Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architects' Alliance of Ireland


 * 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 -- for now. Consensus is clearly for a keep. Yet I must note here that, unless this organization goes on to have a life beyond this one event or its most active members prove to be notable, the ultimate fate for this article will likely be to Merge it into an article like Architecture in Ireland: the article at this time focusses more on current issues the licensing of architectural professionals than on the organization & its activities. -- llywrch (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Architects' Alliance of Ireland

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was deleted with the following reasons (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Also WP:COATRACK, WP:CSD#G10, and what-not but has been restored with the consent of the closing admin and listed at AFD per a discussion at DRV. As this is a procedural nomination by the DRV closer I take no position on the article.  Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per my original speedy. This organization is a small group of a few dozen people who are dissatisfied that their organization has been denied official recognition by the Irish government, and the article appears to be part of a campaign to have the decision changed. WP:COATRACKery at its finest. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep changed to delete--see below  and rewrite--if possible. The organization is important enough to be notable; the despite some rewriting remains highly promotional.  To some degree, it has even gotten worse. I shall do some rather drastic cuts to save the article. I hope the principal editor will realize that it would be advantageous for others to edit the article.  That's the problem with COI.  DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the author of this article, I am new to this procedure. I have been working hard during the lat 2 days to help preserving this article on Wikipedia. Thankyou to Thincat and to the IP user who helped me this way. The article was the subject of a speedy deletion but my understanding is that it should have been nominated for deletion first. The association is known by every Irish architects even if they do not all appreciate it. It is also well known in the UK and start to be know at European level. To be honnest, I think that AAoI could be the source of a mini revolution in relation to architects' registration worldwide. The article may sound promotional and I am sorry if I cannot perceive it this way. As it seems that I have made things worse rather than improving the matter, I will let you deal with this issue. You have my real name as a user, I do not use a pseudo. You can find my address and you are welcome to discuss the subject in front a cup of tea or coffee. However, I do not know those who are using a pseudo here. You could be someone with interests opposed to this article. This cannot be verified and I am sure that it is happening to some extend. User:stifle who has carried out a speedy deletion of this article, thinks that AAoI is only a group of people who dissided to poison the registration procedure in the ROI. It is obvious to me that they are much more than that.--Christophe Krief (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now quickly dealt with most of it, removing peripheral issues. Some further editing is necessary. But I found the rewriting quite difficult, and am not sure I have succeeded adequately, because it seems there is very little substance to the organization itself, and the article is entirely about the bill to change the registration requirements. If not kept, it can be redirected to the appropriate paragraph in the Professional Requirements for architects article.   DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by "no substance". AAoI is the most influential Irish Architectural organistation after the RIAI. I am very skeptical of what is going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Did anyone notice that the RIAI article has no reference at all, except in the Critics and opposition section? One could compare to the AAoI article and wonder which one should be proposed for deletion. Whatever, I note that the problem is always the same. DGG, dispite his good intention, does not realy have the expertise for rewritting the article because he misses expertise on the subject. However, those like me who have knowledge in the subject, experience problems to write about it in a neutral way. Others who have knowledge in the subject do not want people to write about it. I guess that this is a lost cause.--Christophe Krief (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the RIAI article has problems, but we consider articles one at a time and we haven't got to that one yet. The reason why expertise in a subject doesn't matter very much on Wikipedia is because our job is to find the reliable sources, read them, and summarize what they say. If information isn't in a reliable source then it doesn't usually belong in an article. To my mind, DGG's edits have helped the article to comply with our normal rules and guidelines and I'm glad he's put in the work.— S Marshall  T/C 19:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that DGG has made some improvement, but at a point I questionned his good faith even if I should not have. Expertise is very important. I revised the changes from DGG because he noted that AAoI members were prevented to practice architecture. This is what the RIAI would like people to believe, but this is not true. He also stated that AAoI members refuse to pass an exam, this is what the RIAI wants the public to believe but this is not true. AAoI members want a fair exam and this is not available at the moment. The Competition Authority of Ireland had Highlighted the conflict of interest by appointing the RIAI as the registration body, the government did not listen and the result is here today. I have read the reference, assisted to meetings and I have summurised the references in my article already. The references are in the article. If I refer to wiki rules on this ground, the articles in national newspapers, the minutes of the JOC meeting (including the presence of 2 actual to ministers and the RIAI)and other mediatic coverage make AAoI significant. --Christophe Krief (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

