Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alastair Hall


 * 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Alastair Hall
NN architect added in serial with many other architects which were deleted via db-bio. His claim to membership, I suppose, is his sitting on the RSUA council, and many others with the same claim were speedied. A google test of "Alastair hall" and Architect returns 82 results. ForbiddenWord 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: It's patently obvious that User:ForbiddenWord has a history of confrontation in editing of articles. What isn't so obvious is whether (s)he has any expertise or knowledge of the subject matter at hand, that is regional architecture in the United Kingdom. Even were one to make the assumption that this article has been scheduled for deletion in good faith (which I am not suggesting to be the case), it remains the fact that the only reason for which the deletion is proposed is, that the user cannot find any further information on the subject. If this isn't a reason to have an article on this individual, I don't know what is. Suffice to say that if this article is deemed to be unnecessary, the remaining Northern Ireland architect stubs are equally so - eg Ciaran Mackel 73 Google results; Mervyn Black 32; Aileen Hull 15.Adam bones 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Massmato 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notability established. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 21:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No Delete, notability is established by having won a 2006 RIBA design award (link added in article), being the only NI architecture practice to achieve this. Furthermore, the article is a stub, and requires expansion rather than deletion. However, as the subject is a young man, it is difficult to expand the article significantly. The article provides a similar level of detail to any of those on currently-practising architects in the UK or Ireland. The question is, does this architect fail to warrant such an article? My feeling is that he does, as his firm is incresingly coming to dominate NI architectural design. For the record, I am not the subject, nor do I work for his firm, nor am I connected to architectural practice in Northern Ireland. Adam bones 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Adam bones
 * Comment: While he may indeed have won that award, I can see no evidence on that site that leads me to believe that that makes him either notable within the architecture world or meeting the Wikipedia notability standards. --ForbiddenWord 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It makes him one of only 62 people on earth to have won such an award this year. Apart from that, the notability guideline requires one to speculate as to whether the architect will become "part of the enduring historical record". I am aware that the subject is preparing a book for publication (not verifiable, my deepest apologies), but apart from that, he is the most likely current, practising NI architect to contribute to that record. Adam bones 13:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Adam bones
 * Comment:Scarcity does not imply notability. I may be the only person on the earth with a certain name, but that does not make me notable for having that name. Additionally, the award having been given to his organization or cooperation-company with another architect, if the award does indeed imply notability (and I by no means am claiming that it does), would mean the company might have a claim to notability. 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. If Google returned more than 82 results on this architect, I would be more at-ease with the reasons for keeping this article. --ForbiddenWord 13:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: [] is a precedent for just such an example as listed by yourself. And, as a point of pedantry, Google returned 93 results when I searched. I am not implying that scarcity confers notability. I am trying to imply that, if the world's foremost professional body for architects considers this architect/practice worthy of an award, it is a point of notability. The award confers notability; the scarcity of the awards shows the calibre of building. For an architect to win such an award is an achievement; for him to be under 40 is unusual; for the same to be practising in Northern Ireland is unheard of. There is no doubt that, in the context of architecture in Northern Ireland, in 2006, this is a notable individual: he is a writer, editor, award-winning architect and policymaker for the professional body. This may not make him a global figure - he will never be as famous as Saddam Hussein; but it does, in my opinion, render the article worthwhile. The deletion or inclusion of this article sets a precedent that will impact the creation (or not) of an expandible body of articles for (minor) architects across the UK, Ireland and Europe. Adam bones 14:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Adam bones
 * Comment: The work is the work of a partnership of Mark Hackett and Alastair Hall. However, this is a company of approximately four staff. It isn't an anonymous coproration, but a partnership, and as such the partners are entitled to recognition. Mugabe 14:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Because a subject does not score a lot of hits on Google, does not mean he does not exist, or that he has not achieved some level of notability. If this is the yardstick by which notability is measured, the internet will self-propagate into an information source for internet-people about internet-people. The subject is a significant architect in northern Ireland and the article should stand. Simmarian 16:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have not seen any evidence to make me think that this meets the standards for biographical information at WP:BIO, or his company the standards at WP:CORP. --ForbiddenWord 19:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Anti-deletion: The subject does not seem as notable as many on the British architects list. He is undoubtedly a minor, regional architect. The question is, whether this makes him of no interest, or whether his achievements are such to give rise to an article. He clearly exists, the article is researched and referenced (if scant on detail), and therefore verifiable. Verifiability is a semi-criterion for inclusion, and on this basis the subject could be given the benefit of the doubt and left as a stub. 83.70.182.44 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * User has <20 edits and appears to be User:Adam bones, after looking at contributions. --ForbiddenWord 19:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, AFD is a place for confrontation, debate, and discussion. If it takes tribulation to get consensus on a subject, then I have no qualms at all about doing so. --ForbiddenWord 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if you have any qualms about the articles you listed, the steps for nominating an article for deletion may be found at WP:AFD --ForbiddenWord 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 21:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: As one of the comments above indicates, he is a young man.  That's a problem, as a biography covers a life that is set apart from others.  It is not a sign of recognition, nor a validation.  It is a summary of a significant and notable life that is referred to by other media.  There is little to no indication that this architect has achieved the sort of stand alone fame as to require explanation for a curious world.  We wish him well and continued success, but architects, of all professionals, take ages to make their marks.  Geogre 02:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep & Stubify Allow for organic expansion. -- Librarianofages 02:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read Articles for deletion. You might find the first point in this list interesting to keep in mind next time you discuss an article that is up for deletion. -- Koffieyahoo 04:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom and per Geogre. Subject's track record has not reached level of encyclopedic notability. Fails WP:BIO. Claims that the subject's firm is "increasingly dominating" Northern Ireland architecture is totally unverified and unsourced. This line is particularly underwhelming:"Other important works include modifications to a house at Oakland Avenue in Belfast, reception spaces at the Belfast House of Sport, fit-out of Deane's Deli, Belfast" Bwithh 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The general criteria is that there must be enough note of this person to establish NPOV, and it's just not out there. This page is basically just the person's website copied into Wikipedia, and that is obviously not acceptable. If you can't at least find a few sources that say something about him, he's not notable enough. Flagging as a stub would be fine if we had any reason to think the lack of info was due to lack of effort, but as others have pointed out, there's just nothing else to say about this person. A relevent quote from WP:BIO, "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" Widely recognized may be subjective, but 'enduring historical record' is not. 100 years from now, no one, even in his field, will remember one of 62 people to win some award some year. He's not Frank Gehry. If people want to know about him, they'll go to his website, not an encylopedia. --captainManacles
 * Delete per above &mdash; M in  un  Spiderman 12:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. wikipediatrix 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete lots of args pro & con doesn't demonstrate his notability. Carlossuarez46 17:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Geogre's right on the mark, as usual. — Encephalon 02:24, 29 July 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.