Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mentor Llunji


 * 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. A clear consensus to delete amongst the non-sock puppets. I'll also have a look at Seismic architecture.  A  Train ''talk 15:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Mentor Llunji

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO Kleuske (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you should keep the article about Mentor Llunji because it is directly related to the article Seismic architecture, being the only author worldwide who has written extensively about this topic (three books). People interested in Seismic architecture probably want to no more about him. It is the same situation as if in the article about theory of relativity we don't put nothing about its author?!MSPROJECTBUREAU (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSPROJECTBUREAU (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks as if Wikipedia is being treated as yet another social media outlet. Almost all mentions of this topic are on social networking, user generated content, or marketing sites.  So I see nothing to suggest that Independent people have written on this person.  That is it is not notable. If it is really relevant to Seismic architecture, then a redirect there is a good idea instead of an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, redirect is good idea. Tensinet (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No coverage in independent WP:RS. Most references available are, as mentioned above, social media or self-cites.  The proposed redirect target, Seismic architecture is by same article creator and is mostly about the ideas in this subject's book.  Notability is not inherited in either direction, after all.  The more general article is Earthquake engineering (or possibly Building science) but redirect would presume that this article subject is influential in that field.  Other than the one book I can't find any evidence that would qualify under WP:ACADEMIC to show this subject has had significant influence on the field.  This appears to be a younger academic, so WP:TOOSOON may also apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Eggishorn, when you propose something you should have basic knowledge on the topic that you proposes.Be at least architect or engineer. General article Earthquake engineering has nothing to do with new trends in architecture named Seismic architecture.It is something very new and unique in architecture and earthquake engineering..There are only few books about this, because very few people can write in the same time about architecture and earthquakes, two very opposite topics.Its is not about the author, and coverage of his work, but to cover as much as possible this topic for possible readers.I have created this page, and already deleted,because there is no purpose of commenting further this topic with non-professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tensinet (talk • contribs) 04:54, May 9, 2017 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , please see this essay about arguments to avoid. There is no requirement for professional qualifications to edit, or comment on the edits of others, in Wikipedia.  Furthermore, claimed possession of professional requirements does not absolve anyone from the notability criteria.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG (as shown quite ably by the above editors), WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel 5969  TT me 11:37, 11 May 2017 (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.