Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archives & Architecture

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archives & Architecture

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

This architectural history firm does not appear to meet the notability guideline for companies. There are multiple examples of their studies online since their work tends to be for public projects, but I am not seeing any coverage from secondary sources unrelated to the topic. Major COI/advert issues here as well. VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 9 April 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep if it has engaged in as many projects as listed, it might well be notable, and there is therefore no reason for deleting it. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absent significant, non-local coverage, Archives & Architecture fails WP:CORP. The only significant mentions in a Google News Archive search derive from San Jose Mercury News, which is a local publication. Goodvac (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Give some credit to the San Jose Mercury-News; it is a regional publication with a daily circulation of half a million. It is certainly an adequate source for establishing notability. However, neither of these SJMN hits amounts to significant coverage; they are more like passing mentions. No other coverage is found so the company fails WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 23 April 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.