Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical reconstruction

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 no consensus. A fourth relist would be crazy even to relist on analysis of sources pointed out. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reconstruction

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this article meets Wikipedia's standards for notoriety. Since the only citation is one magazine article from 1998, it doesn't seem very important. Maybe this material should be incorporated on the page for Berlin or German architecture instead. MusselParty (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See also WP:BEFORE. Seems to be a fairly widely employed concept (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4]). TimothyJosephWood 13:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.