Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Engineering

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. The two Albert Martins seem to be notable, and have articles, but there is no evidence that this particular firm is associated with them or their family, especially since their firm seems to have a different name. Thus there is no evidence that this firm is notable, even accounting for the content that was removed. Rlendog (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Engineering

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

The article was deprodded by the article creator after adding information about a family which appears to be affiliated with the organization. While the family may be notable (and in fact one member already has an article), it does not appear that there are any reliable sources available through google and bing searches to establish the notability of the company, hence we are at AfD. This organizations appears to fail WP:ORG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally relist a discussion a second time (and I forget if we've instituted some iron rule about that sort of thing) but I would prefer at least one other editor's comment on the subject before closing an AfD like this. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not agree with the deleting in the article done by the nominator. This family runs this firm and the buildings designed are notable ones... doesn't that make the designer notable? Do they play an influential role in Southern California architecture? A source should have been requested instead of just deleting that information. I agree that this article is not much at all though. I guess this AfD is not popular because of the editing done by the nominator. DeVerm (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability, as defined in WP:ORG. This guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and my search doesn't return anything that could be considered "significant". The article has been significantly culled and its difficult to determine from the article, as it stands, why it should be included in the encyclopedia. That the article is a stub doesn't, of course, make the subject non-notable, but it does make it hard to research notability when the article makes no mention of the company's achievements, structure or history. To have any chance of surviving the debate, the article would have to very quickly be enhanced with information supported by the reliable, independent secondary sources. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG – like Wikipeterproject I can't find any sign of notability. Notability is not inherited, and a firm being run by members of a family that also has notable members does not confer notability on that firm. No sign that this firm was involved with the work by Albert C. Martin, Sr. and Jr.; their firm is now called AC Martin Partners. There are many firms called "Martin Engineering" (e.g., in the US, [1], [2], [3]), and none appear notable. --Lambiam 22:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore contents The article was culled so that almost nothing is left. But that culling was done by the nominator for this AfD. The culled text is/was the only thing that could save the article for deletion. I find it highly inappropriate to first delete 90% of an article's content and then nominate it for deletion... hence the Keep. --DeVerm (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The content DeVerm is referring to is the same content discussed by Lambiam about Albert C. Martin, Jr. There is no evidence that I was able to turn up that connected that to this firm. For those that would like to review the material in question it is available at this diff [4]. As Lambiam noted, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so that having a family member who is notable does not confer notability on the firm - particularly when it is not clear that family member is even affiliated with the firm in question as there were no reliable sources provided to state such.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not pointing at family members for notability. I am pointing at the theater, plaza's and even LA city hall that have been designed by them. All that info was removed by you prior to this AfD. You should have done the AfD without first rendering the article useless. I might well have voted delete then. --DeVerm (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
These buildings were all designed by Albert C. Martin & Associates, the firm now called AC Martin Partners. There is no indication of any kind that the firm Martin Engineering was involved. The only connection is that the latter firm is owned by relatives of the architects that founded the other firm. In my opinion the "culling" was entirely appropriate: the information that was removed was totally irrelevant and in fact misleading, unduly suggesting an involvement of Martin Engineering with these notable architects and the notable buildings they designed. --Lambiam 13:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails pretty much every criteria. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2011 (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.