Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wood Marsh


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. The only delete-!vote said they only !voted that way because of the state the article was in at the time and he indicated the wish to work on the article instead after E.M.Gregory's edits. Regards  So Why  21:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wood Marsh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nomination Withdrawn - based on these references identified by Flat Out (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I haven't found anything significant in independent sources apart from the newspaper article already cited, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Flat Out (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete.  Certainly seems to be a very successful firm, with significant and numerous mentions in regard to its projects, but seems to fail technical GNG, having very few IRS specifically about the company itself.  I would be happy if someone more familiar with the subject matter could dig out some better references.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep (for now) -- appears to be well known firm. For example, they received the "National Landscape Architecture Awards" from the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, which may significant or "you scratch my back" type of award: link; not sure. Some of their projects appear to be notable link; their approach to the project is briefly discussed. I wonder if architects are more like academics -- notable for the work they have done? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Keyed Wood + Marsh + architects into a news archive search on proquest and gots plenty of RS to support notability. Many of their buildings are important enough to be reviewed by architecture critics in major newspapers, they therefore pass WP:CREATIVE much as would a writer with widely-reviewed books.  I added one such review to the section on the building.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you post a couple of handfuls of relevant urls please here or on my talk page - I might have a go at putting more depth into the article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thing is, I was using Proquest, and it is paywalled.  So, I just repeated my search thus:   Wood Marsh  architects  site:theage.com.au/     - Bingo!  No paywall! (at least I think so, I access the web through aome powerful search engines, and am sometimes mistaken about what it open access)  I chose to search The Age and not not some other big city Australian paper simply because  it is the paper that ran the review I had added to the page.    The results of that search, here: are persuasive..  I imagine other papers have similar or more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:28, 1 February 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.