Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tate Snyder Kimsey Architects


 * 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 per MelanieN's rewrite, which included full sourcing and content expansion (also known as WP:HEY). Should anyone object, feel free to either contact me for a relisting or bring this to DRV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Tate Snyder Kimsey Architects

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article tagged for notability and sourcing problems for several years. This architecture practice may have won a minor award, but does not seem to have made an impact in the architectural press, let alone the general news coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: per this. Sufficient coverage. -- Dewritech (talk)  10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the coverage be about the COMPANY rather than about the works that it did? Now, suppose that the works would make the company notable: Wouldn't the works receive MAJOR AWARDS rather than just brief mentions? I lean towards Delete on this one BUT I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and leave it open for discussion. I just don't think the coverage section that the company itself aggregated(possible WP:COI ?) is significant ground for establishing notability and making it encyclopedic. -- Loukinho (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC).


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)




 * Loukinho: did you check these awards?-- Dewritech (talk)  09:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree with Loukinho that these do not seem to be major awards, generally given by the local state or city chapter of AIA. In any case, citing the company website is hardly going to pass Wikipedia's notabilty requirements. Sionk (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good point. I haven't even addressed the issue of notability and sources. I would have to say Delete for this one. As it is, it is not encyclopedic and doesn't meet notability guidelines. -- Loukinho (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dewritech, that was exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned "Major awards". Most of these awards are about the works that the company made (which would, if anything, make its WORK notable), however the company itself does not seem to pass WP:N. Now, again, suppose that the "award winning" works that the company received are being claimed as grounds for its notability: Shouldn't the awards be major? Now, switching topics a little, regardless of the situation, notability requires "significant coverage from reliable sources" and the information has be be verifiable. See WP:NRVE. I know this is not respected de facto on wikipedia nowadays, but it is still part of the guidelines that some of us try to follow. -- Loukinho (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC).


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep You would never have known it from the article as written, but the company does appear to be notable. It has branches in Nevada, California and China, and it gets frequent news coverage. I just did a complete rewrite, so please take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2012 (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.