Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asymptote Architecture

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. Notability established in its state as of 15 January. If there is still a WP:SPAM or WP:COI issue, fix it without bringing to AfD. Argyriou (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asymptote Architecture

Asymptote Architecture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Blatant advertisement; Non neutral point of view; Conflict of interest from Main editors; No intention of fixing by Main editors as shown in history: one of them deleted the advert tag on 19:32, 17 December 2007; Main editors are probably sockpuppets anyway --W2bh (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: pure & blatant WP:SPAM as per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. There are some relibale sources. If not deleted, stubify? Rudget. 16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The sources are very recent and where added by RMHED when after discussing with him why he removed the original db-spam tag I placed on the article. --W2bh (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  Does it matter at what time they were added? Rudget. 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  I was just trying to illustrate my point that it doesn't seem the original editors where trying to construct a proper article. --W2bh (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I'm not totally sold on all the sources that have been added to the article; most of them seem to be about the buildings rather than the firm proper. However, I would think that, between the number of buildings they've designed and the large number of awards they've received, they are indeed a notable architecture firm. Therefore, other reliable sources must exist for them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• super speedy delete I LOATHE self-promotion. Go place an ad in the New Yorker. MiracleMat (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep—I am dismayed to see an adverse reaction to this page—as a former architecture student, I can attest to this office's notability, they are one of the more promising young offices. As for architectural and artistic keep criteria, there isn't that well defined a policy here as there is for music or the very generic corporation requirements, the latter this studio seems to escape in my view. An editor whose opinion I'd like to see here once drafted an architectural notability page which hasn't found much use but I think this article and its subject would qualify, and I do think they meet our broader requirements, they are award winning, frequently enter prominent design competitions and exhibitions, have academic cred, and illustrious clientèle. What the commentators at this AfD seem to take issue with is that this article appears to be written by the studio, and is a form of self promotion, however, with notability established by third party sources, having the subject of the article releasing images can obviously work in the benefit of Wikipedia—and in this instance Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary architecture which is scant in all honesty and has little access to high quality renderings and projects of this sort. The text isn't far off from neutral coverage, the IP contributor to the article has done some trimming and added more references, I think their notability as far as third party references should be covered. The image of the partners was clearly a promo photo, but if they are willing to release it to Wikipedia we should be accepting and appreciative of that, as we have very few portraits to illustrate our architectural biographies. The strategy at this point, I would think is to, as tactfully as possible, find some way to confirm that the accounts editing this page and uploading images have in fact been operated by the office in question and confirm that they are releasing these images into the GFDL whether by OTRS ticket or by polite email posted on the image pages, as I believe an article about this studio written by its members according to our rules and fashion can provide valuable insights and access to coverage we may otherwise not be able to achieve. To reiterate, I think this article should be kept. Regards, dvdrw 02:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - significant 3rd party coverage implies notability. Blatant advertisement = edit issue. Conflict of interest=Noticeboard& WP:COI. Sockpuppets=Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I can see no meat for the deletion request? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Whoa there keep! Ok, so we have blatant self promotion - this is a wiki, anyone is free to add sourced counter viewpoints. What's important is whether this is a notable architectural firm - Exhibits at the Guggenheim, numerous column inches in respected architectural journals, and the odd award mean this isn't Crushing and Normals associates - "we specialise in exquisite accomodation for your four legged friends". --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Significantly improved from the self promotion submitted, and while need of improvement, it seems ok at the moment. Otherwise it fulfils all the other criteria (N,V etc.) for a keep. Mostlyharmless (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The nomination rationale lists several good reasons for editing the article, but no policy- or guideline-based reasons for deleting it. There are plenty of reliable sources for verifiability and notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason was WP:SPAM. --W2bh (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• But there is plenty of non-spammy verifiable information here, so if you think that any particular statements are spammy the solution is for you to edit them. There's no need to delete a whole article about a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - what this needs is editing, not deletion. Surely with thousands of WP editors out there we can together rearrange what is significant, factual and notable in this article into an encyclopaedic format? -- Hebrides (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is effectively deleted merely by virtue of the Deletion banner and discussion. A horrible credibility hit. The company should stub it or insist on its deletion until unequivocally disinterested editors write a new one. The comments supporting retention are as weak as the article itself. Eye.earth (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's use as a promotional article is marred by this process? That's fine isn't it? - of course if the result is keep the banner will be removed. It doesn't really follow from this that the company should stub it or wait for disinterested editors - I don't understand that. The article just stays as it is unless someone choses to do something to it. Would you elaborate why "comments supporting retention are as weak as the article" - just saying they're weak, doesn't shed any light on your thinking. thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2008 (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.