Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Barr-Kumar (2nd nomination)

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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Barr-Kumar

Raj Barr-Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Copied from OTRS 2016101810014724 - Raj Barr-Kumar is not a prominent American architect, or architect of note by any standard accepted measure. The voluminous curriculum vitae of awards, education and registrations are not proof of any meaningful merit, as any self-promoting architect could duplicate it. The entry is authored by someone who most likely is connected via family, pupil or being paid. All of Barr's books are vanity press , and no more than required texts that all professors publish to sell to their students. Barr, had no tenure at American University where he taught for a few years. Barr lists well known buildings as projects deceitfully, never any detail to the extent of project. Listing Embassies, Hotels and various buildings of note regardless his part (if any) and never any sources verifying what extent. One project listed on his company page, "National Cathedral", was at best a collaboration with another architect on bringing restrooms up to ADA code. That in itself is suspect that Barr had any meaningful input, but very disingenuous in promotion regardless. There are few to any actual photos "of great accomplishments" actually built, but rather his portfolio is strewn with conceptual drawings. One project noted "Altos Escondidos" was a purchase of land by his brother the principal, in Panama in about year 2007, and has yet to even show any proof of breaking ground or sales, with investors losing 100% of their capital. The project has been alleged a fraud by investors goo.gl/6eL8Np Past president of AIA, garners no illustrious recognition as this is only an organization architects pay to join (to use as promotion), not unlike the AMA for physicians. The AIA, replaces it President yearly and one only needs to research past Presidents to note that position does not make one noteworthy as an architect at all. Barr's office address is and always has been a mail drop, and shared office space type of arrangement. One only needs to verify that searching his business address and noting the multitude of businesses seeking office presence in Washington DC, using the identical address. There are no employees, engineers or architects at that address, and it is very unlikely Barr has ever had a payroll. The entry is pure fiction as to relevance of any noteworthiness, and is purely a vanity page , SURELY ORCHISTRATED BY BARR HIMSELF. Anyone in support is probably a student seeking a quid pro quo. The author needs to be vetted as badly as Barr. One only has to note the CV's of well accepted prominent American architects, probably all which would be one quarter the length as Barr likes to publish. His standing of fame in Sri Lanka, doubt that as well. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The result of the previous debate on the worthiness of this article's inclusion on Wikipedia was speedy keep. The editor who originally submitted the article for deletion even withdrew the request. The merit of the individual has not changed. With regards to the suggestion that presidency of the AIA does not merit one's inclusion in Wikipedia, I would suggest that you consider the impact that leadership of the organization which governs and directs an industry responsible for so much of a society's cultural identity can have on history and on society itself. The American Institute of Architects Wikipedia page lists the names of past presidents in red. Generally this is indicative of a subject that various editors and members of Wiki projects (such as WikiProject Architecture) would like to see included in Wikipedia. Below is a list I included in the original deletion debate which lists my primary arguments meriting this individual's inclusion in Wikipedia.

1.) Fellow of the American Institute of Architects

2.) Former president of the American Institute of Architects and first person of non-European origin to hold that post in the organization's 140 year history

3.) Possibly the best know American architect of Sri Lankan decent

4.) 30 year history as a collegiate educator with a number of published works

5.) Noteworthiness as architect of record on a large number of projects in the US and internationally (I was still in the process of building the section of completed works when the article was nominated.)

As I have continued to research the individual I have come to learn that many of Barr's contributions to the practice of architecture and to the industry are philosophical and ideological rather than actually buildings. As such I added the "Advocate and volunteer" section as I continued to develop the article. Like most people, I am a volunteer editor and have never been paid for my contributions to Wikipedia. As such, I edit when I have the time. The "Works" section is the last thing I have to revise before I'd consider the article substantially complete (I've made numerous corrections and added various clarifications since the last debate, but the final overhaul is still to come). My plan is to eliminate the chart in favor of a list style format that will include a chronological listing of significant projects, and will detail specific contributions and include project partners when appropriate.

