Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Workshop for Non-Linear Architecture

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 no consensus. While there was a consensus that the subject is not a hoax, whether it is notable and whether the subject falls under WP:NOT is unclear. A speedy re-nomination based on the above reasons would be reasonable. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Workshop for Non-Linear Architecture[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BEFORE finds only mirrors of Wikipedia. Likely hoax. Fiddle Faddle 05:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding plenty of mentions in a variety of sources, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6]. None of these are in-depth and not all of them are reliable, but they do appear to be independent of Wikipedia so while I'm leaning heavily towards it being insufficiently notable for an article I am convinced it is not a haox. It would not surprise me if there was something here that would be suitable for merging into an article like psychogeography, especially if someone has access to specialist sources. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fiddle Faddle 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems the only question is if it's a hoax, and Timtrent's research seems to show that it's not. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced it's not a hoax, I'm not convinced WP:GNG is met. Brought up only a couple hits in online scholarly sources, but not entirely sure what to recommend. SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be borderline promotional given that it makes repeated references to "Stewart Home" including inline ELs to his work (now removed), his webpage, and all the citations are pretty much to him as well. It also seems to attract a remarkable number of single-purpose accounts. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 16 April 2021 (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.