Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gebler Tooth

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. Clear consensus to delete. We've got lots of sources, but what the sources supply in quantity, they lack in quality. As DGG said, What is really needed for architects is discussions of their work in professional publications, not the relatively minor comments in newspapers. If somebody wants to take a shot at writing at rewriting this, I can restore the deleted version to draft, but please do some research first to find the kinds of sources we need. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gebler Tooth

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

Evidently this architectural management/refurbishment practice is competent and successful, judging by the fact it has existed in some form or another for over 30 years. However, it seems to have not attracted attention until its refurbishment in Shoreditch won a Local Authority Building Control award (and this was only a regional award). Their grand sounding Team GB House for the London Olympics turns out to be a refurbishment of the top floor of an office building (and doesn't seem to attract much attention anyway). The article seems to be pieced together from brief mentions, and non-news sources such as company websites. Much hangs on the fact the mother of one of the partners was a well-known writer. Though I'd originally hoped there would be more to this company than at first glance, this hasn't transpired (especially when you scratch beneath the surface of the claims). There are many notable architecture firms that deserve a Wikipedia article but there's not much evidence this is one of them. Sionk (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SionK 1* have now deleted the inclusion of mention of Sasha Gebler's famous mother, as it seems to be so offensive. In any case I think you're right, it's nothing to do with the architecture, so the references aren't needed here. 2*here is a list of the articles about Gebler Tooth's work that I am searching for, in order to prove to your satisfaction that Gebler Tooth are worthy of note. Please help me in trying to find them online so that I can include links to them in the article: 1. The Independent 26 Feb 2001 – The Arts pg 12 ‘Not yet the last picture show’ 2. The Sunday Times 4 March 2001 – Culture supplement pg 22 ‘Shock Treatment’ 3. Evening Standard 1 May 2002 – Commerical pg 11 ‘Star of the Big Screen’ 4. Evening Standard 24 Feb 1999 – Arts pg 28 ‘Land of Electric Dreams’ 5. The Guardian Space supplement June 29 2000 ‘Electric Dreams’ 6 Vogue Living, Jan pg 147 7. Moving Pictures magazine 8. Homes & Gardens Magazine, Kitchen & Bathroom Living supplement, July 2011 9. Intra Magazine, June 2005, interview with Nick Jones of Soho House Group

3* I will change the focus from the Team GB project, to something more interesting for instance the Working Title Films HQ, or the Ferrero Rocher UK HQ, or the Electric Cinema, or something more suitable. For your information, at the time of 2012 Olympics, there was a lot of talk on BBC sports coverage TV, about how wonderfully the HQ was designed. Unfortunately there are not many articles about it, so I won't waste my time trying to prove it. Gallura (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SionK (2) I've also deleted the image link for Team GB House at 2012 Olympics. That way you won't feel there's so much emphasis put on it. (Actually there was only one sentence about it, so it must have been the image that you found unacceptable). I'm sure there are many other Architecture firms that are worthy of articles - but that does not mean that GTA are not! Perhaps other people, like you, could be persuaded to donate their time and expertise to write them? I don't think I have the time to write them all for you1 Gallura (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Sionk has created 221 articles and Gallura has created a total of 25. Deb (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good for her. Perhaps Sionk has more time to donate to Wikipedia than I do. Gallura (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was forgetting how important you are. Just drop your attempts at sarcastic put-downs of more active and experienced contributors. Deb (talk)

To be honest, I appreciate the generally constructive response Gallura has made in this discussion. True, I have written articles about architects and architecture practices. But as I said at the start, I'm not convinced this example, Gebler Tooth, have had enough recognition to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I've no opinion at the moment on Gallura's other articles. Sionk (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising and was only ever started to be as such, as the statements above also emphasize, therefore with everything here including the sources being trivial, there's nothing to suggest anything else but that exactly. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sionk, Thanks for your comments. Good to hear a rational voice. I do not consider myself important, as I'm sure you realise, and I was absolutely not trying to put you down. But I am a contributor to a (2016) Thames & Hudson book on the history of design since the industrial revolution, and I have previously written a Wiki page on an Italian architect which was considered OK enough to be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. I've also been published in newspapers of record such as The Telegraph and various magazines on design/architecture subjects - which interest me along with millions of others. I've written the Gebler Tooth page in order that people can access information on GT Architects, because I believe they have made a significant contribution. (It's not advertising. I think advertising generally has to be an awful lot more engaging/emotive than a wikipedia page will ever be! and that's as it should be). On a separate issue, do you know why it is that this article does not come up on a google search for 'Gebler Tooth Wikipedia'? Whenever I want to work on it, I have to find it by other means. It seems odd. with thanksGallura (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional brochure on an unremarkable business. Belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At best Weak keep -- The number of blue links to buildings they have designed may make them just about notable, but it has the feel of ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, there's not much evidence they designed anything notable. They are a jobbing refurbishment/management company. They were involved in the upgrade and refurb of the Electric Cinema, Notting Hill for example, but that doesn't mean they created or designed the theatre. As far as I can see, that is the only bluelinked building that they've had any significant part in. Sionk (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I suggest a move to draft space for further work. What is really needed for architects is discussions of their work in professional publications, not the relatively minor comments in newspapers. If they can be found, the article should be sustainable. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userify/Draftify and let the above editors work on the article outside of mainspace to provide the sources they think are out there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Delete Companies need to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. This one is about an architectural management/refurbishment firm. While I generally look for sources about the company, in certain cases it is OK for a company to be known because of its achievements. Zaha Hadid Architects is a notable firm for example. It's works have been referred to in multiple reliable secondary sources. This is needed here. I would have been happy to see some reliable secondary sources talk about the company's works and mention the role the company played. But I mostly see local sources and company websites - which I am not willing to rely on. Accordingly, I am not convinced that the firm is notable at this point. I don't see the point in drafting/userfying this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 17 December 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.