Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinerton
in part (at least at the moment) per . Most articles of this sort are about recently-founded companies, often in the information technology or public relations industry. ''This'' article is about a construction company with over a century of history, and involvement in the construction of a large number of very famous structures. Now, notability isn't inherited, and my ten-minute search didn't give me any silver-bullet sources. https://books.google.com/books?id=o2o6jRFjsMMC&pg=PA77&dq=%22swinerton%22+%22fairmont%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUqKTBmNHPAhWDNz4KHasDA68Q6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=%22swinerton%22%20%22fairmont%22&f=false This book (and yes, that's from a Graphic Arts Center Publishing|reliable publisher despite the travesty of a font they used) is probably only "trivial coverage". But it notes this company's involvement in the construction of the De Young (museum)|de Young and the Fairmont San Francisco, as well as giving us two former names for the company: first the Lindgren Company, then Swinerton and Walberg. That leads us to yet more sources. As Swinerton and Walberg, it was involved in an affirmative action court case considered an important part of California case law (see https://books.google.com/books?id=7vIN4pDAVlIC&pg=PA171&dq=%22swinerton+and+walberg%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1rb7fm9HPAhUBNz4KHQZ8BGUQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22swinerton%20and%20walberg%22&f=false here, for example). And there are no shortage of references, as the Lindgren Company, in early 20th-century engineering periodicals, many of which I don't have immediate access to. Are some of them trivial or otherwise easily discounted? Unquestionably. But it doesn't take ''very many'' such sources, or very much media coverage of their high-profile construction work, to clear the notability bar. The current article is somewhat promotional, but not, in my opinion, irreparably so. It needs a lot of improvement; so do very many other articles. But that's not cause for deletion. Sourcing aside, I honestly have ''no idea'' what the nominator was intending by declaring the current material "not only ignorance for the actual concerns, but it shows allowing such advertising completely damns this encyclopedia each time, risking unfixable damages". This isn't unfixable, and it isn't damning the encyclopedia. It's just another article that needs more and better development from sources that aren't at the top of Google's list of links
— User:Squeamish, 21:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NEXIST (Wikipedia:Notability)