Draft talk:Morton Buildings

Still deleted?

This draft of the page is a new version, much more brief and in keeping with Wikipedia editorial standards. It is not particularly similar to the previous deleted page and took to heart previous input from editors. Rooster-James (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the changes in this version? It looks identical to the deleted version. Deb (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry @Deb, it had been marked for speedy deletion but then became a larger discussion about whether or not someone with a stated advocacy for a topic can ever produce an acceptable draft. The original draft was marked for deletion due to tone and POV problems. This version was in response to all of the feedback. Rooster-James (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

So please could you tell me what changes you made? Deb (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

From the original of this iteration, I added the note about the NASCAR sponsorship and the lawsuits around the employee ownership transition. There was question about POV when missing these easily accessible citations. Rooster-James (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Appropriate next steps?

The ANI discussion appears to have quieted down. My intention is simply to follow the appropriate process. Would you recommend I resubmit this through AfC in its current form, or are there any remaining policy issues you'd suggest addressing first? Rooster-James (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Thinking about the next step

Thank you to everyone who reviewed and commented on this draft. I incorporated the feedback that was provided, substantially reduced the scope of the article, relied primarily on independent sources, and disclosed my conflict of interest throughout the drafting process.

Since there hasn't been additional discussion for about a week, I'm planning to submit the draft through the Articles for Creation process unless there are remaining policy concerns that should be addressed first. If anyone sees additional neutrality or sourcing issues, I'd appreciate any final feedback before review. Rooster-James (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Substantially changed

The latest draft has been substantially revised since the most recent review. I added significant independent newspaper coverage of the company from multiple time periods. I verified each and also expanded the citations. Then, I rewrote the history around those sources, and removed anything promotional or potentially unsupported claims. I also added independent sourcing for the employee-ownership litigation. Thank you, @Sulfurboy Rooster-James (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:NCORP and my two main articles

Hello! I'm seeking guidance on applying WP:NCORP's significant-coverage requirement to historical newspaper sources for Draft:Morton Buildings. The draft was declined for insufficient significant coverage, and I'm trying to make sure I understand the standard before doing even more further work.

Two of the sources I'm evaluating are full-length newspaper features. A 1994 "Pantagraph" article, “Morton firm builds on ag foundation,” is devoted to the company and discusses its history, transition from fencing to construction, diversification, manufacturing operations and national footprint. A 1996 "Journal Star" article by staff reporter John Throop, “Morton Buildings' success definitely not by the numbers,” runs across pages C1 and C6 and discusses the company's history, manufacturing operations, geographic expansion, diversification and management.

Both are available through Newspapers.com, which can provide a challenge to access and see the complete nature of the content. I've also reviewed WP:V's guidance that difficult-to-access or paywalled reliable sources should not be rejected for accessibility, and WP:NCORP's definition of significant coverage as in-depth description, discussion, analysis or evaluation. I also understand that independence of the content, not merely independence of the publication, matters under NCORP.

My question is whether full-length newspaper features of this type would ordinarily satisfy the significant coverage portion of NCORP, assuming reliability and independence are evaluated separately, or whether I'm misunderstanding how that requirement is applied. Knowing this would help guide my ongoing research. Thank you! Rooster-James (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)