--Christophe Krief (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)--Christophe Krief (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise this article is important to you and I understand why, but I should probably draw your attention to WP:OWN at this point. (I'm not suggesting that you've breached it, I'm just providing a signpost.)— S Marshall  T/C 20:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that I should not have revised the article after DGG dispite his misunderstanding of the situation? Shall I restrain myself from reinserting some information removed in the critics section, even if they are relevant and referenced? I cannot hide that I am interested in the subject. Otherwise I would not write about it. I will not involve myself with any article or whith a subject on wich I do not have either knowledge or experience. I am also new to Wikipedia, these are the reasons for my participation to be limited to a dozen of article. If you check my contrib you will notice that they are all related to architecture or adjacent subjects. THis article was one of my first participation--Christophe Krief (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC) --Christophe Krief (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mean that at all, and I don't mean any other criticism of you either. I'm only pointing out a rule.  It's fine to have an area of knowledge and to edit primarily in that area.  There's certainly no problem with correcting an error either.  The important thing to understand is that when you reinsert material that someone else has removed, it's a good idea to have a source.  WP:V is the relevant rule (and yes, we have a lot of rules: I'm sorry about that.  Wikipedia would be even more anarchic without them.)— S Marshall  T/C 21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem... I just expect a fair trial... I will correct any revision that I find inappropriate subject to discussion on this page.--Christophe Krief (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

KEEP. I write as Spokesperson for the Architects' Alliance of Ireland and must begin this commentary by explaining that my experience of the WIKI procedures is NIL. Until now I have been but a reader of Wikipedia articles, using it as a novel resource. If I breach any WIKI protocol here then it is solely because I am a novice in this matter. Nonetheless, I understand that I am not required to write this piece as if it were to be a neutral WIKI article.
 * IMPORTANT . I have called the spokesperson of AAoI to ask them about a Facebook account created with the name of the association and which is directly linked to the wikipedia article. Today the AAoI spokesperson confirmed that this Facebook account was never opened by AAoI and that none of their members have created it. It appears that someone is trying to discredit the association using Facebook. A complaint for stolen identity will be lodged ASAP. I realised the existence of the Facebook account only recently. I guess that this issue may be linked to the review for deletion. It would explain the accusations of using wiki for advertising purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 03:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's fairly standard; Facebook has been creating Facebook pages using the text of Wikipedia articles for quite some time now. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When I emailled Brian Montaut (AAoI spokesperson) about this facebook page 2 days ago, he was not aware about the existence of the page. He has contacted officers and members to check if anyone had opened it on behalf of AAoI, but no one has admitted doing it. I have also noticed that the account was created on the French Facebook. I was the only French national within the association, I am not aware of any French person being a member of the association today; and even if it was the case why would this person use a French Facebook account for AAoI? Plus the account includes only 2 supporters. Unless everyone left the boat after me back in August 2010, I am sure that they have hundreds of supporters behind them. I discovered today that an account was recently created on "Linked in", I do not know who created it. But it is strange that organisers, officers and other members of the association do not register on these social networks as supporters of the association that they represent. They may not even be aware of their existence.--Christophe Krief (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am new to wikipedia and I do not want to sound arrogant, but I think that some editors or administrators should be more accurate when they claim with tags that an article may contain self-published sources? I am talking in particular to Stifle. Regarding your tag about the article being slanted toward Recent Events; AAoI was created early in 2009, but its roots can be traced back to the Building Control Bill 2005. Regarding your tag about this article being biased, on which ground do you make this claim? If the factual accuracy is disputed, then by who? if by yourself, then which are the facts that you find inaccurate? If you fail to answer these questions, then I guess that anyone here, especially me, will have to understand that your reasons for inserting the tags may not be genuine. I am just looking for the possibility to anwer your claims.--Christophe Krief (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss tagging, but I will answer on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see here a complaint about the Speedy Deletion process that was applied. This deletion does appear to me to have been excessive, not to say pointed, particularly in view of the inherent characteristic of WIKI articles viz being open to repeated editing by all readers.

A specific complaint made against AAoI is that it is merely an aggrieved party seeking recognition for its members under the new law. That belief is entirely incorrect and is also, I suggest, mischievous. AAoI is not an accrediting organisation, it is a lobbying and information group. {http://www.architectsalliance.ie/Membership.html} Therefore, our members stand alone as regards any argument we make for changing the law. Certainly we do speak for the many architects who were disenfranchised by the Building Control Act 2007. {Irish Statute 21 of 2007} According to the intended Registration Body (RIAI Ltd.), up to one third of Irish based architects are unlicensed as a consequence of the new law. {The Irish Independent newspaper: Donal Buckley: 17th November 2009: "One in three people calling themselves architects have no licence to practice. The warning came from the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (RIAI) yesterday -- as it said up to 1,000 people claiming to be fully fledged architects were not licensed."} I should point out that the Statutory Register of Architects in Ireland was officially launched on the 16th November 2009. On that first day, all members of RIAI Ltd were automatically placed on the Register. No-one else could apply until February 2010, let alone be assessed for registration (licensing). So of course all non-RIAI Ltd members instantly became unlicensed. {The delay is evidenced in an RIAI Ltd audio recording of a formal Information Meeting held in December 2009 and by those present. Attendees were told that it was policy to make audio recordings in order to pre-empt misunderstandings and disputes. When later challenged, the damning admission of the delay was denied, RIAI Ltd adding that the recording had been lost.} Although I cannot verify the figure of 1,000 given by RIAI Ltd. (the AAoI mailing list now extends to 300+), it does match a figure that can be accurately extrapolated from a report by the Architects' Council of Europe. {The Architectural Profession in Europe - A Sector Study Commissioned by the Architects' Council of Europe - 18th December 2008: Table 1-1}.

