Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Traditional Architects

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current Traditional Architects

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and seems to be a Wikipedia:Original research policy violation" It was deprodded by creator, User:Jutrasj with the following rationale "The proposed deletion was removed as it is believed this list is notable due to it receiving significant coverage. Many architects have their own Wikipedia page and this list further connects their individual pages in a convenient manner." I am afraid the list is still not believed to be notable. There are no sources suggesting it is not an OR compilation, and as such, the notable architects on that list, if any, should be simply categorized (through we would first need to define the term current traditional architect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prokonsul Piotrus, Your "reply here" link doesn't seem to work so I'll write my comments here instead. I find the many compiled lists on Wikipedia extremely convenient and useful. I fail to see the difference between the Current Traditional Architects list and all the lists located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists Why would you want to make Wikipedia less convenient and useful? -Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutrasj (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jutrasj: See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's why. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to comply with Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, lacks criteria, lacks reference to sources that would establish criteria, lacks necessary background information and references to sources for that background information, and lastly fails to provide encyclopedic context. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. --Bejnar (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as I'm not seeing much of an obvious need for this. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 23 September 2015 (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.