Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minarc


 * 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Minarc

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unable to find any third-party coverage or notabiliy about this company. Sure, google hits their website and their facebook, but I see nothing in the way of non-trivial, third-party coverage of this topic. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * comment. Their model house was featured (not just mentioned: i.e. non-trivial) in Dwell (magazine) 02/01/2009 . It appeared in non-periodic books although it is too early to make judgements. East of Borschov (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google News offers many hits about this company (for example Interior Design magazine) and about projects they have done (for example New York Times). Plus they have won numerous awards. Granted, the article contains an objectionable amount of puffery, but that can be edited out (maybe I'll give it a shot) and references can be added. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There, I added references (there were already quite a few in the article, but they weren't cited properly) and deleted a little of the peacockery. They seem clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per MelanieN's addition of references to substantial coverage in reliable sources. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:17, 25 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.