Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rawn Associates


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

William Rawn Associates

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article does not comply with WP:CORP. As the table below shows, the article lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of" it as required by WP:SIRS. Furthermore, it has long had issues with violations of WP:PROMO and while a lot of the offending material has been removed, it is questionable whether what remains is still promotional material, unverified as it is. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Companies. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the Source assessment table I created for the article. As you can see there is no single source that counts towards the GNG.


 * I disagree with the notion to delete. I can agree that the content and sources that appear in the articles current form are not enough on its own but this architecture firm is one of relative prestige in the American architecture profession, I believe it should be improved rather than delete it. I updated the article and think it should be up to snuff now.
 * Arguments against deletion:
 * The firms masterwork, Seiji Ozawa Hall, is considered one of the best architecturally significant music halls ever constructed in the literature of acoustic experts and musicologists. I expand on this in the article and its sources should count toward GNG.
 * The source from Harvard discussing positions held by it's principal founder describing his prestigious positions in the best architecture schools in the US and his elevation as a Fellow of the AIA (Fellowship is bestowed by the institute on AIA architects, the leading membership association of architects in the United States, who have made outstanding contributions to the profession) it is the highest honor that can be bestowed upon a professional architect in the US. The accolades and personality of the principal architect guide the philosophy and direction of architecture firms so I would argue that this could count toward GNG but I do understand the point made in the table.
 * The material that was considered promotional (awards granted by the AIA, the leading membership association of architects in the United States), while yes they can be and more often than not used by architecture firms to promote themselves, are the very thing that justifies the significance and notability of the firm. I have verified these through secondary sources in a new update and they should count toward GNG.
 * I take disagreement the analysis of the last source mentioned in the table. A firm considered one of the 50 best architecture firms by Architect Magazine, affiliated with AIA is consequential and significant. Of approximately 70,000 architecture businesses that exist in the United States the fact that William Rawn Associates lie in the top 50 lands it at the top .07% of architecture businesses. I believe this should count for GNG. TrotskTrotsk (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to reply and for your work adding new sources to the article. Sadly, as I read the guidelines and policies, I still think the article fails to meet the notability criteria. I shall address each of your points in turn:
 * "this architecture firm is one of relative prestige in the American architecture profession". As I understand the rules, no company or organisation is inherently notable just because they may be important in their field. All that matters is whether there are multiple sources that each are independent from William R. Assoc. (WRA), that are reliable and give WRA significant coverage (WP:ORGCRIT).
 * "The firms masterwork, Seiji Ozawa Hall, is considered one of the best architecturally significant music halls" This argument does not work in my view. Notability is not inherited by a company merely because it is associated with notable things, people, events etc. Just because they have designed buildings that may be notable, does not mean they are notable in their own right. They may very well should be mentioned in their buildings' articles, but it does not support them having their own.
 * Further, on your point about the source you have provided for the Seiji O. Hall[1 ] I'll gladly admit it is reliable, but it still should not count towards the GNG. This is because it is neither independent nor is it giving WRA significant coverage. They give the firm a few short mentions in an article that is about something else (ie the Hall) and any information they do provide is either a quote from a partner or reads like a press release. This means even if it were giving them significant coverage it is not independent from them and thus it does not count for the purposes of the GNG as applied by WP:ORGCRIT. Having looked at the new sources you provided, I would argue they suffer from the same issue; they could well support a mention of the firm in an article for the building but they should not be used to justify the existence of WRA's article because they are not independent and do not provide significant coverage.
 * Regarding your point about the Harvard source, I won't press the issue too much because you seem to accept it is not independent and that is enough for it to not count towards our assessment here. I will note, however, that even if William Rawn was notable (and I am not sure that being a fellow of the AIA would be enough), WRA does not inherit any notability from its lead architect.
 * "A firm considered one of the 50 best architecture firms by Architect Magazine, affiliated with AIA is consequential and significant." Generally, however, mere lists of the 'top 10, 50 or 100' do not count as significant coverage, but indeed are an explicit example of something considered trivial coverage. Now, I'll grant you that the article in Architect Magazine is more than a mere name drop in a list, which is why I assessed it as providing partially significant coverage, but in any case it is not independent and thus it is not a source valid for complying with the GNG.
 * Lastly, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the effort you put into finding new sources which support the continued existence of the article; I know it takes a lot of work. Sadly, I would argue that if after all that work, the sources that have appeared continue to either be non-independent or not provide significant coverage, then this suggests to me that the article should indeed be deleted. Jtrrs0 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm not seeing anything myself save for namedrops, non-independent source, and quotes from the subject (which of course cannot be used to support the notability of the subject).   Ravenswing     14:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: As a consequence of the relisting I had another look for reliable sources. Sadly, I didn't find anything new. I could only see unreliable pages like LinkedIN pages, business listings, and pages that give them mere passing references. Indeed, I am convinced that new sources are very unlikely to appear and given the article doesn't meet meet WP:ORG. Thus, my view, remains, that we should delete. Jtrrs0 (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete; once again, rationale at WP:SERIESA. Wikipedia does not exist to document industry award winners or to amplify the prestige of companies.  FalconK (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2022 (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.