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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLT Architects[edit]

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

BLT Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements and was created by a WP:COI account. Rusf10 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note history which shows article went through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process and was approved and moved by an non-involved editor, who did not find COI.Djflem (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YOu obviously don't understand that AFC approval has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is a COI or not. Use some common sense. The article was created by User:Bltarchitects. I wonder, what are the chances that it might be someone involved with the firm?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation and see the history which clearly demonstrates that the non-involved editor User:Sionk created the page, and acknowledge that your claim is false. What you wonder is of little interest.Djflem (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is apparent that the nominator has not followed procedure as outlined in Wikipedia:BEFORE Djflem (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djflem:, please consider retracting that ridiculous accusation and WP:AGF. As per WP:ORG, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This is not the case here. I see one article that may qualify [1] Just about everything else falls under trivial mentions. Also, Philadelphia Inquirer articles alone cannot satisfy notability requirements here since WP:AUD applies. So I will try to assume good faith right now and ask that you please share with us the other sources that you found (currently not included in the article) that you believe should be considered.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will consider it if you explain revision history, noting 3 March version, the date of your nomination, and March version and demonstrate improvements made by you to the article (and thus demonstrate good faith), which is part of the policies Wikipedia:NEXIST and Wikipedia:BEFORE. Other wise it would remain "apparent that the nominator has not followed procedure as outlined" in the aforementioned policies, which place the burden of proof on the nominator, and state.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing... The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability... The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern....

See also Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, so as to avoid it, and please note that preponderance of specific citations for the body of work produced by the firm, which clearly establishes notability, are given inline and are there to verify the list.

Thanks Djflem (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem:"demonstrate improvements made by you to the article", I have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, I find most of your rant to be incoherent, but I will address the list of sources you provided.
  • 1. [2] a directory listing- does absolutely nothing for notability
  • 2. [3] A interview, not a secondary source.
  • 3. [4]- not a well-known publication and written like a press release, so I'm not really sure who wrote it.
  • 4. [5]- another directory listing.
  • 5 & 6. [6] [7] -a database.
WP:ORG requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." These sources come nowhere close to meeting this.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2019 (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.
More