mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ushida Findlay Architects Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ushida_Findlay_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. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and the consensus here is for the article to be retained. It appears that the sole delete !voter's concerns have been addressed per recent editing that has occurred to the article. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 09:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ushida Findlay Architects

[edit]
Ushida Findlay Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor architectural practice. Two claims to fame don't appear to be supported by the reference provided. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I've added various references to the article, including citations for the two projects that were flagged as failed verification. A Guardian search shows this firm being discussed in a variety of articles from 1999-2012. My only qualm is that they might still be just be teetering to the WP:TOOSOON side of notability, hence the Weak Keep. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note that an article published 2 days ago in Architects Journal says "that makes Ushida Findlay’s staircase, a spiral weave through Anish Kapoor’s and Cecil Balmond’s tangled mass of steel, the most interesting new architectural space in the world right now." [1], which is a clear statement of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the 'claim to fame' of being the architects on the 2012 Olympics tower was cited in the New York Times (though half way through the article in a single paragraph) together from a comment by one of their architects. I don't quite understand quite why the nominator went so far as AfD when there were already a national UK newspaper article [2] and an authoritative book [3] cited (the book gave a broad overview of contemporary architecture but selected UF as one of the featured practices). When the article first appeared this week, it was unsourced and unverified - I added the 'notability' tag to encourage the author to come back and improve it (I've removed it now, it seems to be surpassed by events). Another editor has subsequently added two very thorough national newspaper articles [4][5] on the practice. These general, non 'specialist' sources means the subject meets WP:NCORP (there are numerous sources available elsewhere in the architectural press which can back these up). Sionk (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per Sionk and others. There appears to be good evidence that they helped build the Orbit. If this is so then surely that is notable. If it's not so then we need to know what's wrong with the refs, but I think they're OK. It is only speculation but, speaking strictly for myself, I know that I was a bit annoyed by the firm's appearance here and its initial editing spree which, as is so often the case, was more about what they wanted as a company than what the encyclopaedia needs as an information resource ... is there any risk that the article is in danger of being deleted because its subject was initially a bit irritating? I hope not. Just a thought, no offence intended. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the initial editing 'spree' (well, mine anyway, and I don't see many others) was an attempt to assert the company's notability. It is always a problem with these articles (I've experienced it before) where an article will either be challenged for NPOV issues (if it asserts notability), or notability issues (if it is written too conservatively). Hey-ho. I'm not sure what is still irritating about it, but I guess that conversation is best left for the Talk page. Sionk (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry, no offence intended, and just to clarify: I meant the editing spree by the company's own account, which is now blocked. I did not mean to refer to edits by you or any other regular editor. They came to my attention with a few unexplained edits to the Orbit article, which led me to their account, which led me here ... and so on. Hope this clarifies, do pop in to my Talk etc if further discussion is needed. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw All my concerns addressed by recent edits by AllyD and Sionk. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.