Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birds Portchmouth Russum Architects


 * 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, although I admit this is a small consensus, the opinions here are valid and policy/guideline based. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Birds Portchmouth Russum Architects

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No real claim of notability for this architecture practice - a car park and a footbridge do not count as "significant" unless proven otherwise. Unsourced peacockery which appears to be mostly advertising. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. There do appear to be a few small articles about the bridge, it won a design award and it's mentioned in at least one book, so if anything perhaps an article should be created about that--but the firm itself doesn't seem to be notable enough to require an article.DanielEng (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - small time stuff and no real cites. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2008 (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.