Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KKE Architects, Inc.

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. Consensus is that there is not sufficient substantial coverage by reliable sources. Sandstein 16:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KKE Architects, Inc.

KKE Architects, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

KEEP, see below previous discussion copied from Deletion Review Jisher 18:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The article concisely states the firm description and scope, with no self-promoting gratuity, and provides unbiased 3rd party references. The article provides a brief synopsis of “notable” existing and proposed buildings. The article also provides a non-promotional history timeline, which is informative and educational to an architectural firms progression. Please see my user page for additional info. Thanks! Jisher 08:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, references must not only be third-party, but must also be reliable and non-trivial. WP:N is not a "pick any one" criterion. First couple of sources (Architecture Week) are trivial directory-style listings (likely paid ones), third one trivially mentions the company (one sentence!), and the rest don't mention this company at all! A non-trivial source means the company is the focus of a full piece (not blurb or directory entry) in a reliable, editorially-controlled or scholarly peer-reviewed publication. (Note: If the company really did help significantly in building Mall of America, I would imagine better sourcing can be found. No prejudice to recreation if better sources are found and cited.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added an additional reference to KKE’s involvement in the Mall of America and updated the KKE Architects, Inc. page. As for the architectureweek reference, I simply provided this to indicate what this firm specializes in (as there are many various aspects to this profession). Architectureweek is a free online weekly newsletter with a free directory that is derived from the wiki “Archiplanet.org” website. I could refer the article to the KKE website for the same information, but I thought that would appear too self-promoting. And to address your comment that some of the sources only cite one instance of mention to the compnay, it is not uncommon for these design professional's to be briefly credited. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact the architects routinely rank as one of the least unhappy and lowest paid professionals. One reference does not indicate KKE, but Howard F. Thompson, whose firm/work was acquired by KKE. Also, I noticed someone deleted the pages content…I believe this should not have been done. As stated in wikipedia’s deletion review process “While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it…” Jisher 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question Did this come here straight from a speedy? there is no relevant history before the deletion review., and no AfD. . DGG 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In a way, yes. RHaworth recomended I place it here for review. Here is the brief history on my attempt at this article: The article was first posted on 2-2-07, and this was my first ever wiki attempt. That article was speedily deleted by Chairboy. I revamped the article and reposted it on 2-8-07, but it was then speedily deleted by RHaworth who indicated it was "reposted spam". The thing is, I believe he was quick on the gun and must have reviewed the first (2-2-07) artcile deleted by Chairboy, as he made mention of references only in the original 2-2-07 version. I tried to make him aware of this, but he insisted I move this to deletion review.Jisher 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• List on afd. Assuming that I understand the sequence, it seems an example of over-hasty and rather careless process. There's no point in trying to defend decisions made on such a basis--with the record as confused as that, the course is to have a proper AfD debate in the ordinary way. The ordinary way works fairly well. DGG 05:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• very weak delete 2 of the sources in the refernces section on considered reliable by wikipedia standards, however neither mentions the subject of the article more than once. i kan reed 19:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point of the lack of mention, but as I indicated above, acknowledgment of the design team is often very brief, if at all (for most projects). I will due my best to keep an eye out and include additional interview references and the such (if consensus/admin. decides to keep).Jisher 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a complicated case because these folks designed the Mall of America, but the article's format and style does not sit well with me - i.e., it doesn't place this company's relevance in a broader context. YechielMan 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete per yechielman - Mall of America is the only linked article that might possibly give a link back, but it doesn't. Aaronbrick 03:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

YachielMan: There are very few architectural firm articles available for reference that I could find as an example of format. As stated in my user profile, I choose to loosley model the KKE article from the semi-longstanding “Skidmore, Owings and Merrill" article. Jisher 06:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaronbrick: Yah, I tried yesterday to add a link within the Mall of America upper right facts box...but for some reason it does not show up (I'm pretty fresh to this). If you have the time, could you elaborate on what I may be doing wrong. Thanks Jisher 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no indication of meeting the notability criteria at WP:CORP. —Angr 15:30, 18 February 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.