Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merck headquarters

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Merck headquarters

Merck headquarters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article appears to be primarily a promotional page for the Merck Corporation - possibly authored by an employee of the corporation. It should be deleted as it does not conform to the non-commercial aspects of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickproper (talk • contribs) 2009/01/26 08:28:11

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep My real life identity is known to many and they know I have never been employed or otherwise worked for Merck. The article is sourced to reliable sources, including New York Times 1, New York Times 2, New York Times 3, Reuters, none of which are Merck and all of which are directly about the building (ie. non-trivial mentions). I cannot see any pro-Merck language in the article, but would be open to suggestions. MBisanz ^talk 09:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, the building was designed by a notable architect and the topic is referenced with multiple reliable and notable sources. (WP:GNG) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any promotion about Merck. The subject is notable and the article is well sourced. --J.Mundo (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep' - Notable, well sourced, and I see no evidence of the problems alluded to in the nomination. Rlendog (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Everything seems in order here, notability is asserted through multiple mentions and analysis in newspapers and the article itself isn't nearly badly written enough to delete it. Themfromspace (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:N and WP:RS. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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.