Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 19

19 February 2009

BHDP Architecture – Deletion endorsed. Suggestions have been given below. – Tikiwont (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BHDP Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) After following the command "hang on" and giving my reasoning not to delete the page, BHDP Architecture was abruptly deleted without reasoning on the "My Talk" page. I made the case that BHDP Architecture was not using Wikipedia for any advertising or promotional purposes. Rather it was providing free encyclopedic content that is open to the public. There was little to no difference between between BHDP Architecture and Callison, Perkins and Will, NBBJ, or any other architecture firm in the Category: Architecture Firms in the United States. I made it clear that we want to abide by the limits of Wikipedia and to recommend steps to take, but still was not given that chance. Please provide me with what bhdp architecture needs to do to set up a respected page on Wikipedia and/or other steps to take to get the initial page back. Thanks you. If possible, please provide the response to [email redacted for privacy reasons] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.225.120 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion, the article was clearly written in an advertising tone. Anyone is free to add a new article about the company which complies with WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC) "...it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides. Consensus is not always possible, but it should be your goal." Can you please give some suggestions on how to write 'more' toward a neutral tone? We still feel that the content written was neutral and non-advertising. Can you compare another archtiectural firm's content to ours to show us a difference in tone? Apperciate the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.225.120 (talk • contribs) 2009-02-19 18:54:21 Endorse deletion seems to be a very clear case of blatant advertising. The intro is filled with phrases such as "succeeded in creating environments that enhance the quality of life, learning and work for the clients that we serve" and "bhdp architecture values its culture of continuous learning and collaboration, and continually seeks talented individuals with creative vision and a passion for enhancing the built environment". It also included addresses and phone numbers and the services section was written completely inappropriately for an encyclopedia. Before any recreation suggest reading the neutral point of view policy, the notability guideline for companies and the conflict of interest policy and making sure that the article pays close attention to those policies. Davewild (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) The best advice I've seen is the combination of Wikipedia:Independent sources and Wikipedia:Amnesia test. If you write an article in accordance with the amnesia test and also using only independent sources, then you are unlikely to be writing material in an advertising tone. If that is a real article, then post it in one go, with the sources cited. If it is not an article, don't post anything. Then come back a day or two later and look for obvious facts missing from the article. Those can be filled by looking at non-independent sources, but not by including promotional content. For example, if the founding of the firm was missing, go get the date and maybe the names of the founders, but don't also get promotional material about how great/experienced/innovative/etc... the founders were. GRBerry 19:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC) See User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you. Uncle G (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion clear-cut case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.