Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Lock

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. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lock

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

Confused stub, lacking substantive referencing. Whilst allegedly "an important post-war social researcher", the topic is not a social researcher at all, but a minor architect. No evidence of substantive reliable third-party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems a noted UK based postwar urban planner. Exhibitions on his life and work. Centre named after him at University of Westminster. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

PS I think this http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cgi-bin/vcdf/detail?coll_id=5178&inst_id=15 contains useful information. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

PPS - Have added some refs and info. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. The University of Westminster material makes his notability clear and provides a full third-party source. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be notable enough. Entry in Who's Who (not necessarily an indicator of notability, I know, but generally a pretty good one). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who's Who is a definite indicator of notability. Wikipedia aims to be wider. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Not according to various WP:RSN threads it's not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The British Who's Who, like the Dictionary of National Biography, is considered to be a very reliable source and confers automatic notability, The American Marquis Who's Who, a vanity publication, is not and does not. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 25 May 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.