Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopbell & Company

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. No outstanding delete !votes (non-admin closure) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shopbell & Company

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

Completely incoherent original research. "collection at Ball State" reference supports foundation circa 1916, but there is at least one entry dated 1913 -- and the "google book" reference supports foundation in 1897. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing per http://www.vanderburghgov.org/index.aspx?page=2391 showing that all mentioned companies are connected.

Keep. There's a notable topic here, of an architectural firm that designed many buildings that are listed on the National Register. If you have specific factual questions or suggestions, that is for Talk page discussion, not an AFD. --do ncr am 06:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a confused mess I don't even know where to start asking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A firm that designed a number of NRHP-listed buildings, which they verifiably did, is notable per se. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's plainly notable, and has the needed citations. There, I've tidied it up a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm exhausted. Have checked text and citations, added a whole lot more. Also inquired about permission to use historic photo but 1919 must be PD surely? Will see if I get a reply, if not will try Fair Usage. Hope you feel article is a bit better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much clearer now. If you can find a ref that says that Harris & Shopbell became Clifford Shopbell & Co., I'll withdraw the nomination so we can speedy keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Chiswick Chap's additions. I'd like to suggest that if the article had been written in a clearer form at the start, with proper references, this discussion could have been avoided. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2011 (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.