Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ramage

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. –MuZemike 21:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ramage

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

I can't find any significant coverage to demonstrate that either WP:BASIC or WP:ACADEMIC are met. His name is mentioned in several publications, but only in passing. SmartSE (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. He has won two prizes (albeit as part of a team), and to honest I cut an academic from Cambridge University more slack than I would from some lesser known uni. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that sufficient to satisfy our criteria? Also, are you suggesting that we should have an article on every academic at CU? SmartSE (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC, or see anything that might meet WP:ACADEMIC. The awards went to entire teams, and most were for one building, the Mapungubwe National Park Interpretive Centre. Suggests we could have certainly have a short section in the 'Mapungubwe National Park' article about its interpretive centre, which could mention its architects, but there's not enough about it in the present article to form the basis of a partial merger. Qwfp (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qwfp's rationale. Less than significant coverage in independent sources; doesn't meet WP:GNG. Gobonobo ^T ^C 01:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Most references are not independent third-parties. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:32, 21 December 2011 (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.