Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbey Pynford


 * 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. Delete based on the argument but the sourcing looks marginal so it probably would not take much to be found for this to be restored so stipulating that not DRV is required for recreation with new sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 09:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Abbey Pynford

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Some coverage, but I could not establish that this clearly promotional, SPA COI created article meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication of notability. NickCT (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Weak Delete - Following ShulMaven's improvements the article looks a little better. I'm still leaning towards delete though. NickCT (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the criterion that applies is WP:CORP, which this company probably meets.ShulMaven (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do wish that if corporations put up articles about themselves, they would at least attempt to write good articles;-)ShulMaven (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It meets WP:CORP, its an engineering firm that seems often to work on projects that attract the public eye and are covered in general circulation media. Stuff like moving historic lighthouses.ShulMaven (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up, improved, sourced article. Nom might want to take another look. This firm was easy to source, more could be done.ShulMaven (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Out of curiosity, have you found any sources not related to that lighthouse move? Seems sorta like WP:BLP1E to me. NickCT (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Added material about a station on the underground that they're doing, and about an interesting-looking historic building renovation in Leeds.  Was also able to source the series claims made in the lede (article was pretty obviously written as self-pormotion by someone at the firm) about the types of engineering the firm specializes in.  all of this took about 20 minutes.ShulMaven (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not add in extensive outside validation for the firm's expertise found in technical publications. But neither did I make a thorough search of popular ones.  Just a quick google.ShulMaven (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP. The company is mentioned in coverage about projects that it does, but that's what it is: a bare mention. And except for the BBC, the references are not from broadly-based or mainstream sources. WP:CORP requires significant coverage ABOUT the firm, not passing mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  16:00, 17 December 2014 (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.