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. WP:SNOW. The nominator and sole delete !vote don't provide any rationale beyond "fails WP:GNG", though the keep votes show that the subject clearly meets relevant notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Vaughan (landscape architect)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 12:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is very notable in Vancouver, being a Vancouver native myself, his name consistantly appears in the public. Ueutyi (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomainator. 209.53.181.40 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, and I don't hand those out often. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST as there are multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources about him and his body of work online, in the news, in books, and in scholarly works. He has been called a "visionary", "key", "prominent", "internationally acclaimed", " renowned", "award-winning", etc., and none of this is because of the online propagation of his own self-promotion as is often the case with non-notable individuals. I have added to the article to reflect some of this notability. As an aside, this has been prodded twice and now is up for a 2nd AfD. Did no one do WP:BEFORE or is there some conflict with the hockey community of which we need to be aware? This seems to be put up for deletion for no reason other than WP:NOTMYTOPICAREA but maybe I'm not assuming good faith here. I'd like to challenge the nominator and the unregistered user to provide a more nuanced argument as to why this article should be deleted, because I'm just not seeing it, it's not even a case of being marginally notable. Valfontis (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that his name is sometimes misspelled "Vaughn"; I've added an additional search box. Valfontis (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just wanted to note that the article has kept in a previous discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. It's also linked above. Valfontis (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Valfontis (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Substantial coverage from several independent sources. MB298 (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It passes GNG easily, with multiple independent sources. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG, WP:SCHOLAR - He has received an honorary Doctoral degree in Law from a large university. Specific criteria notes of WP:SCHOLAR: "...significant academic awards and honors may include... ...,honorary degree,...". He is a member of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts. Sufficient reliable neutral sources to meet general notability guidelines. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2015 (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.