Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I have proposed this page for deletion, because its only purpose is to promote the company. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Copyright violation of, also A7... well sourced factually but no assertion of notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have declined the speedy. I could only see one sentence in the whole article which matches that on Zoominfo and it is not clear which came first. Nancy  talk  17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he might have refactored some of the text after the fact (that problem is solved), because when I originally looked several paragraphs were infringing. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - not the greatest article in the world but it it is reasonably comprehensive, is well sourced, shows notability as influencing the design of notable buildings as well as receiving various awards and does not strike me as particularly promotional - certainly not to the extent that it should be deleted. Nancy  talk  17:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep after some trimming and rewriting. A major company in its field, as proven by the awards. DGG (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability asserted by awards and demonstrated by coverage in reliable sources. The article is still contains some excessive information and some slightly unencyclopedic phrasing, but certainly appears salvageable. ~ mazca  t 09:22, 22 April 2009 (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.