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. ✗plicit 14:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PEI Architects[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. None of the references discuss the company in detail. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and New York. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the article has now been developed and sourced, though largely to niche industry publications which wouldn't help the company pass WP:NCORP. However, there is some evidence of lengthier coverage about the company in mainstream sources, for example, [in the New York Times] about their Chinese Embassy design and an overview of the company. Though some of the later coverage relies heavily on their family connection to I M Pei, I'm willing to believe this is one of the world's more notable architecture firms. Sionk (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this high-profile architecture firm easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NARCHITECT#3, and arguably WP:ORG as well. Interesting test case, since a spot check of the category suggests that this is now one of the better sourced articles about a contemporary New York-based architecture firm on Wikipedia. Yes, PEI Architects (formerly Pei Partnership Architects) has benefitted reputationally from its association with the founders' famous father, I. M. Pei. While a degree of skepticism is wise given that notability is not inherited on WP, in this particular case there is SUSTAINED SIGCOV that makes it clear that his sons have made their own mark within the industry, as acknowledged by the World Policy Journal in 2010, and that the collective body of work PEI Architects has created is significant, leaving a lasting historical legacy internationally. Mainstream media coverage counting toward notability of the architects include: New York Times articles on the Chinese embassy (2008) and "The Delicate Matter of Passing the Torch" (1999); coverage of the U.S. National Slavery Museum's promise (New York Times 2004) and failure (Washington Post 2014); and the 2017 feature article in the South China Morning Post which discusses Sandi Pei and PPA’s involvement with the Bank of China Heritage Building in Hong Kong, as well as his family legacy. For additional ORGDEPTH, I would argue that a few of the trade publications should also count using extreme care: the first half of the 2008 feature article in Stone World (4 pages); the 2003 "Global Thinking" article in Contract; the 2009 Contract article on PPA's work on the Guanajuato State Library; and the 2002 article in Stone World on the Bank of China Head Office project in Beijing, which I. M. Pei himself said was the project when “PPA came of age” in his view. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cielquiparle's expansion of the article. While I agree that the company has benefited from coverage about I. M. Pei himself, there are now multiple reliable secondary sources describing the firm and its principals in detail, which I believe satisfy WP:NCORP. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2022 (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.