| abstract | - Article tagged for notability and sourcing problems for several years. This architecture practice may have won a minor award, but does not seem to have made an impact in the architectural press, let alone the general news coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep: per this. Sufficient coverage. -- Dewritech (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Comment: Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the coverage be about the COMPANY rather than about the works that it did? Now, suppose that the works would make the company notable: Wouldn't the works receive MAJOR AWARDS rather than just brief mentions? I lean towards Delete on this one BUT I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and leave it open for discussion. I just don't think the coverage section that the company itself aggregated(possible WP:COI ?) is significant ground for establishing notability and making it encyclopedic. -- Loukinho (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC). 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) 00:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Loukinho: did you check these awards?-- Dewritech (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC) I would tend to agree with Loukinho that these do not seem to be major awards, generally given by the local state or city chapter of AIA. In any case, citing the company website is hardly going to pass Wikipedia's notabilty requirements. Sionk (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
|
