Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jensen Hughes

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 no consensus. Minimal participation, some article improvements during the debate, and two relists makes this incredibly hard to deduce consensus. No prejudice whatsoever if anyone wishes to renominate this again in the near future. Daniel (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Lots of routine coverage and press releases, but I'm not seeing much in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NCORP. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really! I spent a lot of time on this and there are many more references than with this complete speck of an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Security. The company has been around -- in some form -- for 30 years, has worked on modernizing monuments all over the US, and has a shared history with the professional discipline of fire engineering (a discipline that is not terribly well featured on Wikipedia I might add).

I tried very hard to keep it very neutral in tone. The Baltimore Sun article is certainly not routine and NONE of the sources are press releases - I was diligent in my research to make sure the writing wasn't "boilerplate". I don't see what the harm is here and I would love help to make it work. :( IanCappelletti (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources:

1. [1] is a database profile
2. [2] is routine business press
3. [3] this is essentially a press release
4. [4] is a statistics database
5. [5] brief coverage of Hughes Associates, a precursor firm.
6. [6] routine business press
7. [7] press release
8. [8] press release
9. [9] obituary of unclear independence that makes no mention of Jensen Hughes and only brief mention of RJA, its precursor.
10. [10] possibly the best publication cited, but the content is mostly a routine investment announcement
11. [11] primary source
12. [12] this doesn't appear to mention Jensen Hughes
13. [13] doesn't appear to include any information about Jensen Hughes other than naming it as the #10 company in MEP design revenue. The source is a trade magazine that I'm not familiar with.
14. [14] Listed in a top companies report of unclear reliability, but no significant coverage
15. [15] another "top firms" list
16. [16] not independent

Even if we take a very charitable reading the Baltimore Sun piece, we just don't have enough independent significant coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am at work right now so please give me some time to respond. Thank you. IanCappelletti (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me explain why I put this article together to the best of my abilities in the first place: If you put in the name "Jensen Hughes" into Google Books or Google Scholar, there's HUNDREDS of references to the name because the company basically gets engineers work and assists in the publishing their work too. That seems relevant and respectable, right up Wikipedia's alley, yes? But after I kicked around for a few days and tried to figure out how to translate the sum total of these references into a Wikipedia article, I realized I am not versed enough in how to do that. So, I was hoping that if I did publish something of a stepping stone article, definitely a "stub" no question, then maybe eventually someone else who has more experience on this website -- yes, while I've had an account for years I'm not an expert by any means -- could help get across how immersed the company is in its related professional and scientific field. If you know of a way or have seen an article on here that accomplishes that kind of summarization, please please direct me to one and I will gladly try to mimic what I see. IanCappelletti (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that we need independent sources writing thorough coverage of the company, whether that's talking about its history, analyzing its performance, etc. I have been unable to find such coverage, so the issue is less that there's some writing skill you need to learn and more that the coverage needed to write the article just isn't readily available, and may not exist at all. Looking through the search results you provided, while I see that clearly a fair amount of research has been written by people on the Jensen Hughes payroll, I don't see coverage of the company itself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above, lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi all. I took your keen remarks and criticism to heart and went back to my text with the express purpose of showing how there are better sources out there communicating the same facts about the subject. I know I have no right to ask but if you would be so kind as to see the major, major updates and source-replacing I made and maybe reevaluate the article as it is now, that would be so very cool. Thank you!! IanCappelletti (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2021 (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.