Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Steel Buildings

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future Steel Buildings

[edit]
Future Steel Buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are not credible and do not prove notability of the company. All references are press releases, articles that have been sponsored by the company or the company's own website and promotional in nature. Zm69051 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Working on improving with article creator I am the AfD proposer, and, after discussing this with the article's creator, I'm not yet ready to place a !vote on this. I'd request userfy if consensus in a suitable time leads towards deletion (unless the article is obviously never going to be articlespace worthy). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, let me present my side of the story for your consideration.
1. As discussed before, Future Steel Buildings is a very visible company within the First Nations Community. They have helped us contribute to lots of our social infrastructure in the past three decades. We would like to recognize their efforts through the Wikipedia platform.
Unfortunately, our current publication system is not as polished as our westernized neighbours. We do not have digitalized versions of our newsletters and reports. At the moment, we are only able to access a limited number of our online publication, as well as a variety of reports sourced by other companies. However, we are making the effort to improve the strength of our references over time.
2. A major obstacle in our way is that many First Nations communities are nto as open and forthcoming with sharing electronic information to a public network. It will take some time for us to track down the writers and editors, where we will ask for their permission to publish their work. In the meantime, I believe the current references are sufficient enough to support the rest of my article (as many other users, editors and admins agreed).
3. I also believe Zm69051's multiple attempts to delete this article (at least five times today, even after a warning from an admin) is an attack on the First Nations community as a whole. It is reflective on the continual marginalization of our people in the past.
This is the logic presented: Just because the First Nations people do not have a digitalized publication system, our work and references are not considered significant enough to be posted on Wikipedia. We are not able to get our sources posted online right away (even though they exist), so we are not allowed to express ourselves on Wikipedia. At best, our thoughts are pushed back into the shadows of my user profile page, just because our technology is not permissable in an online space.
I respectfully ask you all to consider keeping this article, with the sincere promise that we will be improving the references over time. Thank you. Just give us some time (and respect)! Saracates (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
My concern has absolutely nothing to do with the First Nations people. I am in no way attacking them or trying to prevent them from being in the public eye. My concern does have to do with the fact that you are blurring the lines between two separate business entities and that there are factual errors in your article. Your first sentence is incorrect. According to the article you cited, Aitoro is the director of Future Steel and has been selling prefabricated structures since 1978. That is drastically different than saying he founded Future Steel Buildings in 1978 like you said. Zm69051 (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply (and thank you): Hi Zm69051. I understand that since leaving this comment, you have suggested and implemented some changes to the Future Steel Buildings article. This is very good! That's what I want to achieve in the end - instead of taking a combative stance at deleting the article, we Wikipedians should collaborate together to improve the quality of the article. We will discuss over the legitimacy of the founding year in the Future Steel's article discussion page, but I'm sure that we can work together to improve the quality of the article with better resources over time. With your research skills and my passion about the topic, I'm positive this article will be fixed to meet Wikipedia's high standard of quality. Thank you for your help! Saracates (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
  • It is hard to prove that a company worked with the Canadian Army, but it is impossible for a company to lie about that on their site, I know personal that Future Steel Buildings did some steel buildings for Vancouver 2010 but I could not find a press release about that .. I recommend that a Canadian editor preferably from Ontario to give an opinion on this article. A company that did some work for Olympics and Canada forces worth a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisam74us (talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC) — Wisam74us (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Reply: Of course, personal recollections about what a company may or may not do are invalid on Wikipedia. It's also quite possible for companies to lie about their record on their websites. Heck, it's easier for companies to lie on their websites than in any other venue.  Ravenswing  17:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Quite aside from that it's extremely condescending to imply that Canadian First Nations people neither use books, newspapers or reliable newssources, there is a strange school of thought circulating around Wikipedia that if there is some putative excuse for reliable sources not to be found on a particular subject, the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP are suspended. This curious notion has no basis in policy or guideline.

