Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousins Properties (2nd nomination)

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn - Kept Pedro : Chat 20:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cousins Properties[edit]

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

unnotable company. no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. does not establish notability. looking at the last afd, even this articles creator has abandoned it. only reason last afd appears to have ended was because participants do not like nominator. Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on whether this article should stay or go, but you have appear to have missed the point spectacularly with your "only reason last afd appears to have ended was because participants do not like nominator". I suggest that you think more carefully before inserting foot in mouth next time. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sescondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might be worthwhile to consider redirecting this article to Tom Cousins depending on the outcome of that AfD and if this AfD warrants it (and it looks like it will). TerraFrost (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources were added by Eastmain but I don't think they cut it since they're incidental (local only, or reporting the company's profits). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. it does not matter what involvement cousins properties had with Bank of America Plaza since notability is not inherited Misterdiscreet (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added an article from The New York Times about one of the company's projects in Austin, Texas. In general, companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange are very likely to be notable, even though they aren't (in most cases) automatically notable. "Notability is not inherited" is sometimes misunderstood. If a company does something notable, then it is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article that Eastmain added was not from The New York Times it was another one from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. A search of The New York Times for the past five years showed no articles about Cousins Properties. A general search of newspapers found a couple of one-liners in articles in The Austin American-Statesman that mention that Cousins Properties built and managed the 33-story Frost Tower until it was sold to Thomas Properties Group Inc. in 2007. It does appear that Cousins Properties is primarily of local Atlanta interest. --Bejnar (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. this article would do better in an atlantia wikia than it would on wikipedia Misterdiscreet (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over 5,000 google news archive hits, a slew of which have Cousins in the headline. I have no clue why this is up for AfD.--Milowent (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is up for AfD because it is non notable. and with three votes to delete (two votes and the nomination) and with one to keep the outcome of this AfD is clear despite your not having a clue Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respectfully disagree. And vehemently in this case. This company appears to be a major developer, which has developed over 20 million square feet of commercial space, 20 million feet of retail space, 60 suburban developments, and is credited for having a major impact on the Atlanta skyline due to skyscrapers it has developed. The article may have been bare when nominated, but the company is simply not "unnotable" and it indeed has significant coverage in many sources. I cannot think of an AfD like this in recent memory, I am afraid said clue is absent from your noggin, Sherlock. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is a nice bit of self-aggrandizing. why not add to the article that they are the most awesomest company in the world as well? Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of them before yesterday, but they are the most awesomest company in the world.--Milowent (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eleven independent sources, including the WSJ. It was presumably nominated because at that time there was only one independent reference, yet even that one was enough to show it a major company. Why one contrtbutor thinks that stories reporting the company's profit are irrelevant puzzles me considerable because that's one of the key things that makes businesses notable. Why another contributor thinks that showing involvement with a major project is not relevant puzzles me also, because that's another of the key things that makes businesses notable. But a just previous comment that counting votes in the middle of the discussion is not only appropriate but an argument for deletion in its own right really leaves me speechless. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn due to a decent rescue job by Milowent. Could have done with a few thinly-veiled accusations of bad-faith but there we go, happy to withdraw nomination. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misterdiscreet got my dramarama up a bit, sorry 'bout that.--Milowent (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) I didn't close the discussion as there's delete !votes by the way, so didn't know if it was appropriate Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And will all those who wanted this article delete, kindly remember that all you have to do is click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, to find coverage of something. In this case, there were 5,370 results for "Cousins Properties"! Dream Focus 07:51, 7 March 2010 (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.