Hosta

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 no consensus‎. Three relists in I'm not seeing a consensus here. The arguments to delete are stronger; sources counting WP:GNG via WP:SIGCOV have not been explicitly listed. However, I don't believe the imbalance is strong enough for a delete verdict; there are sources in the article that aren't so obviously disqualified that I can discount them as a closer, and no comprehensive source analysis was provided of these either. No prejudice to speedy renomination, but I suggest that those advocating to keep make an effort to find more sources that may render this unnecessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MKSK

MKSK (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)

PR for non notable local business. Coverage from local paper and business journal falls short of Audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Ohio. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Gosh I disagree about this AfD, particularly as one of the few Columbus/Ohio-based editors. MKSK is incredibly influencial, particularly in Central Ohio. Their work is the foundation of what has made the city what it is today, having worked on most city planning projects in Columbus. Columbus is also the largest city in Ohio, so the media sourced would meet the regional reqs in WP:AUD. As I mentioned earlier, it is incredibly unfortunate that the firm co-opted the article for their PR purposes but that is not a reason to delete. 9H48F (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep it appears to meet GNG. I've seen less notable companies kept for sketchier corporate biographies. I saw a bunch of sources on a cursory look through that aren't in the article from publications of local and regional interest. I do not know much about Columbus, Ohio, but since this firm is getting huge city contracts to build public stuff, they get some press. Andre🚐 07:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: clearly filled with reliable sources that are about the firm itself and not about its projects – more notability than most architecture firms get. Sure there might be a few sentences that could be reworked to be less PR-speak but in terms of notability this passes. Dan • ✉ 21:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. I am unable to locate any references that do not rely entirely on information provided in this manner. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No references provide the trifecta of IS, RS and SIGCOV, so fails notability policies. UtherSRG (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2024 (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.