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 delete. Deletes ground their arguments in policy which make them more persuasive than the keeps. I would have liked to see a source analysis, but there did no seem to be any interest and another round of relisting did not seem like it would result in any changes. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terracon[edit]

Terracon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article stood up on PRNewswire, company announcements, routine trade coverage. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, United States of America, and Kansas. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Prominent company with a well sourced article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article does make use of the above mentioned secondary source however, not exclusively. The article does not use the subject's self-published articles or announcements. Although, the point that the article should be improved is well made. Endercase (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all GNews shows are PR press releases, Mr X gets job, etc. There are a few mentions of a company with the same name getting sued in Winnipeg over construction issues, unsure if it's the same company. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - "The company has consistently placed in the top 25 design firms by Engineering News-Record". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - First of all, as a primary contributor to this article I'll accept the consensus once it has been arrived at. The article is, in my amateur opinion, currently better sourced than the fairly long-standing articles that I based the formatting off of (due to their similar nature):Judy Company, Keller Group Layne Christensen Company, Fugro. There are quite a few additional sources as well as the ones currently linked in the article that I have linked in userspace draft mentioned on the talk page. It is possible that the article was moved out of userspace too early, however I have found the coverage of the company and it's many subsidiaries to be fairly significant in their sector. Although, this wouldn't be the first "less-notable" article I've contributed to and it likely won't be the last; as I do consider myself to be a bit of an inclusionist following Wikipedia:PRESERVE. I will admit that tracking down its many subsidiaries and the corevage thereof is quite tiring and I have taken a bit of break from improving the article myself, however I nor apparently Jax 0677 have abandoned the article. I do not yet see any pressing reason to move the body of the article back into user-space at this time, particularly after review of similar long-standing articles such as the ones linked above. I do understand that the article as it currently stands isn't about to win any quality awards and as stated I will defer to consensus and the result of the admin close. I'm certainly not trying to be a Duck. I do stand by my !Vote. Endercase (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Both the deletion and keep arguments are not convincing without a better source analysis. I suggest that either the nominator or one of the keep or delete voters above takes the time to do a proper source analysis as outlined in the table provided at WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - There are dozens of sources in the user draft. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - Where exactly is this promotion of which you speak? I don't see any advertising. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as almost all coverage is WP:ROUTINE and/or not independent, e.g. press releases. Both the article and the user space draft reflect this as they contain no real substance, but rather are essentially just lists of the company's executives, awards it has won, and acquisitions/mergers it has performed. I don't agree with the assessment of WP:PROMO but I can see why MrsSnoozyTurtle would argue as such given the content of the article (which, again, is a consequence of the coverage available). Uhai (talk) 23:33, 29 October 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.