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. Consensus for keep following relisting, and kudos on the article improvements. The BushrangerOne ping only 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:GNG. Every source cited appears to be self-published, trivial mention, about a project and not the subject, or otherwise not independent of the topic. Professional awards listed may be par for the course in this profession. The only award that seems significant is a "member" award (not a Knighthood) of the Order of Australia; and 225 "member" awards are doled out annually, so therefore not in itself a claim of notability. WP:COI problems also: Article is apparently authored by the subject writing under a corporate name. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some notability does seem to be indicated for this person. Shearonink (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, by the statistics quoted above, it follows that only one Australian in 100,000 becomes a Member (AM) of the Order of Australia. This seems, prima facie, to be an indication of notability to me. --Greenmaven (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without discussing this particular case, I'd be wary of using the AM as automatic grounds for notability. A quick look at anyoftherecent honours lists shows plenty of people who clearly have only local notability winning the award. Generally we'd have to go one up (Officer, AO) for automatic claim for notability. I'd say it's best to say an AM suggests notability, but does not guarantee it. Frickeg (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that reasoning is what convinced me to nominate this article for deletion. I was not convinced that the mere suggestion of notability due to that AM was enough to edge the article into 'keep' territory. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There being 225 per year is not a problem. >10000 athletes are expected to compete at the next olympics, all notable for that. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that that is pretty silly (all those athletes, I mean), that still is just 2500/year for the whole world, which is quite a bit less, proportionally, than 225/year for Australia alone. In addition, the fact that the jocks are flooding WP with biographies of barely notable and barely verifiable sports people doesn't mean that we have to emulate them. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Time to register an opinion on this one. There are an impressive number of sources here and the article is actually fairly well done, but none of those sources are secondary ones asserting notability - they are all primary sources of the actual event or award. The Google archives reveal a couple of "said architecture expert" sources, a couple of "developing something in Cottesloe Beach" articles, and a couple in which apparently his uncle was killed on HMAS Sydney. Other than that, nothing. Thus I don't think he passes the WP:GNG, failing the significant coverage and independent of the subject criteria. Frickeg (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep For professionals, major awards in the profession normally prove notability. If they're shown by RSs, as they are, that really should settle the notability question. It would be good to find formal published reviews of his work also. I have some considerable problems with the promotional wording in the article, and I'd normally view as promotion the listing of minor awards and publications, under the provision that Wikipedia is NOT A CV. I'ver done a little editing, but I have not yet sorted out the appropriate awards and publications. Someone with more expertise in the subject might do so more readily than I. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis above. AM is significant. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep clearly notable architect and academic involved with working with solar energy in Australia. I'm removed the resume type content and made it short and sweet with plenty of reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He already looked notable as nominated (e.g. Order of Australia) but the article was an incoherent rambling mess. Dr. Blofeld's improvements make the case much more clearly. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2012 (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.
