Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building Services Architect


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Building Services Architect

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreferenced, possibly unencyclop)edic.. Is little more than a large dictionary  definition.  Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment - I  should have preferably  put  a PROD  on  this. It  would have been procedurally  deleted by  now. If there are no  new comments, I'll  leave it  to  the closing  admin's discretion. Generally  if consensus is not  reached, articles will  be closed as default to  'keep'. But  if there have been no  comments  at  all, there is no  consensus to measure, so  a deletion, or a move to  another architecture related article  would also  probably be in  order.--Kudpung (talk)
 * Delete. As per nom, basically an unreferenced dicdef, reads very much like original research on an unnotable topic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not notable? Do you imagine that people are able to build massive buildings without writing about the design of aircon, lifts (elevators), power, water &c.  See BTEC National Construction, Building Services Engineering..., for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  06:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Building services engineering is a significant professional discipline which is required for all large buildings. The nomination seems to be disruptive to the development of this new article contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Nobody is arguing about the importance of the profession. The nomination is for a page that contains little more than a dicdef that has been languishing at the bottom of the NPP list since 31 August at NPP for ten weeks because its creator cant't be bothered to come back and expand it, and no other editors, and nobody here on this AfD knows what to do with it. The article does not assert sufficient importance for its existence. If it  had been a PROD, it would have been long gone already. The nomination is perfectly justified because it gives you an opportunity to challenge it, but two relistings here, one keep, and one delete, have demonstrated that nobody cares either way.--Kudpung (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2010 (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.