Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Campbell (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit  23:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Jim Campbell (architect)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a smalltown architect, not making any strong claim to passing our inclusion criteria for architects. The notability claim here is essentially that he exists and has done work in his own local area, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- but the sourcing isn't really getting him over WP:GNG either, as the footnoting here comprises two hits in a community hyperlocal magazine in his own area, one magazine article that glancingly mentions Campbell in the process of being much more about a house and its owner than about Campbell per se, and just one source that actually starts to count for something toward WP:GNG (but doesn't get him to the finish line all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the article.) Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete A small town architect needs good sources and we lack this here. The tone is also totally off, we do not reefer to subject by their first name. I started to correct this, and did a little, but it was too bound up in what makes it look like the article is either written based on original research by a friend or is based on hyper-local human interest sources, either way it is clearly not based on the reliable secondary sources that are indepdent of the subject that are required for all articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2022 (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.