- 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The result was speedy keep SK1/withdrawn. Suggest considering WP:NOPAGE/ WP:SPINOFF cases be dealt with via WP:PROPMERGE/ WP:BLAR as AfD naturally tends to consider standalone notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Zaha Hadid Architects
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Zaha Hadid Architects ( | 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)
Unnecessary WP:SPINOFF of Zaha Hadid. I suggest redirecting per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb ( talk) 02:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. gidonb ( talk) 02:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. A company is not the same as its owner, and the firm may be independently notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- This AfD is not about some hypothetical situation. It's about a specific article on a specific organization. Plus notability is only one variable in information governance. gidonb ( talk) 13:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is additional background on this nomination here. gidonb ( talk) 22:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - sufficient references to support notability independent of the founder. -
Indefensible (
talk) 21:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. I think that is a good point.
Starlighsky (
talk) 23:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- You should add "keep" to your comment if you want to vote in agreement, please see
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute for instructions. -
Indefensible (
talk) 00:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks...will do. I was researching the issue in terms of notability before i add '''Keep'''. Starlighsky ( talk) 00:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- You should add "keep" to your comment if you want to vote in agreement, please see
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute for instructions. -
Indefensible (
talk) 00:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. I think that is a good point.
Starlighsky (
talk) 23:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The architectural firm has won awards on a global scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zaha_Hadid_Architects&wvprov=sticky-header#Awards_(2023). I agree with the previously posted Keep vote on how they company has its own notability, independent of the founder. Starlighsky ( talk) 12:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Starlighsky
- Comment. Diff between current state and that at time of nomination for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zaha_Hadid_Architects&diff=1163304583&oldid=1162770750 (3 human and 1 bot contributor); current state of article → https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zaha_Hadid_Architects&oldid=1163304583 --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. The winning of awards and having many projects is not necessarily a sign of notability in the sense taken by Wikipedia, which is something a lot of people chafe against. If we chop ALL of that content off, we are left with two citations, one a link to the firm's website and one I added the other day (Bernstein 2016, W). I'll review the other citations for the lists and see if any of them can contribute to core content or not, but I am not that hopeful at the moment. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Is that Architizer site reliable? I think if we strip all the
WP:PRIMARY refs there would probably still be enough to support the article, especially if we spent time reviewing all of the projects to find more refs. -
Indefensible (
talk) 07:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wish I could say 'yes' but there is no indication on their website as to their editorial or contribution policy, nor even information on their management or location. The source has not been brought up previously on
WP:RSN that I can see. I think the general public thinking is "use it until you're told not to", but the conservative approach would be "when in doubt, don't trust it", and I have a doubt. --User:Ceyockey (
talk to me) 01:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did not see it either which is why I asked to see if anyone else knew more. But again even without the Architizer sources, I still think we should be able to find enough to support the subject. - Indefensible ( talk) 16:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wish I could say 'yes' but there is no indication on their website as to their editorial or contribution policy, nor even information on their management or location. The source has not been brought up previously on
WP:RSN that I can see. I think the general public thinking is "use it until you're told not to", but the conservative approach would be "when in doubt, don't trust it", and I have a doubt. --User:Ceyockey (
talk to me) 01:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep One of the world’s leading architecture practices, notable independently if its founder, creator of a great number of notable buildings and winner of many architectural prizes. Hard to think of a more notable practice really. Mccapra ( talk) 03:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. In this Article for Discussion, my claim was that the subject was an improper, unnecessary WP:SPINOFF, and should thus be redirected. As often goes, all answers were about the NOTABILITY of the subject, which was explicitly NOT the issue. In other words, all opinions above should be discounted as totally irrelevant. At the same time, a SUCCESSFUL effort was made to expand the article into a justifiable SPINOFF and as the nominator one should also keep track of that. Now that the intro no longer matches the reality in the article, I choose to withdraw. Thank you all for the efforts, especially in the article itself! gidonb ( talk) 18:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 speedy keep SK1/withdrawn. Suggest considering WP:NOPAGE/ WP:SPINOFF cases be dealt with via WP:PROPMERGE/ WP:BLAR as AfD naturally tends to consider standalone notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 ( t • c) 05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Zaha Hadid Architects
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Zaha Hadid Architects ( | 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)
Unnecessary WP:SPINOFF of Zaha Hadid. I suggest redirecting per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb ( talk) 02:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. gidonb ( talk) 02:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. A company is not the same as its owner, and the firm may be independently notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- This AfD is not about some hypothetical situation. It's about a specific article on a specific organization. Plus notability is only one variable in information governance. gidonb ( talk) 13:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is additional background on this nomination here. gidonb ( talk) 22:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - sufficient references to support notability independent of the founder. -
Indefensible (
talk) 21:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. I think that is a good point.
