Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turner Construction


 * 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.  

Closing as would be keep but for the lack of proper listing makes me unwilling to make it a complete keep. However, I would ask the people who favor keeping this below to please add sourcing. JoshuaZ 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Turner Construction

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reads like an advert or corporate brochure in places, with no sources other than 1 external link to it's own website. Either needs deletion or a huge overhaul. Liverpool Scouse 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Probably an advertisement. Non-notable.  •Malinaccier•  T / C  18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without comment. GreenJoe 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - need sources, but the company is likely plenty notable enough since I've heard of them outside the context of wp. --Rocksanddirt 19:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are certainly claims to notability there, and I wouldn't just say that it should be deleted "without comment"...-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not so much the notability, I'm sure it is a large company, and notable, it's more the tone of the article which in parts amounts to blatant POV and advertising. Liverpool Scouse 22:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as "the largest general builder in the United States", assuming it can be documented, they deserve an article. (& the list of major projects would certainly seem justification enough.)  The present article is in considerable part unencyclopedic advertising, and the solution is to edit it. Should never have been brought here. DGG (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Though I am not in the construction field, but engage general contractors often, Turner is recognized as one of the best. This is simple lack of adding sources and is not a situation of lack of notability. The quality of writing/editing is not a reason for deleting; it is an inviatation to edit. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. come on, now... 74 Google News hits in the last month alone (and 11,000 in the archives), 300k+ webhits, 100+ years old, billions of dollars in revenue. Instead of Afd, use unreferenced and advert. --DeLarge 12:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't even see an AfD template on the article. Has this even been nominated properly? Do the article contributors know it's up for deletion? Might as well speedy close right now, as it'd be overturned immediately at WP:DRV under these circumstances. --DeLarge 12:31, 19 August 2007 (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.