Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cole (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 keep. Majority of participators believe it should be kept, with one weak delete vote. Timothytyy (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

John Cole (architect)

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

Previously an unsourced BLP, it now has a source, but I can't find anything substantial that would allow this person to pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Though he was president of the RSUA he appears to have been an architect in the Civil Service, so unlikely to have been creating notable works of architecture during his career. Time for article to go. Sionk (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Architecture. Sionk (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recipient of the CBE, so meets WP:ANYBIO #1. We have generally considered that anyone with a CBE or above meets that threshold. Honours at this level are not common (about 200 are awarded every year in a country of 66 million) and clearly indicate notability. Plus, as president of the Royal Society of Ulster Architects he is clearly a very notable architect. Also an honorary professor at Queen's University of Belfast, which adds to his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Unless I'm overlooking something, I don't see how WP:BASIC is met. Perhaps because the subject's name isn't especially unique, but my own WP:BEFORE did not return significant reliable/independent biographical coverage of the subject (almost everything I can find is in press releases or CV-like summaries from organisations/sources with which the subject appears to have an association). In terms of WP:ANYBIO, while the subject was seemingly recognised with a CBE in the 2013 Birthday Honours list, so were dozens and dozens of other people (or hundreds and hundreds if we include the 2013 New Year Honours). These many hundreds of people (or many tens of thousands over the years) are not all automatically notable. Not absent the significant biographical coverage in independent/secondary sources. (Per ANYBIO, "meeting one or more [examples] does not guarantee that a subject should be included"). Guliolopez (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To quote your edit summary: Being a recipient of a CBE doesn't automatically confer notability. If it does, many tens of thousands of charity workers and soup kitchen coordinators and sports administrators and business people and civil servants are automatically notable. And I don't see how that follows... No, about 200 CBEs are awarded every year. Many more OBEs and MBEs, which are lower honours, are awarded, but nobody is saying they're notable per WP:ANYBIO. The CBE, however, is much more unusual. As I have said many times before, it does help if you actually understand the honours system before commenting on it. These people are awarded the CBE because they are considered to be notable people who have done notable things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. Not sure why you're picking up my throw-away edit summary comment, rather than my actual !vote recommendation, but if 200 CBEs are awarded every year, and they've been awarded annually for (what?) 100 years(?), that's still 20,000 or so awards. In any event, regardless of whether I understood "the honours system before commenting on it", what is relevant here is Wikipedia policy. Rather than the UK honours system. And, per WP:ANYBIO, receiving a notable honour/award doesn't make for automatic notability. Per the policy, "meeting one or more [of the 'additional criteria', like ANYBIO] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". The 'additional criteria' (like ANYBIO) may contribute to notability, but do not establish it automatically. BASIC/SIGCOV still, surely, needs to be met. And I'm not seeing that it does. As all the coverage I can find is from sources with which the subject appears to have a connection. Otherwise, in all honesty, I really do not understand the apparent implication that, when a CBE is awarded, it automatically makes the recipient notable under this project's notability criteria. (John Keelty [of HMRC], for example, was named alongside Cole in the 2013 "Birthday" CBE list for "services to Improving Tax Systems". Is Keelty automatically notable? Because ANYBIO is met? Certainly not to my read of the entirety of WP:NBIO.) My recommendation remains unchanged. And won't be until additional independent sources (including those found by the WP:BEFORE efforts of those contributing here) are surfaced. And ideally added to the article. Or here perhaps. Guliolopez (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep CBE should be a high enough award for notability. He's also regarded as an expert in his field, for example: respected construction and procurement industry expert and procurement industry expert Piecesofuk (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per User:Necrothesp. Recipents of CBE meets WP:ANYBIO. Shoerack (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Rather poor article, but a CBE is enough for notability. Jeppiz (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Unless Consensus has changed, I think it's precedent that CBEs are notable. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The CBE clinches it. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2023 (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.