Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Price & Myers


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Price & Myers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I accepted this as a WP:AFC draft a long while ago. Since then it has become a billboard used to feature allegedly notable projects by this firm. It is now a blatant advert. When I accepted it I thought it was probably a pass for WP:CORP. I may have been incorrect. We all make mistakes. Fiddle  Faddle  13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: I tend to agree with nom about this; page has been taken over by COI editing. As for notability, you could probably argue either way, however most sources available seem to just mention them in passing while discussing several projects. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- I am somewhat inclined to agree, but I would have thought that the structural engineers for a number of notable buildings would themselves qualify for notability. However, the building will normally by "by" its architects and builders, rather then the engineers, who carry out some design work on the structure.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk  17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. These are some of the chances you take at AfC.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin." - I agree this page has totally changed since we worked on it at the start, but the 'billboard used to feature allegedly notable projects' has been removed by various editors. Engineers should be recognized in their own right (some precedents: BuroHappold Engineering, AKT II, WSP Global & Ramboll)  but perhaps should focus of projects that are notable for their engineering, e.g. Structural Award winners. G0lfer92 (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The entire "notable projects" and "artwork" sections were deleted over a series of 4 edits between 13:30, 6 August 2015 and 15:24, 11 August 2015. Comments listed above prior to 15:24, 11 August 2015 may be based on material that is no longer in the article.   your last contribution to this discussion was before 15:24, 11 August 2015.  Do your comments still hold given the current state of the article?  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Those comments no longer apply because the trash has been removed. But I can now see the wood from the trees. In terms of references we require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. All I can see is a set of passing mentions. It seems I was incorrect to accept this in the first place. We all make mistakes. This was one of mine. I do not see that it passes WP:CORP. There is no basis for withdrawal of the nomination, but the basis for nomination has shifted. Fiddle   Faddle  07:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: mine do too, for the reason that my main concern stemmed from the lack of substantial sources. I found no extensive coverage about the firm itself. Sources about its participation in many projects abound, but they are of the type "Engineering by: Price & Myers" from industry publications, which does not constitute sufficient coverage under general notability. Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:35, 27 August 2015 (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.