Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects


 * 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As a business, the company does not pass WP:NCORP criteria. Gwathmey may possibly be notable,but per WP:INHERITORG the creation of page under his business as well is not justified. Graywalls (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm a little confused by this argument. First of all, Gwathmey is very notable, not just "possibly notable." I did a database search for "Gwathmey Siegel" and found 2000+ results; refining that to all results published after Gwathmey's 2009 death resulted in 500+ results. Given he didn't design all the buildings that his partnership designed, wouldn't coverage of the firm (not him as a person) during his life still establish Notability? Setting that aside, the firm received significant coverage after his death.   including two books about the firm:   Theredproject (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , notability of Charles Gwathmey is something else. However, are you finding significant, in depth, diverse, independent coverage about Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects as a company? Charles Gwathmey being notable doesn't make the company for which he's a co-founder of without the subject getting notability as a business, per WP:INHERITORG. Graywalls (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this one is routine coverage and it's press release based. 2 is also a press release. trivial coverage. And one of the books was partly written by one of the company's partners, so it wouldn't be independent. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * yes of course I understand that the "notability of Charles Gwathmey is something else" but in your nomination you called it into question, saying he "may possibly be notable" -- that "possibly" implies you have doubts. You asked me if I found coverage about the company itself: I just told you that I found well over 2000 items in a database search for the name of the company, 500 of which were after Gwathmey himself died. Okay, you can dismiss this NYT reportage as press release based, though I've never seen that claim addressed to coverage from the grey lady, but Rizzoli published two books dedicated solely to the work of the company (not Gwathmey as an individual); though one of these had participation by Siegel, to suggest that it should be fully dismissed because it is self published misunderstands the editorial process, and the significance of Rizzoli. Even still, there is another monograph dedicated to the company's work. I would be a lot more sympathetic to the WP:INHERITORG argument if you were proposing deleting SOMA (architects) as separate from Michel Abboud but this is closer to arguing that Office for Metropolitan Architecture should be deleted because the citations primarily cover Rem Koolhaas. Theredproject (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes general notbility guidelines.Djflem (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep considering what this organization has architected, this is definitely a notable organization. I agree with previous commenters. Dwaro (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article passes WP:V WP:N Wm335td (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2020 (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.