Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Tsui

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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Tsui[edit]

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

If there's a notability requirement for architects, I can't find it, sorry, but my feeling is that this subject wouldn't fulfill it. Notability is claimed for "a number of designs that he has proposed that remain unbuilt", not for his actual buildings, which are a school, several residential homes, and his firm's company headquarters. A long and extravagantly detailed and promotional text is currently being persistently reinserted by a new account, but even without that, this is a fluff piece with no substance. The non-self sources, two magazine articles, are underwhelming. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 16:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I was going to deny the requested protection, because even with the removed text, there's no real notability for him. He seems to be up and coming, but as Nelson Rockefeller knew, $2 and a paper napkin with get you the Egg. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no reason an architect couldn't be notable for unbuilt projects, if they get substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. (Consider Rem Koolhaas at the beginning of his career.) For Tsui, there is coverage such as Popular Mechanics [1] [2]; San Francisco Chronicle [3]; Associated Press in the Los Angeles Times [4]; Hyphen [5]; Village Voice [6]; East Bay Express [7]; Nature [8] (paywalled); The Daily Telegraph [9]; and a bunch of books [10]. We should fend off any continued efforts to stuff this article with promotional content, but notability seems apparent. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos who's found quite alot of sources. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Arxiloxos if you can incorporate the sources into a coherent narrative, I'd change my !vote. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article has now been revised and heavily footnoted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (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.