Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimania
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 --JForget 22:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Archimania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nonnotable architectural firm, no independent sources cited, reads like an ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No assertions of notability. —BradV 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam/advert. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT and WP:V, as the claims cannot be verified. Happyme22 (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a trivial mention in a 3rd party source here Nashville Post and an article here Residential Architect but, the article itself is still Spam. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, per G11 / WP:SPAM. No assertion of notability, and news search finds nothing, failing WP:CORP. Arsenikk (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2008 (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.