Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lae Garden and Landscapes (2nd nomination)

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lae Garden and Landscapes[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Article makes no claim of notability; appears to be a WP:MILL small business. Searching finds only directory-type listings. Insufficient in-depth coverage in RS. MB 14:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the nominator's argument. Though the company alleges to be going for 30 years, there's no suggestion anywhere online to suggest it's ever done anything wich wuld have attracted substantial non-industry media coverage. Sionk (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' apparent PROMO for a non-notable landscaping company.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches are not finding online sources to indicate notability for the firm or the associated Farmlae Garden Bazaar. The present article text makes no claim for notability, though a previous version did, although with promotional tone. The existence of print sources was decisive in withdrawing the previous AfD; they are awkward to evaluate but I am seeing no indication that they went beyond supporting the basic fact that this is a firm being contracted to go about its business. I don't see enough to meet the current WP:NCORP standard. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2019 (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.