Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caples Jefferson 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. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caples Jefferson Architects[edit]

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

Delete. SPAMish article about a company of insufficient notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible ~~keep~~move to my userspace The article has problems, but the firm is exceptionally notable. Some of their projects have won major awards and several of the buildings they've designed are notable (some already have Wikipedia articles). It would be nice to get some photographs uploaded of their work. A category on Wikipedia Commons also makes sense. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of distortions, exaggerations and outright lies. It should be removed from mainspace until it can be fixed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve This is an odd one. They are certainly notable enough as an architecture firm to keep the article, with mainstream press coverage and references supporting work on notable buildings. Yet as Candleabracadabra notes, the article's also full of unreferenced claims~~, and as Alan Liefting notes the tone is still quite WP:PROMO~~. I've found references from WP:RS to back up a few of the claims made, but any claims for which we can't find good refs should certainly be removed. If it does get moved to userspace, I'll be happy to help work on it there. Scopecreep (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it to remove the promotional language, and added several more references. Scopecreep (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources indicate a demonstrably notable firm with a number of important works. There was some puffery for sure, but Candleabracadabra's reference to "distortions, exaggerations and outright lies" is strong language, and it's not apparent to me what xe is referring to, exactly, other than the precise meaning of "renovations" in connection with one project. Can we get more clarity about this, so the article doesn't have to carry the "hoax" tag? --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an article on an architect lists XYZ Building and it was done by a completely different architect that's a problem. Most of the claims in the article that I've looked into have been somewhat, largely, or wholly untrue. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the claims in the article are now verified. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A small architecture practice with few built projects and a number of minor local awards, but probably passes the notability threshold. Inflammatory language such as "exceptionally notable" and "won major awards" is not helpful. The article is still trashy (contains copyvio image, misleading citations and spam) and in such cases sometimes complete rewrite is an easier option than sorting out the mess. --ELEKHH^T 21:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just what are the asserted lies? Is the list of projects wrong--does it contain things they didn't design? (or is it that for some of them they should be listed as joint designers?) Candleabracandra, exactly which do you think are wrong? Unless you have some evidence, you are making very strong accusations to accept on your unsupported word. We have pretty broad tolerance for WP space, but this sort of charge needs to be proven. The failure to give a 3rd party source does not prove the statement a lie, which is a very strong word in English, meaning a deliberate untruth said with intend to deceive. Though everything must be sourced, we normally accept a corporate web site for the work of the company unless there's some reason not to. The present state of the article is about as non-promotional an article as could be desired: it simply lists their work and their awards, both relevant. I agree the awards are minor, but the significant buildings are sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Crappy content-free promospam. If you're going to write puff pieces, at least do a better job than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable company. The rationales presented by User:Arxiloxos and User:DGG here are also very noteworthy. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been improved as of this post. Most of the claims are now verified. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the problems appear to have been the listing as designer when what was designed was an addition or renovation, not the original building, or when the position was joint designer. Accuracy here is important, but the errors are being corrected (I agree it was not reassuring to let them get in the article in the first place). The solution for lack of accuracy is, as always, making the necessary improvement. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand why it was nommed as it does indeed look cruftish with its list of award but I think it appears to be notable. I'm picking up quite a lot of sources in Google books which usually indicates notability and I see the potential for a full articles and widely sourced in prose. The lists look ugly and promotional at present. We have heaps of articles on US companies and bands which are not even mentioned in google books!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:21, 30 April 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.