Talk:Morphosis

from VfD:

Non-notable architecture firm, self-promotion. RickK 05:08, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I change my vote to keep on the current version. RickK 20:14, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I would like to know what you base your assertion of self-promotion on. --203.109.254.49 08:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * DELETE They may be notable buildings in those towns, I've never heard of them like I have heard of the Louvre, or the Guggenheim, or the Palace of Westminster. Non-notable buildings designed by non-notable architects. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 05:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. jni 08:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, they seem reasonably known from a Google test and a collection of things on Amazon. It seems they are respected and known in the architecture community (as is the founder Thom Mayne).  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  08:17, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Commercial. AtonX 12:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "Commercial" is not a reason for deletion unless the article is an ad/spam, which it isn't. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  21:43, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: It seems to me that they're a real firm, and the article doesn't advertise them.  The two major projects completed help.  I'm not thrilled with the "read the book" bit, but I think we should represent the major firms better than we do.  Compared to the difficulty in making a blog, getting a building done is pretty substantial.  Geogre 14:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 20:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, they didn't design any famous buildings. --fvw* 00:26, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity;not notable User:fledgeling 04:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to be a fairly notable company, especially given the 2012 Olympic Village part. --Goobergunch|? 19:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as this appears noteworthy. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep; I'm not enough up on architecture to know how significant a firm this size is, but it doesn't read like an advert, the individuals appear to be reasonably well noted on the web, and a googled list of projects looks nontrivial and international. It's also worth noting that whoever wrote List of architecture firms redlinked them there, so they were presumably considered worth listing. Shimgray 12:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cribcage 19:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk) ]] 06:24, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep They are well-known in the architecture field!  If people haven't heard of them, isn't that even more of an argument to keep them in Wikipedia so people can learn about them? Gsd97jks 19:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Non-notable" is a bogus criterion for deletion in any case - David Gerard 19:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The 2012 Olympic Village is a significant commission, as are others. It has room to grow into a better article. Willmcw 03:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Thom Mayne
Does anybody think it might be a good idea to merge this with the Wikipedia entry for Thom Mayne or redirect to it? If this were to be fleshed out, there would be quite a bit of overlap- well, 100% overlap, really, as it is his firm. For other well-known architects, such as I.M. Pei or Philip Johnson, any reference to their office is folded into the biography. What do people think?

Generaltso 19:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd agree. Mayne is very notable, but the firm and he are essentially synonymous. If other notable architects were associates then it'd be different. -Will Beback 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)