Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Webb (architect)

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-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Webb (architect)

Michael_Webb_(architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Delete. This article is unreferenced and does not clearly assert notability. There also appears to be a conflict of interest in its creation. Boleyn2 (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep – Let me see, numerous articles in Time Magazine – Los Angeles Times – New York Times – Architectural Review – Architectural Record – Seattle Times and several more creditable – verifiable – reliable and trustworthy sources, as shown here [1]]. Yeah I would have nominated for deletion….Not. An article that needs a rewrite is not a reason for an AFD but rather a reason to apply some TLC. 14:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)ShoesssS ^Talk
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Referencing and COI aren't reasons for deletion. Archigram and Webb were hugely influential in the 1960's and still hae relevance: I'll have to go home and find my copy of "New Directions in British Architecture" from the 1970's and add some references. Acroterion _(talk) 15:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep another example for why we should require a search before submitting articles here for lack of notability. Alternatively, if AfD is going to be used for cleanup, change new article patrol into a systematic system for group consideration of the 2000 articles a day , divided up perhaps by subject. It might actually be simpler. DGG (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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.