Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dico si Tiganas

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. (non-admin closure) Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dico si Tiganas

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

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

Blatant (self-)promotion. The first phrase almost says it all about how this article was designed, and the

• Keep Although the article is over-promotional at present, there are sources adequate to indicate that this is an architectural practice which has achieved notability. It's a job for copy-editing, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the notability is not an issue here. But an article entirely consisting of

promotional content and very little prose cannot be kept that way. The way I see it, it needs a rewrite, not just a copy-edit.- Andrei (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep How can you write an article about something, without promoting it? Anyway, as a response to what
  Dico si Tiganas occupies the first place... clearly as that. The second one, is an architectural magazine, about 500 pages with the biggest and the most known architectural firms in Romania (based on current and past projects), and the reference has Dico si Tiganas in its index... again it's the only reference I could find.(UPDATED: I found another article, and added it as a third reference with the headline: how does the nr.1 architectural firm in Cluj-Napoca, manage during the economic crisis) . Then the company's portfolio is cited in local newspapers, in articles that are about the building... not about the architectural firm, isn't that enough? The other references are not from partners, they are from international companies, that invested in our country, and it was the only place where I could find anything about certain buildings. From what - Andrei said, I should look for an article that has the headline "Dico si Tiganas, one of the biggest architectural firms in Romania"... but as far as my knowledge goes, there isn't a newspaper in our country that should talk about how great a company is. The bottom line is, that the article clearly needs some work done, but deleting it?, I don't think it's the case. The fact of the matter is that this firm has clearly made an impact in this country and I'm just going to emphasize two things: It's the only architectural firm in Romania (as far as I know) that has designed a UEFA elite stadium Cluj Arena from scratch(and has won first prize with it at the OART contest, as stated in the article) and it is currently designing the new Sportshall for the city.Mythy88 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You can definitely write something without promoting it. That is why we have the

WP:NPOV policy. Do you think the people who wrote Adolf Hitler

were just nazi-sympathizers?

As I said above, the article needs not just copyediting, but a complete rewrite, because it was not meant as an encyclopedic article. There is a difference between "the biggest architectural firm in the city, in terms of sales figure" and "the best architectural firm in the country" (which is a matter of opinion) —

we're not allowed to express our opinions. If someone compentent in fact considers it "the best architectural firm in the country" (not your opinion or mine), we need to explicitely cite that person that said that. If you can only find references to the buildings in some commercial sites (it doesn't really matter how big a corporation is, in which country it invested, or whether or not that country is yours), then maybe those informations aren't really encyclopedic. If it is true that it's known for certain buildings, then those buildings need to be mentioned, in readable prose, with the information that pertains to their design.- Andrei (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:GOODWINS LAW Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The "promoting" stated earlier is more about:"there is no such thing as bad publicity". As for the "best architectural firm in the country"... it didn't write that, it said it is one of the best, and I corrected it as being one of the top architectural firms, and it had as a reference a known architectural magazine(book) in Romania. Being the first article on wikipedia, I used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_and_Partners as a baseline. As you can see, the article is about another architectural firm and has less prose then mine has. It's true, there's no comparison regarding the difference in fame and valor between the two firms. If "prose" is the case, then I will change the article so that it has more prose and less lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythy88 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 15 February 2012

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability (as the nominator has said) is not in question. The article is promotional, but that can be fixed without deleting it. It is not a
  TNT job; there is useful content in the article - the lead, though partially promotional, does present encyclopedic content. Thus, don't delete the article and rewrite the promotional bits. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - Keep and remove any promotional content --Codrin.B (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2012 (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.