Finally, I'd like to say that there has been no attempt at subterfuge on my part. All information has been researched and referenced appropriately. I don't know anything about Barr's office situation, so I can't comment on that, but I'm also not sure what relevance that has here. While I have contributed to Wikipedia for many years, this is my first comprehensive biographical entry on Wikipedia, and I welcome discussion via the article's talk page with regards to any information which is deemed superfluous or inappropriate for inclusion per Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living persons. Best, Bmhs823 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The article clearly passes WP:GNG due to sources available. This ad hominem nomination reason attempts to argue for deletion by attacking the article subject, and reads like a joke. Close and move on, folks. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Based on current content, he is a commercial architect of no notability. No source to support the "prominent" claim in the lede, and of course "prominent" does not mean "notable". There is no indication of any architectural notability in any construction project he has designed or has worked on as part of a team. Nor is there any indication that his term as president of AIA amounted to anything notable. We do not list persons simply on the basis of their position in a notable trade organization, or on their ethnicity compared to the ethnicity of others, and Wikipedia is not a trade directory. Full of rather meaningless corporate jargon like "educator", "advocate" but very little substance - nothing to suggest any notability from being those things, nothing notably innovative. To justify notable, or even prominent, I would have expected to see published works by the subject, and see those works cited in other academic works, and see his designs cited in academic works or in specialist architectural publications of note, and perhaps reported on in more general news outlets. But there is nothing. Dig into the sources cited, and we have an individual just doing the everyday tasks any individual in his/her position would routinely be expected to do to justify their position. There is a rather strange use of first name in the article, it's all "Raj" this, "Raj" that, suggesting perhaps a connection between the article's creator and its subject. (Comment withdrawn, article's creator has explained this style was his decision and that the article when created had used "Barr".) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On his publications, his book "Green Architecture: Strategies for Sustainable Design" is self published (or published by his company), under the publishing name Barr International. I can find no reviews of it. His "Sustainable Design Strategies" and "Fire Water Sound Motion: Re-thinking Mechanical Systems" are both published by "Environmental Design Technology Group", a name which appears to not exist outside of those two works, so it is a reasonable assumption that they too are self-published. I can find no reviews of either of them. And not a single article or paper published since his graduation? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox awards are not notable for the field. For the "Sri Lanka Foundation" awards, this is a minor organization that seeks "to educate the citizens of the world on Sri Lanka and the achievements of its people" - it has no status for awards concerning architecture and has no dedicated awards for architecture. Neither does one generally count honorary memberships as awards. One of the sources is really an advertorial, [1], to claim notability for putting together an admittedly interesting class exercise seems grasping at straws [2] (the "design a temporary shelter for $25" type of project is a common task set for students in most architecture or design schools), most of the remaining sources are not neutral for notability purposes since they are connected to the subject - [3] - would be a valid source for a citation that he was a architecture professor at CUA (not notable in itself), but not for anything more than that. Same for the AIA source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Of the 18 sources now listed I can find only 3 that might be seen as being connected to the subject. Two of those are his firm's website, which I would assume is normal for an architect. I'm also not sure how this, [[4]], could be considered an advertorial. I originally used Barr throughout the entry (instead of Raj) and changed it recently. As I've said before, this is my first attempt at a comprehensive biographical article, and I'd be happy to change it back to Barr if that's the preferred standard. However, that's a matter that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not in a deletion debate.

