oglethorpe University Historic District --> U.S. National Register of Historic Places

Georgia's Old Governor's Mansion --> U.S. National Register of Historic Places

Mills House --> U.S. National Register of Historic Places

Old Galveston Customhouse --> U.S. National Register of Historic Places

St. Simons Lighthouse and Lighthouse Keepers' Building --> U.S. National Register of Historic Places

Sorrel–Weed House --> historic landmark

St. Vincent's Academy --> historic landmark

6 surviving building in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and 2 on the Historic Landmark Register. Many of the buildings are public commission. This is not just a "local/regional 19th century architect with no particularly notable commissions or body of work". Notability is more than proved by the 6 designation in the "U.S. National Register of Historic Places" that is the main source for historical buildings in the US. Every building has to be subjected to a nomination and survey to be considered for the register.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned on your talk page,

There is currently one source, in one place in the article. You have information here that is not in the article. At present, if I just came across the article as-is, I would see no reason to remove the notability tag. Please see checklist item #1.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure just merely having created buildings on the NRHP would automatically make the architect notable. See National_Register_of_Historic_Places#Criteria. IMHO, I'd think they'd have to at least be listed under Criterion C specifically judged to be "having great artistic value or being the work of a master," not just examples of a historic style or something. However, I looked at one and the only real detail was in the nomination form, which I'm uncomfortable relying too much on. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I consulted here at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#Charles_B._Cluskey --Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that the article could be taken a great deal further, but just googling gives several other sources. I do think that each NRHP nomination form should be counted as an independent reliable source, and they do usually go into great detail about the architecture of the building (which is almost as important as going into the biographic details of the architect - which they sometimes do as well). When I saw the notice at WT:NRHP I thought immediately of Stephen Decatur Button - at first glance an architect of similar reputation and time period. I do think that these folks have a place on Wikipedia. Their buildings have touched the lives of millions of Americans and are recognized as important in American history.

Wag more, bark less,
Don't bite.

I think we've got a fairly new editor here who is showing lots of enthusiasm and promise, and making a few newby mistakes. Let's please encourage her work as well as, from time to time, correcting it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw the mention at the WikiProject NRHP discussion page. I just expanded one NRHP nomination document reference using the full reference from its linked article, and quoted from its bio about Cluskey, and perhaps added more. With multiple NRHP-listed works, with NRHP documents providing biographical information about him, and with the New Georgia bio source, I think that Wikipedia-notability is clear, and I further removed the notability tag in the article. See Category:NRHP architects for many comparable articles. I left the refimprove tag because I agree that inline citations supporting everything in an article are important, and the included references can/should be expanded, too. --doncram 21:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: What I had added mostly just got deleted, but I assume the improved reference will get restored again, if only to clear a reference error now appearing, because the same reference was used twice. It's okay with me for the quote that I had added to be deleted if the content will be developed in some other way. The quote did provide some commentary on the quality of his work. I will hold off on any more editing myself for now, to avoid conflict with ongoing development. --doncram 21:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

doncram, I had an edit conflict, but I tried to save and restore both out edits. I will not touch the article now, if you see something I forgot, please restore it.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)