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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pimlott (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)

WP:BLP, written like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, about an architect and writer whose strongest claim of notability for either endeavour is that he exists. And there's no reliable source coverage in media being shown to get him over WP:GNG, either -- of the six "sources" here, three of them are to his own self-published curriculum vitae, two are to his primary source "staff" profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, and the last is GoodReads. This is not how you reference a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- a person gets an article on here by being the subject of media coverage, not by sticking a PDF of his own résumé on a file-hosting server. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete NCMECK345 (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, no reliable sources found to verify notability. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 20:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete References are either not valid or not independent. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comment"strongest claim of notability for either endeavour is that he exists" is putting a bit strongly. I'd say the work outside Broadcasting house an achievement.TheLongTone (talk)

Excepting maybe for the fact that the sculpture hasn't actually been shown to clear WP:GNG either, because its only sources are the BBC itself (a primary source, not an independent one, in the context of an artwork it commissioned for its own head office) and a glancing namecheck of its existence in an article that isn't about it? Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article does not have much significant information on the subject and the sources are not well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.239.8 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only thing to go on here is citations, and they aren't there. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. The only claim to notability I can see is that he "created (…) a significant or well-known work (…)" Per WP:ARTIST "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work" and that is not the case here. Mduvekot (talk) 17:40, 7 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.