Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venco Campus

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venco Campus

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

Plain advertising, selfpromo, doubtful notability. Was put up for speedy deletion as plain advertising, but the author does not agree with that The Banner talk 14:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with respect to the existing article, which is excessively promotional while lacking a sufficient demonstration that the building's notability can be established by reference to independent reliable sources. This unusual building might actually be notable for its egg shape and technological innovation (reflecting the company's business and its apparent reputation for egg-ceptional design innovations [1]), but the two Dutch news articles included as sources [2][3] don't seem to make the case strongly, while the rest of the sources appear to be non-independent, and I was unable to come up with stronger sources in English. If someone can turn up some coverage in architectural journals, or more thorough news coverage in Dutch or otherwise, an article might be, er, sustainable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The description of the rather routine infrastructure of a commercial building is not an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2016 (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.