Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavenger Image 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Cavenger Image Architects

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

With apparently no secondary coverage online for this firm, there does not appear to be any possiblity of establishing notability. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. The article cites several references and is obviously notable because of the principals involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie808 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an article on real estate developed donahue peebles that doesn't cite any sources other than his company's website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Donahue_Peebles) - yet that article seems to be cleared. It seems that's an important article because he's a notable person, in the same vein as this is. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie808 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * R. Donahue Peebles hasn't been "cleared", it's tagged for lack of references. Please see WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG for the relevant notability guidelines (note - the coverage would need to relate to the firm, not the people associated with it - see WP:NOTINHERITED). With only 5 Google hits, none of which are secondary coverage, it would seem impossible for this subject to meet those guidelines. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If that is actually the case, look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWT for a great example of a firm who has 0 press citations, yet has not been flagged for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie808 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. First, other stuff exists; this deletion discussion is concerned solely with the merits (or lack thereof) of this article. That said, the merits are lacking. As Cassandra 73 noted, there are minimal secondary sources. Accordingly, this article should be deleted for failing WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable PR firm. Alfie808, if the article is deleted you can request that it be placed in your user space so you can work on it. -- Nuujinn (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2010 (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.