    Moreover, it is quite possible to advocate the deletion of an article on its merits, without requiring a grudge against First Nations or needing to be an editor from Ontario. There is nothing in policy or guideline, either, giving a free pass to companies that have allegedly done work for the military; no doubt thousands of companies do, from giant multinationals to the local meat market supplying the PX.

    But that being said, this is not some outfit operating out of a Quonset hut north-of-60. This is a company headquartered, according to its article, in a city of 250,000 people in metro Toronto. Such a company, were it genuinely notable, would have ample opportunity to be the subject of reliable sources. As it happens, there are zero Google News hits, an ominous sign. Fails WP:CORP. No prejudice against userfication.  Ravenswing  17:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: With all due respect, I never indicated that the First Nations people do not "use books, newspapers, or reliable newsources". In fact, as I work closely within the First Nations community, this is a topic very sensitive to me. (I'm also not sure why you think I'm being condescending, especially since I come from a First Nations background and have first-hand experience of what it's like in the reserves, but I apologize if you're offended. I understand that tone can often be misinterpreted over the Internet.)
Anyway, the point that I'm trying to make is that our sources have not been documented and recorded in an online electronic space, and the process of transferring them will take time. In the meantime, the current article is informative and credible enough to stand on its own, especially when there is a conscientious effort to improve this article over time.
The argument that Future Steel Buildings is located within a metro city of 250,000, and should therefore have abundant references, is based on fallible logic. I stress my background within the First Nations community, because we are not often a prominent group within the majority. Therefore, any notability within our community is often not recognized through a simple search on Google, but this should in no way diminish the contributions that Future Steel have made upon the First Nations communities.
"Zero" Google hits (which is untrue by the way, as the available online sources are already included in the existing article) does not mean that a company is unremarkable. There are resources within the First Nations community that have not yet been recorded on Google, but they are being marginalized in this article because they cannot be easily found online. Secondary sources should not be ignored just because they are not readily available on the Internet, especially when there is an immediately effort to digitalize these resources. Instead of deleting the article, there should be a communal and collaborative attempt to improve the article with credible sources, which is already underway.Saracates (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
  • Comment: I did not say zero Google hits. I said zero Google News hits, a completely different animal. That being said, there is no requirement that references be electronic. WP:IRS discusses the requirements in detail, but suffice it to say that reliable sources can also be books from major publishers, magazine articles and newspaper articles that are verifiable, discuss the subject in "significant detail" and are "... third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If such sources exist - and I reiterate that a company headquartered in a large city is in a position for such sources to exist independent of First Nations, were it genuinely notable - then an article can be sustained. If they do not exist, then it cannot.  Ravenswing  05:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Hi Ravenswing. I agree with your assessment that this article, in its current state, needs more verifiable sources at an online and (more likely) offline capacity. In the discussion held this past week, a majority of the editors agree that the top priority is to collect more verifiable resources for this article.
However, please understand that collecting the research material - especially from non-electronic sources - is a timely process. It cannot be done overnight, especially since I am currently a one-woman research party. Yet, just barely 3 days (on June 1st) after I posted this article, I was asked to either provide verifiable resources right away (which I have, in the current article, to some degree) or risk having my work deleted (which is happening right now). If you noted some hints of hostility in my previous messages, that was only because I felt threatened by this rather unreasonable time limit.
One of the best features about Wikipedia is that it is an open-source research platform, so that anybody can contribute to the topic if they have the expertise. I'm strongly advocating to keep this article in its current state, because its visibility on Wikipedia is attracting many resourceful researchers who can collaborate together to retrieve these verifiable resources. Just 3 days after this article was posted, there has already been a lot of user-generated discussion and improvements for the Future Steel article. Now imagine how much more we can add to the quality and the resources of this article given a longer time period. Yet, the progress will be halted to a stop if the article is deleted right away.
