Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Lu and Partners

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) — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 02:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Lu and Partners[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 00:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major and notable Hong Kong architectural firm in business for 37 years. We don't delete an article about a notable topic because the article has some promotional language. Instead, we prune and improve the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And this attitude is why Wikipedia will loose the battle against marketeers and companies like Wiki-PR. The Banner talk 11:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Article meets GNG and ORG from sources already in the article; no valid rationale for deletion as AfD is not cleanup. Tangential remarks about other paid editors aren't helpful either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nomination statement is a bit, well, short, but holy moly, one could practically nominate this page for speedy deletion: it's almost a portfolio. I'm going to prune some. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as notable, meeting GNG, but indeed my first thought was "it is a portfolio." "Notable Projects" section should be deleted, or perhaps pared down to a listing of buildings of those with an independent, reliable source, such as the West Kowloon Cultural District which has Archdaily as a source. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – highly successful architectural firm. The article has more than enough sufficient and verifiable sources to meet guidelines regarding sourcing. The article may be written in a portfolio-like, advertising-like prose style, but this can be fixed with added research and precision. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 15:42, 21 December 2013 (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.