Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones (architect) (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep just passed AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones (architect). —Mets501 (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Jones (architect)

Subject is not notable. Completed works were carried out by the company in which the subject is a partner, or in collaboration with other practices. As cited in the deletion discussion for Alastair Hall, this does not itslef confer notability. In addition, some information listed on the pages, particularly relating to published sources, is unverifiable. Mugabe 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Completed Mugabe's nomination. Last nomination was closed on August 4. Gazpacho 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep subject notable, and already passed an AfD a few weeks ago. C56C 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete notability was established according to non-verifiable criteria (inclusion in Wallpaper* magazine not verifiable online); and by reference to awards won, which were not won by the individual but by the practice. To quote from the discussion on the Alastair Hall deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alastair_Hall) (as cited by Mugabe) "And as has been demonstrated with the Cue Ball group or other business organizations deleted on grounds of a shaky claim to notability, notability within a notable organization is not a claim to notability". Adam bones 09:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:V does not require sources to be available online, only to be available to some other editors. Gazpacho 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Subject notable, see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones (architect)

Martinp23 11:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, passed AFD a week and a half ago. BoojiBoy 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per WP:DEL:'A process that resulted in article deletion or keeping, should generally be respected and the article not immediately re-nominated for deletion' Cynical 14:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Cynical. Even if the first AfD result was questionable, it is still too soon for a second nomination. --Satori Son 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's too soon to put back on AFD. This should have been to deletion review before it went back here. --Edgelord 19:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cynical. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:11, 15 August 2006 (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.