Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parametricism


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Parametricism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article that has resisted cleanup. The refs are exclusively from the originators of the style. The article is full of unsourced judgments about how influential it is--even if they were sourced to the works of the originators, they would not be third party references.  DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup This does appear to have notability in secondary sources Architect Magazine, Architecture and Design, Arch Daily this sources covers the movement extensively, BD Online, if NPOV is an issue userfy, subject does passes GNG though. Valoem   talk   contrib  03:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: it seems strange that an article on an architectural style offers no mention of any buildings designed in the style - is it a purely theoretical concept? Pam  D  07:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: this article has been reviewed by other editors. It has been flagged numerous times, and revised accordingly. Those editors were satisfied that this article meets Wikipedia standards, and removed all their flags. Please review history. As a new contributor and someone who has thoroughly revise this article, I do not understand how this cycle can continue every time a new editor reviews the article. It seems that there is no coordinated effort to put an issue to rest once the criteria has been met. There are no grounds for deleting this article at this time. It discusses a factual movement that is spreading globally since the 1990s. Why is it being flagged for deletion instead of revision? Daniela Gh (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I think it is written in such a way as to promote the movement, and will not be fixed by normal editing. owing to the persistent use of sources only from the originators of the movement remains. If you can find important publication from outsiders talking about it, then it can be rewritten, to make only claims for importance that can be references to 3rd party independent sources. As Deb pointed out, the apparent fact that it is represented in no actual building, much less a notable building, makes it look like it is not yet notable--and claims that it is so represented will need to be sourced by independent sources also. No individual has control over the content of WP: the community decides in discussions such as this one. This does not continue indefinitely--if it is kept at this discussion, our usual practice is that nobody can relist it for deletion for at least another 6 months, and for a year at least if it kept again. One of the standing problems of WP is that there it is inherent in our basic mode of work here that there is no way to have a stable article. Whether this is a good thing can be questioned, but it is a core working  principle.  DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment: This article is the opinion of a few people and is not grounded in any historical event to give it legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakema (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep – this nomination fails hard; subject meets WP:GNG. Even if the concept was coined and propagated by one guy, there has been more than sufficient coverage in reliable sources, even if it is being simply evaluated or criticized. This is hardly WP:FRINGE. This book alone (not written by the manifesto guy), along with the two-day conference about it  with guests speakers from Yale, Columbia and other institutions, attests its notability. Plenty of other coverage -, , , , , , , ,   I understand your confusion - AfD attracts a few people who are sadly and tragicly afflicted by a chronic inability to access Google. Hopefully, one day, there will be a cure for this condition.   —Мандичка YO 😜 02:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - All references I find indicate that "parametricism" is a neologism invented and evangelized by one Mr. Schumacher. Wikipedia is not a platform for  neologisms.--Rpclod (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and copy edit – Passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, such as this research paper, this article, this entire book, Architects Journal, Architects Journal, etc. North America1000 04:16, 16 May 2015 (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.