Starlighsky (
talk) 23:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- You should add "keep" to your comment if you want to vote in agreement, please see
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute for instructions. -
Indefensible (
talk) 00:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks...will do. I was researching the issue in terms of notability before i add '''Keep'''. Starlighsky ( talk) 00:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- You should add "keep" to your comment if you want to vote in agreement, please see
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute for instructions. -
Indefensible (
talk) 00:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. I think that is a good point.
Starlighsky (
talk) 23:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep The architectural firm has won awards on a global scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zaha_Hadid_Architects&wvprov=sticky-header#Awards_(2023). I agree with the previously posted Keep vote on how they company has its own notability, independent of the founder. Starlighsky ( talk) 12:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Starlighsky
- Comment. Diff between current state and that at time of nomination for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zaha_Hadid_Architects&diff=1163304583&oldid=1162770750 (3 human and 1 bot contributor); current state of article → https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zaha_Hadid_Architects&oldid=1163304583 --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. The winning of awards and having many projects is not necessarily a sign of notability in the sense taken by Wikipedia, which is something a lot of people chafe against. If we chop ALL of that content off, we are left with two citations, one a link to the firm's website and one I added the other day (Bernstein 2016, W). I'll review the other citations for the lists and see if any of them can contribute to core content or not, but I am not that hopeful at the moment. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Is that Architizer site reliable? I think if we strip all the
WP:PRIMARY refs there would probably still be enough to support the article, especially if we spent time reviewing all of the projects to find more refs. -
Indefensible (
talk) 07:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wish I could say 'yes' but there is no indication on their website as to their editorial or contribution policy, nor even information on their management or location. The source has not been brought up previously on
WP:RSN that I can see. I think the general public thinking is "use it until you're told not to", but the conservative approach would be "when in doubt, don't trust it", and I have a doubt. --User:Ceyockey (
talk to me) 01:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did not see it either which is why I asked to see if anyone else knew more. But again even without the Architizer sources, I still think we should be able to find enough to support the subject. - Indefensible ( talk) 16:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wish I could say 'yes' but there is no indication on their website as to their editorial or contribution policy, nor even information on their management or location. The source has not been brought up previously on
WP:RSN that I can see. I think the general public thinking is "use it until you're told not to", but the conservative approach would be "when in doubt, don't trust it", and I have a doubt. --User:Ceyockey (
talk to me) 01:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep One of the world’s leading architecture practices, notable independently if its founder, creator of a great number of notable buildings and winner of many architectural prizes. Hard to think of a more notable practice really. Mccapra ( talk) 03:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. In this Article for Discussion, my claim was that the subject was an improper, unnecessary WP:SPINOFF, and should thus be redirected. As often goes, all answers were about the NOTABILITY of the subject, which was explicitly NOT the issue. In other words, all opinions above should be discounted as totally irrelevant. At the same time, a SUCCESSFUL effort was made to expand the article into a justifiable SPINOFF and as the nominator one should also keep track of that. Now that the intro no longer matches the reality in the article, I choose to withdraw. Thank you all for the efforts, especially in the article itself! gidonb ( talk) 18:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- 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.