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. no consensus after three weeks JForget 00:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Albert - Architect[edit]

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

JustinRSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contested prod (See Talk:Don Albert - Architect). Subject is a South African architect that appears to be non-notable. Although there are claims of notability, I can find few reliable sources that document this or discuss the subject in detail. Few Google hits in search or books [1]. It may be because subject is non-western but listing here to get consensus. (Two SPAs, see history.) Christopher Connor (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly not enough notability. Seems to be a young emerging architect with a considerable list of publications mentioning him, yet none fully dedicated to him or his buildings. Some independent online sources I found: [2], [3], [4]. The content certainly has multiple issues. Considering the CV like text, quality of images and user contribution history is possible to be self promotion. --Elekhh (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy needs clean-up and citations (marked up as such) and looks to be a clear case of COI and advertising. However there are some indications of notability such as mention in this article [5] and assertion of nomination for major award. There is also a copyvio issue from here [6]. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by "assertion of nomination for major award" you mean the unreferenced "AGA KHAN Award Nomination for Proud Heritage Clothing Campus, 2010", I believe that is not notable given that simple nominations do not appear to be published and it was not shortlisted. Is rather another unreferenced info which is likely to originate from the architect's office. --Elekhh (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if these sources are reliable or independent, but they might be useful [7] and [8]. A young architect and firm that have gotten some notice. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2010 (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.