This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
I don't think a separate article is needed. Alden B. Dow already has a well-developed article. The existing article on Alden B. Dow already includes a well-developed discussion about his architectural firm: formed in 1941 as Alden B. Dow, Inc., with a name change in 1963 to Alden B. Dow Associates, Inc. This article is about his building company; Dow contracted with clients both to design and then build houses. Dow's principal significance was as an architect. Rather than splitting his building company out into a separate article, it seems more sensible to include any new information in the existing article (which already includes discussion of his architectural firm). Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for considering this, and for already making some sensible adjustments to the Alden B. Dow article to add NRHP listings not already mentioned there. If there is a section on the construction company that this current Alden Dow Building Co. article can be redirected to, or a target anchor point, then I agree this could be redirected to there. There are multiple NRHP listings credited to the construction company though, so it seems to be a valid topic that needs a point to go to, and I would prefer for there to be a bolded name Alden Dow Building Co. within the targeted section. There are possible reader searches on this topic, as the building co. name comes up in NRHP.com and other webpages; it needs to be explained somewhere in wikipedia what this company is, and it should be clear, wherever it is covered, that "this" is the place where it is covered. --doncram 20:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, over at the Alden B. Dow article, shouldn't the NRHP-listed entries be wikilinked, red or blue. It looks like, if they ever were redlinks, that they have been delinked. Better to create the articles as stubs to make bluelinks, if there is some editor who too much dislikes the existence of redlinks, accomodating that view but establishing the connections, IMHO. --doncram 22:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You make the point that "it needs to be explained somewhere in wikipedia what this company is, but even the current article doesn't really do that. It simply says, "The Alden Dow Building Co. was an American firm associated with architect Alden B. Dow." It doesn't say what type of work it did (design, engineering, construction), when it existed, or what its connection was with Alden B. Dow. It seems to me that this information could easily be conveyed in the existing Alden B. Dow article and that splitting this company into a separate article (as opposed to his design company, Alden B. Dow, Inc., and Alden B. Dow Associates, Inc.) is unnecessary and only confuses the issue. As for the redlinks, I'm not a big fan of a long list full of redlinks and don't think creating stubs on every structure is the solution. Why not just list the buildings without redlinking?Cbl62 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