I am asking for more time for the proper research to be done. I am asking for more time to collect verifiable resources for the article. Most importantly, I am asking for more time so that other Wikipedian and online users can help, research, and collaborate together to make this article meet the highest of quality standards. Please take this into my consideration. Thank you. Saracates (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
AfDs typically run for a week.  Ravenswing  06:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for everyone, and I'm sure this won't be a unanimous opinion, but I believe the threat of deletion discourages the level of high quality contributions. Here are my 3 reasons why:
(1) It cuts down the incentive to contribute to an at-risk article. People are less likely to research about a topic if they feel like their efforts won't be substantiated in the final result anyway. If there's only a 50/50 chance of the article being sustained, then a researcher with the proper expertise will only have a 50/50 confidence in the article. Why not spend this time and effort to work on another article that definitely won't be deleted? Yet, this is counterproductive to our cause, because collaboration (especially among those knowledgeable) is a crucial element to our success.
(2) The risk of deletion prioritizes quantity over quality. Under a deadline, there will be a haste to collect resources without taking the proper time to verify them, especially pertaining a less readily available topic. This might lead to factual errors due to hastily collected resources, which will ultimately harm the legitimacy of this article.
(3) Collecting research in an offline capacity is much more time-consuming than doing them through an online channel. Even within a week, there are only 5 business days where most organizations are available for contact. Even research institutions have shorter operational hours during the summer season. In addition, a lot of people take this time of year to travel and go away on vacation. This cuts down on the availability of contacts and researchers significantly. Most damaging of all, the one-week notice is given over a Friday/Saturday period, the least active time of the week, so there are already a lot of obstacles from the start.
One week is not a very long time to do quality research, especially pertaining a less readily available topic. For these reasons stated above, I strongly believe that the article should be kept in its current state, to allow for the proper time and research to be done so that it will achieve the quality standards as requested. Saracates (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
If it gets deleted, you can request it to be userfied so that you can finish working on it to bring it up to standards... then you can request it to be reviewed and (hopefully) moved back to mainspace/article space. I'll help you with that if it gets to that point and you can't find someone to userfy it for you. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, thank you for all your help thus far. If possible, I would prefer not to move the page to a less visible online space. As helpful as you have been, some of the research (especially pertaining this particular topic) is best done through a more open and more visible channel, where a variety of people with specialized expertise (re:location, experience, etc.) can contribute to the article. Collaboration among a diverse number of users - especially among researchers - is the key to success for this article. It's nice to know that userfying the page is an option, but I feel like that is a rather compromised solution, which might not be the most beneficial to the quality of the article. Saracates (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
Ah yes, but that's why I suggest it as a last resort. And even in userspace, others can help you work on it. I've done that with a couple of my adoptees. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 07:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, Saracates, that's not a consideration on the table. It is not Wikipedia's policy to keep challenged articles indefinetly in mainspace pending "research." That being said, you are making this out to be a much more difficult deal than it should be. Either (for instance) substantive newspaper articles about this company exist or they do not. Either books have been written which discuss this company or they haven't. At AfD, we have years of experience in uncovering such sources, and it does not take a great deal of time or heroic efforts to do so. To quote WP:V, one of the encyclopedia's core content policies, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Such sources are a fundamental, non-negotiable requirement, and if they are absent, the article just does not qualify for Wikipedia, no matter how much time and effort goes into "research" or other cleanup. If the article is not ready yet for mainspace, it belongs either in your user space or on your own computer until such time as such sources exist.  Ravenswing  20:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Hi Ravenswing. There are substantive magazine & newsletter articles published about the Future Steel Buildings company. In fact, I am currently locating a secondary version of an article written in the October 2009 issue of First Nations Drum. I have already contacted the publisher of the First Nations Drum via e-mail earlier this morning (and I highly encourage everyone to contact the First Nations Drum staff as well), about securing a reliable digital/online version of their p.21 article about Future Steel's involvement with the First Nations.