It is important to understand that prior to the Act, these 1,000 souls were legitimately making their livings as architects in Ireland. Many AAoI members have traded thus for over 20 years and some for over 30 years. To use the European expression "the profession was unregulated", just as it remains today in some countries e.g. Japan and Denmark. {For all such European States see the European Commission's "Evaluation of the Professional Qualifications Directive 2005/36/EC: Experience Reports from National Authorities with regard to Architects: September 2010}. Furthermore, our status continues to be endorsed by the Law Society of Ireland, despite the Act. {Law Society Gazette: Jan/Feb 2010: p.52}  In fact AAoI adopted the Law Society’s “Ten-year Rule” in order to identify bona fide self-trained architects.  It is this category of practitioner that has been indisputably disenfranchised by the new law. It is worth noting at this juncture that disenfranchised architects also include those with EU compliant architecture degrees, not alone the self-trained and the alternatively-trained (such as the well qualified author of the article in question).  {Directive 2005/36/EC on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications: Table V.7: Ireland}  We are presently urging the European Commission to declare the “anomaly” unlawful. {Directorate General Internal Market and Services: ref. CHAP (2010) 3404 - Ireland} Three of the EU recognised Irish qualifications are for university degree holders. The fourth is membership of a private organisation - RIAI Limited. Now only the fourth is recognised under the new Irish law. This unsavoury and harmful fact is a reminder that under the Act, RIAI Ltd is the intended Registration Body for all architects in Ireland. The following extract is from Ireland’s Competition Authority’s website (embolden text is as published):- Report on the Architectural Profession
 * Our report (published March 2006) recommended that the new regulator for architects should be independent of the profession. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government did not accept this recommendation.  Instead, the RIAI, the largest professional representative body for architects, was appointed as the new regulator.
 * The Minister has implemented other recommendations in the report that reduce the conflict between the RIAI's role of representing its members and its statutory roles of protecting consumers and regulating architects. {http://www.tca.ie/EN/Promoting-Competition/Market-Studies/Professions/Architects.aspx}

Although AAoI is not an accrediting organisation, we are recognised by the Irish Government as a representative body for architects. In 2009 and 2010 we were invited to meet Cabinet Ministers, Shadow Ministers and Backbenchers from every Party. We achieved considerable cross-Party support for correcting the Act. We secured a hearing with the relevant Parliamentary Committee and, on our insistence, RIAI Ltd was invited to participate. {Environment Joint Oireachtas Committee Meeting 18th May 2010} We were later championed by a former Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann (Speaker of the House) who tabled a Private Member’s Bill for the addition into the Act of a “Grandfather Clause” for disenfranchised architects. {The Building Control (Amendment) Bill 2010, no. 41 of 2010} A subsequent Motion to endorse the Bill received unanimous support at a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party (the major Party in the coalition government). {Proposed by Deputy Máire Hoctor and Seconded by Deputy Michael Kennedy} The Bill had its First Reading but was extinguished with the calling of a general election this year. In Europe we are on the European Commission's register of interest representatives. {ID number: 91708294194-42}

Accordingly, I reject as unfounded and ill-researched, Ms/Mr Stifle’s assertion that:- “This organization is a small group of a few dozen people who are dissatisfied that their organization has been denied official recognition by the Irish government.” Further, the criticism is so subjective as to suggest a need to examine his/her motivation in this instance.

In refuting Ms/Mr Stifle, I have outlined some of the difficulties we face in achieving fair treatment under the law and it is appropriate therefore that I summarise our objective:-
 * AAoI hopes that “Grandfather Architects” will be treated under an amended Part 3 of the Act no better and no worse than “Grandfather Surveyors” are already treated in that same Act. {BCA 2007: Parts 4 & 5: S.36(2) & S.50(2) -Quantity & Building Surveyors respectively}

In closing, I will quote from my letter published in the April 2010 edition of the Law Society Gazette (page 15):-

The following extract from John Bull’s Other Homes (Murray Fraser, Liverpool University Press, 1996) is informative.
 * The RIAI was formed in 1839. Membership stood at about 65 architects in the 1880s and this barely rose to around 100 members in the period just before the First World War.  The business of the RIAI was riven from the turn of the century by a growing division with a splinter association in Belfast, the Ulster Society of Architects, and by a fruitless obsession with the idea of securing compulsory legal registration for the use of the title ‘architect’.

