Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelvin Campbell

: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. Joyous! | Talk 02:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

=[[:Kelvin Campbell]]=

:{{la|Kelvin Campbell}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kelvin_Campbell Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Kelvin Campbell}})

I'm struggling to find any independent proof of this academic's notability. The article is almost entirely uncourced. His co-written publications appear to be self-published, by a 'publishing arm' of the groups he set up. Apart from very brief mentions such as [http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/harp-area-exemplifies-growing-incoherence-and-banality-of-dublin-s-redevelopment-1.293509] and the odd article written by him [http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kelvin-campbell/london-housing-crisis_b_8401538.html] there doesn't seem much to prove he meets WP:NPROF. Sionk (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete non-notable architect and urban designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete - insufficient coverage about the subject. The one link re WP:PROF does not even mention him. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete -- an unreliably sourced vanity page on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete as both nothing for applicable notability and then for advertising which is sufficient for deletion alone, regardless of anything. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

: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.