Other than that most of the new challenges seem like the same old attacks on the article subject despite prior consensus that the article passes WP:GNG. Getting tired of giving my time to Wikipedia to have it wasted by the "delete it" crew. Bmhs823 (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An employer of the subject, or those writing on that employer's behalf, are connected to the subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were no "same old attacks" nor any consensus - the last AfD was withdrawn because you said you had just created it and were still working on the article. "Attacks" is not particularly appropriate language. Neither is "crew". AGF. I think the one keep opinion given before that withdrawal, that "Presidency of AIA should be enough" has no validity. There is no inherent notability in just having the position of the head of a professional trade organization or trades union. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the previous AfD debate:

Withdrawn. The sourcing is more than sufficient at this time in my opinion, thank you Bmhs823 for your contributions. If there are no objections this AFD may be closed at any time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Bmhs823 (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There would have been no objections because you said you had just created the article and were still working on the article and you had placed an under construction template on it (which was there when it was AfDd). That first AfD was too soon. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The construction template had been removed prior to the conclusion of the prior AfD debate. The withdrawal statement is very clear ,"sourcing is more than sufficient at this time in my opinion." I'm not saying that this one person's opinion is the be-all and end-all. Rather, I simply felt that the best way to challenge your previous statement was to include the exact text from that debate. I should note, this article has more references now than at the conclusion of that debate. Bmhs823 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete How was this article even born or considered? Is the author prominent in the architectural field? It takes knowledge of the field to understand when attributes have any real meaning. This entire entry is just a copy of architects long resume, which is then repeated under the AIA past presidents biographies. This architect is extremely concerned with self promotion over actual accomplishment, any of which do not rise to notable. Barr claims himself a world renown architect, in several advertisements is just unilateral self promotion. Over the years teaching as a non tenured professor, in a three year period received four strong negative reviews on a student grade professor site. Not placing any judgement on those reviews, however what took three years to get those four reviews, was then countered in a one week period, of around 25 five star reviews. Sorry that is very suspect. If the author truly does not know Barr, move on you've been duped like many others. If the article stays, it gravely demeans actual "Notable American Architects". Find one other respected source that even acknowledges Barr at all, that has not been paid for. Please consider and vet actual projects completed. To claim one has painstakingly written this biography, when it is nothing more than cut in paste, smh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.205.6.5 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure you are not the one who sent the original deletion nomination at the top? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it almost certainly is. Perhaps the poster does not realize that by proposing the AfD via OTS, and having their words transferred from there to here, he/she has already expressed a delete opinion. It would be better (if they are the same people) for this to be moved up to be beside the initial AfD reasoning (removing the delete word), or if it is to be kept here, for the delete to be struck out or changed to "Comment". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know the person that opened it. We concur with Tiptoethrutheminefield who took the time for accepted analysis. We only wish others in Wiki who understand due diligence in research, if not architecture itself will endorse deletion. Otherwise, it makes a mockery of "Notable Architects" Why not list under World renown, we can submit several examples where the subject claims that as well. This is the point, you are not going to find any neutral esteemed architect to concur any remarkable notoriety. We still question tie of author to subject, with no answer. This is honestly not an architect anyone "neutral" interested in the field would stumble upon, let alone promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.205.6.5 (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You know the person who opened it? Here's my issues with you: 1) You telling me your opinion that "the article subject is non-notable/is a fraud/is a this/is a that" doesn't cut the mustard. Neither does saying "this person is not-notable in the architecture industry" because only you are saying it. Do you have any source out there that says that the person is as controversial as you have described? No, I'm not going to help you because as far as I am concerned, the sources that have shown this person meets WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. His membership and other achievements as listed in the article sources means he is notable for inclusion as far as notability guidelines go. 2) Canvassing or deliberately asking others to join in Wikipedia discussions to support your side of the story, whether on or outside of Wikipedia, is heavily frowned upon. Would you like to confirm that you have not approached "the person" directly to ask him to submit this nomination, or otherwise asked for his involvement in this discussion? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can not find any large project noted on company web site, that was not actually designed, engineered by other than fortune 500 firms or equivalent. No third party acknowledgements of any notable completed projects. Author notes "Architect of Record" of many projects. Can those please be verified and listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.99.248 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the official positions listed in the article are quite significant enough so that's enough, as we would say about this as such positions are in fact significant and are not negotiable, unless this was massive advertising, but it's not damned as one currently so it can be kept. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a fellow of AIA is pretty big. Not terribke. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2016 (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.