A second informative extract is from Wikipedia, ‘Architects registration in the United Kingdom’. Although about the longer-established UK system, its arguments are readily transposed to Ireland:-
 * In relation to statutory protection of title, three aspects in the field in which architects practise invite examination. In summary:
 * The design quality of the built environment: This is essentially a cultural concern which was and remains one of the principal reasons for the formation and continuance of the Royal Institute of British Architects as a chartered body.  It has connotations not only for the United Kingdom but worldwide.  It is beyond the ambit of statutory protection of title.
 * The technical sufficiency of buildings: The public interest is secured in the United Kingdom under building regulations and other enactments.  This too is beyond the statutory protection of the title ‘architect’.
 * The business of architectural practice: Contracts of engagement for professional services are always between a business entity (whether individual, firm, partnership, or company) and the client, and are governed by the general law, including consumer protection legislation where applicable.  Protection of the title ‘architect’ for business entities is of no practical relevance for securing the performance of architectural services.
 * In the light of experience since the inception of the register under the 1931 act, and more particularly under the Architects Registration Board’s regime from 1997, the recurring question has been whether protection of title serves useful purposes in respect of the three aspects mentioned above.

My commentary is intended to serve two purposes (i) addressing Ms/Mr Stifle’s condemnation of the article and (ii) illustrating a portion of the large quantity of AAoI data that is inappropriate to WIKI which the author had to negotiate in compiling his article. I hope you will now feel he did the job rather well and that WIKI’s parameters can be completely met through supporting publication followed by editing in the normal, accepted and tried fashion. {All documents referenced herein may be found at www.architectsalliance.ie via the DATA page}

Brian Montaut, Spokesperson, Architects Alliance (of Ireland) 29mar011 XArchitect (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC) — XArchitect (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I came to this article when it was at DRV when I had no knowledge of the article or any of its subject matter. Since then I, along with others, have made substantial edits in an attempt to make things more encyclopedic. I think the polemics are now carefully ascribed to the organisation described and do not amount to an "attack page" or a "coatrack" although real-world mudslinging seems to have been going on from both sides. This makes it not possible for me to assess neutrality although I do not think in its present state it is an unreasonable description of the organisation's position and it does have adequate counterbalancing material. Regarding notability, the organisation has had significant coverage in the press, now better cited, but what impressed me most was how a committee of the Irish parliament clearly took the organisation, along with the RIAI, as representing two important strands of architects' opinion in Ireland. So, I think the article is worthy of being kept, with discussion continuing on the talk page. Thincat (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as hopelessly promotional.  The only way to get a decent article will be to have it rewritten from scratch, and for the representatives of the organization   to be prevented from editing it, due to their unacceptable conflict of interest.  I made an adept at a evenhanded article not giving undue emphasis to the organization's position,  and was reverted. I have no particular interest in the society, or the profession in ireland.   The material provided here by XArchitect amounts to further advocacy, using this page to inappropriately argue for the reasonableness of their position, which is irrelevant .The current article just as the original one is pure advocacy. The size of the organization is minute; it exists to promote a piece of legislation and for no other purpose.  The article does the same. I must admit I get rather discouraged when I try to work on an unacceptable article to improve it to acceptability, and argue for it on that basis,  and the sponsors of the article insist on making it unacceptable again. This is the opposite of the purpose of Wikipedia.  If it were not for the deletion review, I would simply delete it under speedy G11. I apologize to Spartaz Stifle for objecting to his  earlierspeedy.      DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stifle not me, I closed the DRV, Stifle speedied the article. Spartaz Humbug! 02:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, deletion isn't the answer to a content dispute, DGG. If unacceptable content's being introduced then page protection might be the answer, though.  Edits can be proposed on the talk page.— S Marshall  T/C 23:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about incubation as a compromise solution? Stifle (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * S Marahall, I do not see it as a content dispute; i see it as straight promotionalism, that meets the g11 criteria of requiring complete rewriting. Further, though there is some indication the dispute might be notable, there is no indiction the association is.    DGG ( talk ) 14:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have some sympathy with that view. In which case what we actually need here is a redirect to the article on the dispute.  I also agree with Stifle that incubation's an option to be considered.  But we're here to build content in the mainspace.  Also, I promised to edit the article myself during the course of this AfD and I'm conscious I haven't lived up to that yet.— S Marshall  T/C 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Having edited the article a bit and seeing it in a more developed state, I'll go with keep.— S Marshall T/C 01:51, 3 April 2011 (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.