- 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 redirect to Castle Mill. j⚛e decker talk 17:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Frankham Consultancy Group
- Frankham Consultancy Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article for a firm of architects that superficially looks fine - lots of images and references. Look closer and you see that it's mostly a rehash of the controversy about their most (in)famous project which has its own article at Castle Mill. The corporate article makes no effort to establish the notability of the company itself. It's not a big company - the Company Check reference gives their net worth as ~US$1 million and their turnover as ~US$100m (which could be inflated by subcontracting, the accounting for this kind of company can be tricky). My feeling is that they're just the wrong side of the notability line, but I invite other views. Le Deluge ( talk) 15:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Without the Castle Mill controversy I would agree, but I think this tips the balance. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 17:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep at most -- This appears to be a firm of architects. The present content is essentially an ATTACK article over the controversial Castle Mill project, but there must be more that they are doing. Whether any of it is notable is a differnet question. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Castle Mill, a rather blatant attack page. Not entirely undeserved, given how hideous Castle Mill actually is, but still, we shouldn't do attack pages here. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC).
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to Castle Mill. Nothing apparently notable about the company except that they designed some building complex that people are pissed off about. Whatever notability there is, attaches to the building project, not the architecture firm, and that is already covered in the other article. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect as suggested above. I suspect something, but not most, can be kept of the article's information. Bearian ( talk) 16:16, 20 March 2014 (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.