Tomorrow, I am going down to multiple public libraries and school institutions to secure a physical copy of the magazine. After some research, I already know that the University of Toronto library has this periodical, within the 2006-2010 years, in their collection; however, not every monthly issue is available. Come Monday morning, I will be phoning a First Nations Drum editor to secure additional publication information regarding this article resource.
While First Nations Drum is a reliable and notable magazine that has been circulating since 1999, and its significance is especially marked among the First Nations community, the problem with smaller party publications is that these resources are often not widely distributed. Many newspapers do not have the funds to make their articles available online (due to digitalization costs and copyright issues), nor are they able to make their periodicals widely circulated in mainstream channels. This is my difficulty in collecting resources for Future Steel company - not because they don't exist - but because they don't exist in readily accessible channels.
Nonetheless, I understand your concerns, so I have laid out the above research plan to secure this resource (among many others). If I am able to produce this resource and verify it on Wikipedia by the end of this week (preferably longer, but this is as long as the deadline persists), can I count on your agreement that Future Steel is (1) a notable company, (2) has verifiable offline resources that affirm its notability, (3) researchers like myself need a longer period of time to retrieve these resources and improve the Wikipedia article , and finally (4) this Future Steel article should be left in its current capacity? Saracates (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
Follow-Up: I contacted the University of Toronto Mississauga, and placed a request for a physical copy of the October 2009 issue of First Nations Drum magazine, where I'll be able to verify the above article as a secondary resource. It'll arrive by the end of the week. In the meantime, I have done further online research on Future Steel Buildings through several academic research channels, and found an additional online resource that can be used for verification. Apparently, Future Steel Buildings was engaged in an academic research study with the University of Waterloo in 2001. With the help of a research librarian, I was able to access the full article and found it relevant to Future Steel Buildings. I have since edited the current article to include this new reference, thus strengthening the quality of the article. Saracates (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
From looking at the abstract for the article, it does not make sense as a reference for the sentence you have it attached to. It does not say anything about Future Steel Buildings being a manufacturer. In fact, the only association it seems to have with Future is that one of engineers who worked on the study (Ping Guo) works for Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp. which is the factory located in Brampton, not the sales facility in Markham that the rest of your article refers to. Zm69051 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. Only users with research licenses are able to access the full research study (it is quite errorenous to make assumptions about a reference just based on its abstract!), but the article notes that Future Steel provided the diagrams for steel manufacturing (Fig.2) and architectural buildings (Fig 3) in relation to their actual industrial practices, which suggests "Future Steel Buildings manufactures prefabricated architectural structures primarily made out of steel". I have quoted excrepts from the research study, in section 2 - "Material":
(1) "The sheet steel was produced conforming to ASTM Standards A792/A792M [13], SS Grade 33(230) with a specified minimum yield strength of 230 MPa. The panels were formed from two different thicknesses of sheet-steel, 0.76 and 1.21 mm, respectively, which satisfied the minimum thickness requirement of CSA S136-94 [3. Canadian Standards Association. S136-94, Cold formed steel structural members, 1994.3]. The specimens of full-, corner- and flange-sections as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig.3 were supplied by Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp. The dimensions of each specimen were measured before testing."
(2) This is included in the acknowledgment section: "The project presented herein was co-funded by the National Research Council of Canada and Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp. Special thanks to Mr H. Min for his assistance in conducting experimental tests."
Also, the Brampton manufacturing divison and the Markham sales division are both operated under Future Steel Buildings Int. Corp as a whole entity. Any research pertaining to "Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp" refers to the company listed in the current Wikipedia article. This above reference, as well as all current references, are relevant to the Future Steel Buildings Int. Corp.
On a similar note, I have done further research and added another reference from a secondary source to improve the quality of the article. Saracates (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
Reply: When all you post is the abstract, that is the only thing I have to base my conclusions off of. I can't seem to find an answer, but it doesn't seem as though an abstract should count as a source when you're citing information found in the full study. Can anyone else find an answer to that?
