Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helfensteller, Hirsch & Watson
I don't see the  as working in this case. It is clear in the literal cases, that Person X being notable does not make the children of person X notable. Person X was notable for certain things, which usually have nothing to do with their children, parents, siblings, or casual friends. The situation is different with a notable building. It is often (but not invariably) notable because it is architecturally interesting. The architect or firm is the proximate cause of that notability, not merely related in some irrelevant fashion. Would we declare that David (Michelangelo)|David is notable, but Michelangelo not? Would we declare that The Starry Night is notable, but argue that Vincent van Gogh is not? I'm not arguing for an automatic, inflexible rule, but a general presumption seems warranted. On the merits, I support Orlady's suggestion to userfy
— User:Sphilbrick, 15:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOTINHERITED (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)