Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langdon & Seah


 * 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   merge to Davis Langdon & Seah .  MBisanz  talk 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Langdon & Seah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Run of the mill company and spamish. Also, Wikipedia is not a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * weak keep They seem a significant international company; the article is indeed spammish, but I just removed most of the improper material. I wouldn't have bothered if had not been so easy.  DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the significant coverage about the company. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Davis Langdon & Seah (check the history section of both). If needed, I can help in merging. However, need a link which states that these are exactly same.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the link from Reuters report that states that Davis Langdon & Seah has been renamed to Langdon & Seah. So, Davis Langdon & Seah should be merged into this, as current name is Langdon & Seah.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Davis Langdon & Seah should be deleted at well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge here. They're a company with a 79 year history in various guises, and there's press coverage in English but since their business has been done in S and E Asia since the 1930s, much coverage will be either in other languages or in non-internet sources. The corporate history is a little confusing, but they now seem to be separate from Davis Langdon (which is now part of AECOM). L&S are now owned by Arcadis, and it could be merged there except Arcadis don't have a Wikipedia page (there's only one for their subsidiary Arcadis UK). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2013 (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.