Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aedas

Aedas

Firm of architects. Repost after shorter versions were reposted as spam. Is it still spam? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, they are trivially verifiable as an important architectural firm. The article is full of PRcruft, but it wouldn't take much to trim out big swaths of astroturf. --Dhartung | Talk 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Hmmm - keep, by a hair this one - lots of discussion about partnerships with award winners and various staff who have won awards - can't see any for the actual firm itself. However, any architectural firm that is operating truly globally is pretty notable really, and I know the Beetham tower in Liverpool has won awards and has received some serious architectural periodical exposure - they're just not included in the article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So can someone give me some help with this rather than demanding deletion? What does it take to make this acceptable? I have looked at other pages for architectural firms and they read pretty much like this one; in some cases the pages tell you very little about the company. I will be working on adding more pages relating to the work of Aedas and cross referencing them as and when the work is complete on each building and related awards. Deevincentday (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rome was not built in a day as they say and at present I have only the existing content on Wikipedia to refer to. I have gathered information relating to buildings and Awards which I will work on shortly. I also have images to add. User Stifle has described the page as an advert without qualification. This was not written as an advert and contains a lot of historical content. Aedas is the 4th largest architectural firm in the world (1st in Britain) both in income and number of architects employed with offices in many emerging markets such as Russia and Poland. It is therefore not insignificant and certainly merits an entry in Wikipedia. Indeed one problem I have is that Aedas have won many awards I simply don't have the time to get them all on here at once as my day job has to take priority. I would prefer to keep this page and work on it to improve the content rather than having to start from scratch again. I based this article on the presentation of Gillespie Kidd & Coia's page but changed the order of the content. Deevincentday (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this page is evidently being worked on and has changed since originally submitted. I like the buildings designed by Aedas and would hardly describe them as being trivially verifiable indeed they are far from trivial. In addition to West Tower in Liverpool, their building in Leeds, Bridgewater House, has also won awards and is considered iconic. Living in Sheffield I have been observing the progress of Wicker Riverside which is a real landmark on the banks of the Don. Let this page stand and give the author a chance to improve on it. - SheffieldHoop (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ummmm I am surprised at the earlier comment "they are trivially verifiable as an important architectural firm" they are in 4th position of top Architectural firms in the world and that is verifiable and is certainly not trivial. Agreed the PR speak needs editing but I see the author is willing to take advice and is keen to develop this body of work. This should not be discouraged!