Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson 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.  MBisanz  talk 11:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wilson Architects

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD was removed - was prodded as "Self-authored article, no citations to external websites." Mifter (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Alexander Brown Wilson. LibStar (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. Article has no external sources and until recently was more-or-less just a self-authored list of regional awards. 08:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Solid keep and expand. I suggest there is more than enough NEXISTS to support the article and expand it with IRSS. Some for example seem to be:
 * https://www.idea-awards.com.au/2011/wilson-architects-office/
 * http://architectureau.com/articles/wilson-architects-office/
 * http://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/projects/large-commercial/wilson-architects-office
 * https://www.theurbandeveloper.com/fresh-approach-commercial-architecture/
 * https://greenroofsaustralasia.com.au/news/wilson-architects-partners-hill-%E2%80%98disrupt%E2%80%99-student-housing
 * http://lahznimmo.com/project/wallace-wurth-unsw/
 * https://www.library.uq.edu.au/fryer-library/ms/uqfl112.pdf
 * http://archinect.com/wilsonarchitects/projects
 * There also specific mentions in further sources about their projects rather than the firm itself.
 * Also importantly google: "Wilson Architects" site:www.couriermail.com.au gives some further strong IRSS. Aoziwe (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are also many historical references for example amongst trove  Aoziwe (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * many of the trove results are not about this firm but other architects with same name. Also the sites you post above are mainly architecture industry so not entirely third party. LibStar (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes but I think you will find that all of the AB and RM Wilson ones are the relevant ones. Yes above, some but not all.  I do believe there is sufficient specific and overall NEXIST to keep this article.  Aoziwe (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: there were many citations independent of the topic in the article before large amounts of it was deleted and then PRODed. Judge it by the citations that were in the article (e.g. this version, which has masses of citations not closely associated with the firm) not just what is left. It is a well-known architectural firm which wins many awards. I would expect well-known architects to appear in architecture industry publications, especially when they win so many awards. It would be a worrying sign if their industry publications didn't mention them. Kerry (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * try this google search if you want a mainstream newspaper (not an architectural publication) Kerry (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am struggling to assume good faith when an article with over 40 citations was stripped down to just two citations both of which came from the firm's website and then proposed for deletion on the grounds of having no citations to external websites. Kerry (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can assure I have no stake in the article however it is worth noting that in the last rev prior to the cleanup the article reads very much like an advertisement or PR piece.  The citations were all to misc awards and the article was primarily written by users who have minor or no edits outside the article.  I nominated the article after its PROD was removed (it was PROD tagged by another editor) as I myself am not sure it is notable enough for its own article and it was almost completely written by individuals who in my estimation either have a serious COI or are directly tied to the company.  I personally think it would be worth merging to the founders article but I will leave it to the closing admin to decide.  That being said I am always happy to be proven wrong if you are able to improve the article directly.  Mifter (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely that the article was not a good one being mostly a long list of awards, but the question at AfD is not about the quality of the article but about notability of the topic. Removing all independent citations of awards in your revision also removed the evidence of notability. Although the contributors you mention are not known to me personally, I do know that there have been edit-a-thons about architecture held here in Australia and there is at least one Australian university that appears to do a class activity each year contributing to Wikipedia on Australian architecture topics, which might explain the contribution pattern. These tend to come up on my watchlist/notifications because I write about Queensland heritage architecture. Kerry (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree that AfD is for notability and not quality (though I do not believe article quality and notability are mutually exclusive in all cases). As I mentioned above I personally am on the fence about this article's notability and as another editor PRODed it I viewed that as validating my concern enough that I believed a forum such as this would be appropriate for a larger discussion.  It is great to hear about edit-a-thon's on this topic and while I don't know how much of a role that they did or did not play in this article it is certainly possible that they did (from what limited reading I've done on Queensland it sounds like a fascinating place)  though with edit-a-thon's the new editors may not be overly familiar with our notability policies.  Mifter Public (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * agreed re newbies and notability. Kerry (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - a particularly good example of in depth reliable coverage is: Chris Herde, Family of architects have designed some of Brisbane’s landmarks. The Courier-Mail, July 24, 2014. I think the article meets GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Provisional Strong Keep (How's that for specific?) When the search tool terms are refined 'Wilson architects Australia,' numerous reliable source refs appear. However, the article only uses 'in house' references, and was probably written by someone in house not familiar with Wikipedia concepts and formats. They ought to task someone in house to learn about Wikipedia and write the article. I have no objection to in house, if it's done right. The best article I've ever seen that looked as though it was written in house is Cael Sanderson, a prominent American wrestler and, now, coach. My guess is that someone told the Penn State publicity department to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia before writing or modifying the article. This article isn't promotional in tone, so if they continue that approach and add appropriate refs, it would be a more than decent article. Tapered (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops! Just removed one peacock world from Cael Sanderson. No one's perfect. Tapered (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 02:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:56, 9 March 2017 (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.