Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villarruel Architects, Inc


 * 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. Wizardman 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Villarruel Architects, Inc

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

NN corporation. Recreation of deleted content from previous prod (by another editor). Sources are all self published.-- Syrthiss (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nominating reason; a gsearch turned up nothing. -- Scythre Talk Contribs 21:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 02:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A google search turned up "1,210 for "Villarruel Architects, Inc". With such links from k12.ca.us, dgs.ca.gov and edu. Very reputable and established firm. Not all wikipedia entries can be 100% fully cited from every source on the internet. This page is merely a modest start to something that can be built upon by someone else now. -- Remati Talk Contribs 23:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like spammy advertising to me. I didn't see evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - definitely spam. I went ahead and tagged it as spam (not speedy material though...).--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 16:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Delete immediately per scythre,syrthiss .-- NotedGrant   Talk  19:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional. Netalarm   talk  01:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Begun re-writing article to sound less like an advertisement. -- Remati Talk Contribs 18:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.166.92 (talk)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * likely delete - if some of the references can be sourced to reliable third parties, then keep. Otherwise, delete.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - they link to "Our Wikipedia page" on the firm's homepage. What a blatant ad. Racepacket (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Why was this relisted, was there not already a consensus to take action? JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * indicated that he would rewrite the page, so I figured I would give him some additional time to do so. NW ( Talk ) 16:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Using wiki as an ad tool is not a use of justice! --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:50, 8 October 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.