Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones (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. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Jones (architect)

Does not meet WP:BIO. Delete. Deli nk 20:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• keep WP:BIO states - "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". The international magazine Wallpaper* has just listed Alan Jones Architects as one of the top twenty five innovative architects in the world - and features the house of Alan Jones. (August 2006 issue).

k76 23.53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment occasional mentions in the architectural press are not uncommon for almost any architect. To keep an article because the subject is potentially significant according to only one source would be inappropriate, and would spawn scores of vanity articles by architects of similar standing
  • Comment that is what WP:BIO states - who are we to argue. Also appears to be widely published - suggesting more than one source.
• keep looking at the summary of the article... he was a vice president of RIBA, which is at least somewhat important in the world of architechture. i kan reed 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - a multiple award-winning architect...seems notable enough. Akradecki 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - has won multiple awards, awarded by a society of which he was Vice President. Is this credible?! 213.212.1.50 17:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep contrary to nomination, he does meet WP:BIO. In reponse to anon at IP213.212.1.50, these sort of awrad are usually judged by an independent panel; panel listed on AAI's hideous flash website looks credibly independent. --BrownHairedGirl 12:03, 4 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.