Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakob + MacFarlane


 * 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. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. As BD2412 says, often in small partnerships the line between coverage of the company and coverage of its principal people is blurred. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Jakob + MacFarlane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looking like an advertisement. No Significant coverage on independent reliable resources. Tbt1849 (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: This company can be verified as having won the Architecture award at Les Globes in 2007: . AllyD (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: This architecture firm have designed significant public buildings Cité de la mode et du design in Paris, Orange Cube in Lyon , and a restaurant in the Centre Pompidou . They have also exhibited at the Venice Biennale of Architecture in 2008 and designed an exhibition at the Musée du quai Branly – Jacques Chirac in 2012 . They also have a work in the collections of the Victoria and Albert Museum  (though this may be donation rather  than acquisition) and a retrospective at de:Architekturforum Aedes . Add to that the awards listed in the article and I think there is enough for WP:CREATIVE #4 and   possibly also WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They were also the subject of an exhibition at the School Gallery in Paris. Pichpich (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I wrote the stub and made sure it met WP:NPOV (I have no connection whatsoever with the firm) so I strongly disagree that it looks like an advertisement. I created the article because we had three articles about buildings that the firm had designed which seemed like a good start. Accordingly, there is coverage about these buildings' architecture. The firm has received notable awards and Jakob has won a notable prize herself. Add to that the coverage found by AllyD above and this is an easy keep. Pichpich (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The appropriate guideline is not WP:CREATIVE as that is only for professional persons and not companies. Rather, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which states that the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Also, notability is not inherited so while some references may talk about the buildings architected by the firm, that does not automatically convey notability on the firm itself. Also, profiles on either Jakob or MacFarlane may provide a case that either or both of the architects are notable in their own right, but does not mean that the firm itself is notable. That leaves us with the award from Les Globes in 2007 where the firm won "Best Architect". I do not believe the awards themselves are notable and in my opinion this award doesn't push the firm over the line into notability on its own. What is required are sources that actually talk about the company and there doesn't appear to be any. There is more material to create articles individually for Jakob and MacFarlane that for this company. Since references fail the criteria for notability, topic is not notable, fails GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. In this case, it seems that the company is inseparable from the collaboration of the architects. Of course, we have plenty of articles on notable creative collaborations. BD2412  T 01:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand your logic. I'm using NCORP as the guideline since the topic is a company - are you referring to any particular or different policy or guideline that supports this concept?  HighKing</b>++ 13:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, your mistake is the assumption that only one guideline can apply to a collaboration. In the course of my legal career, I happen to have represented a couple of groups in various genres of music, and it may or may not surprise you to learn that most rock bands and rap groups are technically corporations. They have a corporate form drawn up to govern their commercial activities and distribute their profits, and file fictitious entity paperwork with the state that serves as their base of operations. However, it would not occur to most people to apply WP:NCORP to bands because they create music. Here, we have a collaboration that creates architecture, which is an art form, so WP:CREATIVE applies to them as a basis for notability no less than it does to a music ensemble. If we were talking about a band named Jakob + MacFarlane with an otherwise identical corporate structure, would NCORP even occur to you as an applicable guideline? BD2412  T 14:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: with fairly little effort, I was able to substantially expand the article and add reference to some higher-level sources. BD2412  T 15:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the detailed response. I was already aware that many rock bands and rap groups are structured as corporations and there are a lot of other "creative" professionals in a similar situation, hence WP:CREATIVE. As I've said above, CREATIVE is for "architects". I have no real issues with the thrust of the argument you are putting forward in relation to the two talented individuals who just happen to be architects and therefore need to organize as a company in order to govern commercial activities and distribute profits. But the company is not just two individuals - they have offices and full-time employees (linkedin reports as employees as 11-50). I believe you are incorrectly applying CREATIVE where the topic of the article is not an individual architect (or even as you describe it, a "collaboration"). I think perhaps a question at the CREATIVE talk page might assist. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Successful rock bands may also have some number of full-time employees (i.e. non-musicians who handle promotional tasks, maintain instruments, etc.), although the lines can get very blurry there. Here, the entity has received some recognition for its creative work, as an entity. However, to avoid stretching the comparison too far, I am also reasonably satisfied that this entity has received sufficient coverage in relevant sources. BD2412  T 17:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem although you'll find that NCORP further explains the precise requirements of "sufficient coverage" and if you can point to *any* reference containing in-depth information *on the company* I would appreciate it. I've posted the question at this Talk page and posted a link to that at the NCORP Talk page. I think this question is an important one and it (and related questions) regularly crop up in one form or another (for example, should music labels fall under WP:MUSIC rather than NCORP) at AfD where the topic is a company and NCORP should apply. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this page of Interiors Now provides solid coverage. BD2412  T 04:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep notability should not even be a question - both the company and the buildings it helps to produce are highly regarded, increasing in popularity, and have other spheres of influence.   sources like that are plentiful.  there are also books used for teaching .  leading a master class in montreal  the company has gone global.Grmike (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike
 * Keep - this firm designed major projects. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the article as it stands seems to pass WP:NCORP, the standard by which this article should be judged (which fortunately is also the stricter standard.) SportingFlyer  T · C  20:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * {{u|SportingFlyer} have you any particular references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.