Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Marshall (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   delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Tom Marshall (architect)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Architect who has served on Memphis City Council for over 20 years. My guess is that the article was written primarily by someone close to source, and I am not certain as to whether this meets notability guidelines Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Having your name on a lot of architectural projects does not make one notable. The mentions in the press are almost all about the buildings. There is little biographical content in the press.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CREATIVE #3 and #4 apply to architects: if the person has played a major role in designing significant or well-known buildings, they are (generally) notable. Whether this is the case here, I'm less sure, and the person's buildings don't seem to have attracted Wikipedia articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Also problems with promotional writing. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2014 (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.