Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earnings for 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earnings for architects[edit]

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

Something troubles me greatly about this article. Sorry, I can't quite put my finger on the exact issues from a deletion policy perspective......but it just feels wholly unsuitable. We're not glassdoor. We don't list salaries for various professions, for example where's the article on earnings for medical doctors or earnings for pilots? I would happily have taken some of the useful info in here and put into the main architects article with a redirect, however there was a proposal that was closed due to lack of responses so i didn't want to jump the gun. what do you all think? is this article misplaced/unsuitable, and how best to deal with it? apologies if AfD isn't the best way to approach this. Rayman60 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I saw this and went through a similar viewpoint to you - I had a flick round, and there don't seem to be any other comparable articles. It certainly looks like it should be part of another article. But i then ran through Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and none of the grounds looked wildly violated - it didn't seem to fail the "not for Wikipedia" grounds, so notability was the only remaining one. I then had a look through WP:GNG & WP:CORP. None of the grounds here seemed to be specifically breached either - just logically being part of another article doesn't prohibit having its own. I'm going to remain as a comment for now to see if someone better up on their Notability can explain differently - otherwise I'll shift my Comment to Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. The article is largely trivia and is of questionable accuracy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:33, 11 April 2018 (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.