Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkhitekton


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Arkhitekton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per previous WP:PROD. No reliable reference. ELEKHHT 02:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHHT 02:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 2.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 02:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable etymological and legal references supplied, no "trolling please", theres no need to delete just because you don't like accuracy or builders, fell free to add what you think is accurate and please cite your references and evidence. Please be objective, there's nothing personally intended about historiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis Cropley (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) hi thanks for your message, are you sure? why? ive seen much worse, I am not an editing expert I am waiting for someone experienced to add and reconfigure, give it some time and we'll chat in a few months, an encyclopedia does not have to be an award winning essay every time, I think you are omitting valuable data and need to keep up to date, I wouldn't donate to Wikipedia if obvious articles were constantly deleted, I'd buy a book encyclopedia instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis Cropley (talk • contribs) 3 November 2013
 * Comment The only references in the article are to the Wikipedia article on Architecture. Wikipedia is not, ever, a reliable reference for a Wikipedia article. AllyD (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That you've seen worse is no argument. Your claim of "legal references supplied" is not substantiated. -- ELEKHHT 21:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is not ready for wiki. I would suggest the author take it to sandbox, read WP:CITE and develop it further, then resubmit-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  00:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm unable to find any references to this term other than as a Greek word that is the source of the English word architect or as the name of various businesses. In particular, I can find no sources that support the use of the term as a designation for a particular level of accomplishmment in the United Kingdom, which seems to be the main thrust of the article (as nearly as it can be determined). Unless reliable sources can be adduced to support the article's statements, this fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Definately Don't Delete The word is obviously a direct contemporary translation from the Greek term, this is on other articles! why take it off this one? I say leave it alone for someone more intelligent than than any of us here, to edit. Theres no point in all of us argueing and trying to sound intelligent, the information is correct and concise. The link you can't find is on the page for arkhitekton, no trolling please. I agree it could be better, but not everyone has the time, and it is more informative and legally and linguistically accurate than nothing! Best Wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis Cropley (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be a piece of original research wrapped around a dictionary definition. No evidence found in multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia) that this is noted as a professional designation as seems to be the implied thrust of the article text. Similarly nothing found in UK-specific searches of The Guardian and The Independent newspaper sites. And for the specific mention of the 1968 Trades Description Act (now largely superceded): no mention there either. It is also worth noting that the contributing editor is in the process of setting up a magazine of the same name, to be published next year, on which he has also submitted an article. AllyD (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources provided, nor could any be found, to indicate the use of the term arkhitekton as a differentiation in qualification level from that of architect. Article certainly feels like an attempt to play into the author's attempts to create the Arkhitekton Magazine article.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:17, 7 November 2013 (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.