Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinerton

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 22:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swinerton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My extensive and specific PROD removed with absolutely no explanations therefore I still confirm since there are serious and noticeable concerns this was in fact a paid advertisement and the several different accounts show it also, which is then also not surprising everything listed here (from information to sources) is advertising. When all that can be offered as sourcing is advertising when the concerns explicitly state this is advertising is not only ignorance for the actual concerns, but it shows allowing such advertising completely damns this encyclopedia each time, risking unfixable damages. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in part (at least at the moment) per WP:NEXIST. Most articles of this sort are about recently-founded companies, often in the information technology or public relations industry. This article is about a construction company with over a century of history, and involvement in the construction of a large number of very famous structures. Now, notability isn't inherited, and my ten-minute search didn't give me any silver-bullet sources. This book (and yes, that's from a reliable publisher despite the travesty of a font they used) is probably only "trivial coverage". But it notes this company's involvement in the construction of the de Young and the Fairmont San Francisco, as well as giving us two former names for the company: first the Lindgren Company, then Swinerton and Walberg. That leads us to yet more sources. As Swinerton and Walberg, it was involved in an affirmative action court case considered an important part of California case law (see here, for example). And there are no shortage of references, as the Lindgren Company, in early 20th-century engineering periodicals, many of which I don't have immediate access to. Are some of them trivial or otherwise easily discounted? Unquestionably. But it doesn't take very many such sources, or very much media coverage of their high-profile construction work, to clear the notability bar. The current article is somewhat promotional, but not, in my opinion, irreparably so. It needs a lot of improvement; so do very many other articles. But that's not cause for deletion. Sourcing aside, I honestly have no idea what the nominator was intending by declaring the current material "not only ignorance for the actual concerns, but it shows allowing such advertising completely damns this encyclopedia each time, risking unfixable damages". This isn't unfixable, and it isn't damning the encyclopedia. It's just another article that needs more and better development from sources that aren't at the top of Google's list of links. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but stubify). I am confident that sufficient coverage in reliable sources exists to attest to the notability of this firm - they have been around for a very long time, and have done some very notable work. It is quite likely that some of those reliable sources are from the 1890s - 1940s and so not trivially discoverable by the standard "type it into Google" approach. All the same I think it's far more likely than not that the GNG could be met, so it would be illogical to delete the article. Having said that, the content is clearly unacceptable, being primarily an advertisement, and it needs severe pruning, which I will be happy to work on. Thparkth (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with user Thparkth. Expand the history section which includes most of the info that makes the company notable and remove the advertorial stuff. MB 03:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2016 (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.