Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studley, Inc.

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. with no outstanding !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Studley, Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP - sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS (WP:primary and/or things excluded in WP:CORP) not WP:secondary independent (a minimum of two desirable). Widefox; talk 14:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC) (clarified Widefox; talk 13:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Nom withdrawn - seems there's plenty of secondaries. Widefox; talk 14:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources on article are only passing mentions, but the company (and its eponym Julien Studley) has got more significant coverage in other media: LA Times[1][2][3], NY Times[4], Crain's[5], Other business newspapers[6][7][8], Bloomberg info[9][10]. Plus a lot of briefer mentions, e.g. in NY Times. These include analysis and historical information. The firm has been going since 1954, so it is likely there is more like this in print newspapers from earlier years. There's even a book published by John Wiley, Shaping the Skyline: The World According to Real Estate Visionary Julien Studley by Peter Hellman[11]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least LA times are primarynews, Crain's doesn't even have an author - it's mainly a photo by Studley - hardly a WP:RS. Which of those aren't WP:PRIMARYNEWS? Primary sources don't count for notability (I think you've realised they're primaries as you removed your comment [12]). The biography looks good, but is it independent? If it is, we need another secondary to base the article on. "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" Widefox; talk 21:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Crain's article includes 4 paragraphs of text and some statistics, which maybe you didn't read. The fact that no author is given is irrelevant. The Bloomberg is also background. The longest NYT article[13] offers several paragraphs about what Studley did in previous years. Most of the articles offer background information and interpretation of the firm's actions both of which are classes of secondary content. Instead of trawling through people's edit histories trying to get dirt on them, you should look at other AfD discussions and other articles to see what are considered good sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I looked for an author on that Crain's. [14] says the entries are submitted by each company (plus the stats from a survey) - no fact checking listed [15] (so those 4 paragraphs like the photo are copyright Studley) they are WP:ABOUTSELF WP:UGC "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." So no, the lack of attribution is crucial - it's primary, non-independent, UGC. Bloomberg looks OK (data seems to be from Capital IQ). Isn't the NYT PRIMARYNEWS? - just reporting what he said? bizjournals is just routine stuff WP:ORGDEPTH. Widefox; talk 17:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's ... really not what "user-generated content" means, I promise. That said, the lack of attribution does not mean that that text is not in Crain's editorial voice (if it were company-provided, it would be attributed to Studley, Inc., just as the photo was. Not everything in trade publishing (or, for that matter, wire services and the like) is given a byline. With that aside, in addition to the biography (authorized or not, Wiley is a reliable publisher, and I see no reason why that should be discarded) and the NYT article you seem to find acceptable, there's some discussion of this company and it's competitor Staubach in this book published by Random House, and even a showcasing of the company's office decor in this corporate design art book. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're right technically - it's not UGC like IMDB, sure, just my shorthand for... the links detail that the competition entries are submitted (by Studley) - primary, non-independent (plus survey stats compiled from Studley employees) with no indication of fact checking. I'm not assuming it's anyone's voice - the links say they're user submitted. You're not claiming competition entries are secondary independent are you, which is the point for CORP? Widefox; talk 13:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With an (authorized, to be fair) biography by a prestigious publisher, the newspaper sources already provided, and the near-certainly of more potential references from the company's 50+ years of history, I don't see any reason why this company does not easily cross the notability threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those primaries don't count. There's no inherent notability (e.g. for longevity) in WP:CORP - WP:ORGSIG. Are there any "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture.."? If the bio is authorised, not sure if it counts as independent - someone else here may know. Widefox; talk 21:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that your interpretation of Wikipedia's practices regarding the use (or inadequacy) of news sources for demonstrating notability is in line with common consensus on the topic, the essay you linked notwithstanding. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not just mine - was pointed out to me recently by a WMF employee, so I guess it's an OK interpretation, other AfDs notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFF. Policy is WP:PRIMARY. The essay says at the top it supplements it, rather than the normal run-of-the-mill essay. (I suppose it helps geeks like me to understand historians). News sources can be primary/good WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or secondary. The nom does specify that primarynews needs to be discounted against meeting CORP to be fair. Business fluff to be discounted covered in WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 22:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, our policies (and essays are assuredly not policy) are descriptive, not prescriptive. I haven't been at this half as long as some editors, and I'm not the most regular AFD participant, but I don't believe I've ever seen an AFD nominator interpret our notability requirements in the manner you're attempting to enforce here. Community consensus understands these requirements differently, I think. For what it's worth, I am quite familiar with how historians view the primary/secondary source divide; Wikipedia's use of those terms has never been particular synonymous. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage, that's a very good point, and I wholeheartedly agree - this is the first time I've used PRIMARYNEWS in an AfD prompted by taking onboard this (more academic) view of primary sources pointed out by a WMF editor. Seems a lot of effort, and so thanks for bearing with me. I clarified the nom to include policy (not essay links). Thanks Widefox; talk 13:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was recommended to me on the Studley, Inc. talk page that I shared these links on this AfD page:

-Studley and/or it's eponym is a "tenant rep pioneer"[16][17], "granddaddy of tenant reps"[18], "tenant rep giant"[19] and "pioneer in the production of real estate market reports"[20]
-"Studley has represented 75 of the country's top 100 [law] firms"[21]
-"Tenant rep pioneer", "widely considered one of the most influential figures in NYC real estate" [22]
-"The commercial real estate company that he founded has helped to transform Manhattan's skyline" [23]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RyLaughlin (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC) -The company's sale and restructuring [24] [25][26][reply]
-New office openings & hirings (secondary sources)[27][28][29][30]
-Bloomberg Businessweek profile [31]
-International expansion[32][33]
-Alliance w/ KMD[34]
-"Prior to the formation of Julien J. Studley, Inc., the commercial real estate space-user was not represented by a broker. Owners controlled most aspects of the transaction, the terms of deals were not revealed and market condition reports were not published. By choosing to represent tenants, Studley created a new sector within the business and opened up the commercial leasing process. "[35]
-"Julien J. Studley pioneered the commercial real estate market survey in 1963 with the monthly survey Studley Report" (p 86)[36]
-NY Times interviews/research citations (Most are Studley Reports)[37][38][39][40][41][42]
RyLaughlin (talk) 13:46, 31 October 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.