Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wong & Ouyang

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wong & Ouyang

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

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

No evidence of any notability. Searches reveal little, but language differences may restirct a full search. Appears to be just another Architectural firm. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure the company will pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or not. The firm did existed, newspaper reported the wage cut of the firm as news (as one of the major firm of the city). However, i am not sure any in-depth coverage existed, such as architectural book that cover the work by the firm. Matthew hk (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is probably the most prominent architecture firm of Hong Kong origin. I lean towards assuming good faith that the two books on architectural history cited in the article has sufficient in-depth coverage. Deryck C. 14:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i saw such citation was added after the start of the afd discussion. Based on the book title and publisher they seem RS. Not sure the content is about the work and the firm or the firm only BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan:, @Matthew hk:, there's no doubt it is a large and well-established firm. The books mentioned in the article are available on Google Books. Only one of those references, Hong Kong Architecture 1945-2015 passes the criteria for establishing notability, the others discuss the buildings with only a mention to the firm. At least one more reference is required. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is one reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. At least one other required and I am unable to find another. As such, topic fails WP:NCORP. Happy to change my !vote if another reference turns up. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The firm has significant projects and awards. Note the article could be considered to be a valid list-article of the works of the firm, because certainly a category could exist (i didn't check) to categorize the multiple individually notable works, and then by wp:CLNT it is valid to have a list-article corresponding to the category. It is far better to have one article about the firm which can be linked from multiple individual building articles, rather than repeating a whole description of the company at each of the separate articles. --Doncram (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The closing admin is likely to ignore your !vote above as you have not cited any reasons based on policies or guidelines. Also, we base a conclusion on notability on references. Can you provide at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the work is notable (i.e. have wiki article, have sourced description of the arch structure in the article), than having a centralized list, seem passing Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Matthew hk (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-alone lists are still subject to notability criteria. There are no indications that there are any sources that discuss/list the work of Wong & Ouyang. Creating stand-alone lists isn't a run-around on notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It ertainly meets the requirements for keeping as a list of works, as the WP:GNG specifically provides for a list or coination article if the works are either less than notable or we don;t have enough information. But given theat there are probably articles about each major building, I think it's safeto say that a firm with such major works can beconsidered notable . Any reason the consensus accepts for notability is a good reason. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 27 January 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.