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. Secret ^account 23:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armchair architecture (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)

Severe doubts about this article were raised as far back as 2007. It is either original research or a personal essay, but either way fails to put forward a convincing set of facts to support what is not a commonly used phrase. I can't see any way to rewrite it because the facts just aren't there. For example Prince Charles doesn't design buildings, he commissions an architect (famously Leon Krier) just like any other client. Calling him an armchair critic doesn't help because the article is about architects not critics. ProfDEH (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The expression is certainly notable and the concept also seems to be. There are many more people who could be added as examples. Borock (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One part neologism, one part OR/essay, one part dicdif, and I would argue the topic itself is unencyclopedic. It's a neologism in the sense that "armchair X" is used to describe someone with no formal training and limited background in a subject, X. A slang dictionary is used as reference just sort of proves this point... it's better served as a dicdef. The rest of the article seems to be OR/essay, opinion-piece sort of musing. I don't argue that it's not a legitimate term, it's just not enclyclopedic. It's a dicdef. Roodog2k (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Roodog2k above. The article simply applies a neologism based on POV to selected people, often with no evidence or fake references which do not use the term. Applying such a term to Jefferson (who was active in an era when the profession was much less formalised) is nonsensic. Applying it to Brad Pitt with a reference which does not use such label, raises BLP concerns. There is a lot of unreferenced incoherent POV in the article, making it rather damaging in educational terms, and certainly non-encyclopedic. --ELEKHH^T 04:59, 23 March 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.