As fas as Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp. and Future Steel Sales being the same entity, you are wrong. According to the BBB, Future Steel Buildings Intl. Corp and Future Steel Sales have two different names, phone numbers, addressses and contact information (not to mention, drastically different ratings).
Your new secondary source is titled "Buyer's Guide to Hangars, Doors and More." Now to me that seems to be highly promotional. Looking at the article it is nothing more than a listing of companies; there's nothing notable about that. You also use it to cite a sentence about farming, loggers, fisherman and miners, all of which have nothing to do with a hangar that the "Buyer's Guide" is promoting. Are there any other sources out there that aren't found on Future Steel's News & Articles page? Zm69051 (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zm69051, many companies opt for different titles to distinguish between their subdivisions. Take Microsoft for example - they have Microsoft Enterprise, Microsoft Canada, which are operated in different locations with different contact information - but these companies are still recognized under the brand name of Microsoft. Future Steel Buildings and Future Steel Sales are both identified under the "Future Steel" entity as a whole.
My new reference is to provide an additional secondary reference to affirm that Future Steel Buildings have manufactured Quonset structures. Your perception that the article seems "promotional" is arguable and highly questionable. This article is found in the Planes and Pilot magazine - a legitimate and notable secondary publication source - that describes Future Steel in its natural industrial context. I see nothing wrong with this reliable reference.
Many of the sources (8 out of the 11) are found on websites outside of Future Steel's page. This is an overwhelming majority, while there is an effort to replace the remaining three sources. It is evident that your initial argument - that the sources are not "credible - is fallible upon the current review of the article. Saracates (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
Saracates, we seem to be at an impass on the promotional nature of your article and the accuracy of several facts within your article. I think it is time to let other editors state their opinion. Zm69051 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added our discussion to the Notability Noticeboard as an attempt to get more opinions on the article. Zm69051 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand. I agree that more opinions would be appreciated. Thank you. Saracates (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
  • Keep: Based on the comments (and editing) here and on the condensed version of the article, the article has established basic notability from the research that was conducted by multiple Wikipedia editors since the AfD proposal on May 20th, 2011. Markp615 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD proposal was on June 2nd, 2011 not May 20th. There have also only been minor edits to the article that have yet to prove the notability of Future Steel.Zm69051 (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: By the way, I am casting my "official" vote to keep this article, even though my stance has been very evident (and vocal) throughout this discussion. I believe that the article can be improved upon, given the ongoing research to strengthen the article's resources among myself and other Wikipedia collaborators. Thank you. Saracates (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Saracates[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:N, and as per the discussions on this AfD. - SudoGhost™ 21:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, based on my web searches, I find multiple mentions of the subject, but none that one would say are significant coverage per WP:GNG. There are multiple news hits for the company as well, but the majority appear to be advertisements, or do not significantly talk about the subject of this article. IMHO, the company which the article is about does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure it's a great company, but it doesn't meet the required threshold of notability. Neutralitytalk 05:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The most significant sources here appear to be Advantage Magazine [1] and Venture North America [2]. The First Nations Drum piece that is cited in the story appears to be a full-page advertisement rather than a real independent feature, so I don't consider it reliable. However, the other two are in-depth features in what appear to be reliable sources. The article should have more references for some of the claims, but it passes WP:GNG as it is, and I'm impressed by the author's apparent willingness to find more sources. —Tim Pierce (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The articles in First Nation Drums and Advantage (pp 28-29) cited by Tim Pierce are accompanied by big paid ads on the same page. I have to consider whether the ad placement was conducive to getting favorable coverage. The independence and reliability of the references must be questioned. That leaves one apparently independent and reliable source, which is skimpy with respect to notability. Edison (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 12 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Future_Steel_Buildings&oldid=1070586362"