Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architectural intentions

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Architectural intentions

Architectural intentions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Obviously an essay. The subject matter is not encyclopedic. (also, original research - Miscreant (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)) Miscreant (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree that the page needs a good clean to make it more encyclopedic and less of an essay. However, it is very well sourced and I disagree that the subject matter is not encyclopedic - in my view it is a perfectly valid topic on which to have a page. Smile a While (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - is it original reaseach? or is Architectural intentions a real subject on that field?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is original research (which is something i stupidly didnt write at the top), and not a subject within the field (in the sense that you can go buy books about the exact topic). It would be like writing an article on 'economic intentions', quoting Marx and Adam Smith, then comparing these two different viewpoints in the article itself without reference to outside sources that have already done this (which is where the original research comes in). - Miscreant (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You did right the mistake was mine. It will be hard to prove that this article is violating the Wikipedia:No original research policy because it's fully sourced, it has over 100 source citations.

This article could be violating the Wikipedia:No original research by synthesising published material in order to advance a position, but I can't prove that.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - just some thoughts. First of all, it is important to note the page move. The original title Architectural intentions was poor and, I agree, not really a topic within the field. However, the new title Architectural design values is a valid topic, as well as being a more accurate reflection of the content. Certainly, I would maintain that design values is encyclopedic in this field. There are a large number of reliable sources to support the concept; one of many is here. To state baldly that it is original research is also not sustainable. As EconomistBR points out, the page is fully sourced and, therefore, it is only OR if it is synthesis. Now parts may be synthesis but in that case I suggest that they should dealt with by being fixed not by deletion. HTH. Smile a While (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree the name change was a good move. Sources are good, but I stop short of 'fully sourced'. The _base purpose_ of having an article of such a name would be to compare and structure these 'values' against each other, which is what is completely unsourced in the article (and makes it OR). I am speaking of "Aesthetic Design Values, contains seven values. The first value in this category is..." and the structure of the article that reflects this (even if such dubious lines are deleted). The ucl/cabe article you point to is a good start, if you can find a few more like that and create an article around them as a base I might be convinced. Right now its not 'encyclopedic' to me in the sense that the topic and structure are created by the author(s), not by outside academic opinion (lest you find some more sources like the cabe one to structure it from). If it is deleted, good references can always be moved to the pages that relate to each individual subheading. - Miscreant (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Smile a While. He changed the title so that that the article can become a valid topic, Smile a While also said that design values is encyclopedic in this field. Also the article is referenced in over 70 different sources.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:08, 27 May 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.