Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building services architect

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Building services architect

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

Fails WP:V: I'm not able to find reliable sources to corroborate the information presented here. Web and GBooks hits are either vacancies or WP clones. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building Services Architect closed as no consensus. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TNT I suppose until a better article can be made as this would seem keepable but if it's not set for article status yet, delete until it is. Pinging the only still active past user Kudpung. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only just found out about the article Building services engineering, which is slightly better sourced. We could redirect there. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like I said last time: Unreferenced, possibly unencyclop)edic. Is little more than a large dictionary definition.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister and Kudpung. Not enough revealed in searches to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 11 November 2015 (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.