Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Groák

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Groák (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 12:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No evidence of notability is provided. A Google search isn't turning anything up for me that focuses on him other than listings of his books and his obituary (which is what the one provided reference points to). —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the need for evidence of notability confusing and subjective. Though, I will say that the UK's Building Centre Trust commissioned him to write 'The Idea of Building' which is 'notable' to me. This is my first article and I am in no way offended. In fact, I found the same thing you did--there is little on the web about him and I have only read his book 'The Idea of Building' which is very informative and, in my opinion, prescient for when it was written because it discusses architecture, design, and engineering from his unique viewpoint. I hoped this page would survive to provide at least the basic information available on the internet and have little else to say. Delete it if you think the lack of evidence of notability should mean taking a man's name off Wikipedia.If you have any doubts about the validity of the information I have provided I would greatly appreciate some pointers on how to improve it.—Dan Swartz (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased you aren't offended, because I meant no offense! I admit I was on the fence about it, and was entirely open to feedback either way. I'm content to see the findings of Vejvančický, below, which I'd missed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Architects' Journal obituary (cited in the article) is substantial and suggests he was a notable researcher (btw, the AJ source lists more articles about him in the section "Related Articles"). He is also frequently quoted in architectural books and journals, see [1], [2]. It looks that his book 'The Idea of Building' has been reviewed by the Architecture Today.[3] --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a paywall on the Architects' Journal obituary .. is the obit by David Gann? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added three more sources. The Guardian obit is long and detailed, could be used to expand the article (I'll send a copy if anyone wants it). Two book reviews in journals. The cites in Google Books that Vejvančický mentioned are additional sourcing if needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Looks notable to me, but probably would be better for beign expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever wants to expand or improve it might benefit from looking at:

• Is construction an industry? Notes towards a greater analytic emphasis on external linkages, pages 287-293
• Standardization and pre-assembly- distinguishing myth from reality using case study research
• Representation in building, pages 249-253
• Putting academic ideas into practice: technological progress and the absorptive capacity of construction organizations
• Robust technologies: Study of some aspects of industrial change which reflect the condition of building technologies and current preoccupations with patterns of building failure, pages 162-168
• A Japanese perspective on the decline of robust technologies and changing technological paradigms in housing construction: issues for construction management research
• Batiment International, Building Research and Practice Volume 18, Issue 2, 1990
• Batiment International, Building Research and Practice Volume 17, Issue 1, 1989
• Building Research & Information Volume 23, Issue 2, 1995

Or just go here and browse for yourself: http://scholar.google.com.my/scholar?start=40&q=Steven+Gro%C3%A1k&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 jefferyseow (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2013 (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.