Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete Was nominated recently but the original nom withdrew the nomination as was closed as Keep. But, I cannot find any intellectually independent sources. Article is also promotional, fails WP:SPIP. References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing ++ 16:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete overly promotional and lacking independent sources. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

“Was nominated recently but the original nom withdrew the nomination as was closed as Keep. But, I cannot find any intellectually independent sources. Article is also promotional, fails WP:SPIP. References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH”

-- HighKing ++ and LibStar see response to Articles_for_deletion/Rider_Levett_Bucknall_(RLB)_(2nd_nomination):

Keep The nomination for deletion does not provide justification or support from specific citation *within* the article that substantiates the claims of the nomination other than links to WP policy pages. However, these concerns are addressed in detail below:

1) Re: “I cannot find any intellectually independent sources.”

-Wall Street Journal, Seattle Times, Sydney Morning Herald, and Chicago Tribune all meet criteria for intellectually independent sources according to WP:ORGIND “Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as *newspaper articles,* books, television documentaries, websites, and *published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.*”

cf: Wall Street Journal Ref 7: Chen, Stefanos (2017-03-22). "The U.S. Apartment Boom, Measured in Construction Cranes". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2017-11-30.

cf: Seattle Times Ref 8: ”Seattle has most cranes in the country for 2nd year in a row — and lead is growing". The Seattle Times. 2017-07-11. Retrieved 2017-11-06.

cf: Sydney Morning Herald Ref 23: Cummins, Carolyn (2017-09-29). "There are a lot of cranes in the sky". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2017-11-06.

Further, there are *26* other independent sources covering Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) cited in this article. The above also addresses “References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH” as well, but points below expound on this claim to some extent as well.

2) Re: “Article is also promotional, fails WP:SPIP.”

- This claim has not been substantiated with any specific references to promotional content. It is possible that the article may seem promotional to those unfamiliar with the role of quantity surveying in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) field; however, there are no skyscrapers, olympics, or major architectural achievements without quantity surveying and cost modeling processes. Rider Levett Bucknall’s major project involvement as quantity surveyor (Olympics, Megatall buildings ((Wuhan CTF Centre, soon to be China’s highest skyscraper)), Atlanta Falcons NFL Stadium, and others), and the research function of its analytics and reporting, have both been considered notable enough to be written about by the above cited sources, and numerous others. Notability in this instance, and detailed exposition of the subject matter, supercedes an implication of promotion.

A detailed article about a firm, which is essential to the existence of some of the highest buildings in the world and major sporting venues among other significant cultural objects, should not be deemed promotional simply because it explores a corporation.

WP:SPIP states, “The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.” If the article is "overly promotional" then other significant peer articles on Wikipedia in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industries would fail this test as well. See: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Bechtel, etc.

3) This is speculative, but I am wondering if this article is being nominated for deletion simply because the subject matter seems “boring” on a cursory reading. Or if the nomination is motivated by an idea that: “This is an article about a corporation not widely known, it is therefore promotional.” Further, it seems odd that this page is receiving objection if WP:AUD is considered. WP:AUD states: “The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.” Would argue that the source audiences here are both global and relevant. Certainly any students of AEC would need and seek this information. Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) is a development of trunks within the discourse of AEC and and helps answer the questions:

“What are some notable examples of firms doing quantity surveying work?

“What is the nature of their involvement in the construction and design of significant AEC achievements”?

Thank you to all who have contributed for your service to Wikipedia and for vetting this work. Though my argument above may sound snarky, I do believe this is the kind of discussion that certainly makes Wikipedia a more robust resource. Vincent Wedge (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Vincent Wedge
 * Comment Quick responses to your long post. The requirement for two "intellectually independent" references is not satisfied merely by WP:RS. The reference must also contain independent analysis or optinion and not merely namecheck the company or regurgitate quotations from company officers such as the articles you've mentioned. For example, the WSJ article mentions the company once in conjuction with a quotation from an RLB VP. This is not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Your other examples fail for the same reasons. The article fails WP:SPIP because there is nothing within the article to indicate notability - its a simple run-of-the-mill company - and providing lists of "services" and "major projects" is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a free company brochure to advertise the company. You must have missed the part that states very clearly that Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Finally, WP:AUD only comes into play if criteria regarding intellectually independent references has been met - it hasn't. -- HighKing ++ 13:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks like the company paid someone to write the article - it was created ready made with dozens of references. I checked 10 of the references and none of those indicated notability, they were very run of the mill, promotional, lacking depth or similar. I don't have time to check all of the references - I think that quantity of references is intended to pull the wool over my eyes. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Szzuk There is no need to go ad hominem, here. I am a PhD candidate at the University of Utah. This is not a paid article. Was created out leftover AEC research for my doctoral dissertation. Deletion of the Services and Sectors sections is probably a good idea. -- HighKing ++ makes a valid point on that count. However there is much left unaddressed in my response to the initial argument for deletion post. Will respond more in a few, but I think the supposition that this is paid is offensive and needlessly incendiary. Vincent Wedge (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Vincent Wedge


 * 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.