Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Addison (engineer)

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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Addison (engineer)

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

WP:BLP of a structural engineer, which basically just asserts his existence without offering any substantive reason why an encyclopedia needs to document his existence — and while it's not completely unsourced, one of its two sources is a primary one (and a deadlink at that). I'm assuming, based on the timing of this article's creation, that his participation in a BBC investigation of the Statutory Repairs, Edinburgh scandal is why the article was created — but that claim in and of itself doesn't justify a standalone BLP that's this poorly sourced, when merely mentioning his name in the main article on the scandal, without linking it to a separate BLP1E, serves the exact same purpose. Delete, or redirect to Statutory Repairs, Edinburgh. Bearcat (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 14 September 2014 (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.