Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landscape Structures

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape Structures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant promotion. Likely not notable. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The subject seems notable. There are references like [1], [2], [3] and some more. Chirota (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per what Chiro said, though the page needs quite a lot of work to remove promotion and bring it in line. AdoTang (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chirota and new sources, but the NBC link didnt work. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete are you guys checking the sources? Source 1 trivial mention at the bottom of the page. Source 2 trivial mention in second paragraph. Source 3 and 4, 6 and 9 are dead/non existent. Source 5 is an award given to the owner of the company by a school they went to. That source lacks WP:ORGDEPTH and would be considered a dependent source because it's associated to the owner. Source 7, the company isn't mentioned and again its from the owner's alma mater. Source 10 and 11 are both trivial mentions simply stating the organization's name on the page. No other sources found to count toward Wikipedia entry. Conclusion: real cool company that doesn't pass WP:NCORP. None of the sources that Chirota cited pass WP:ORGDEPTH. You guys got to check the sources. Megtetg34 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per findings above. Riteboke (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sourcing is very poor. After removing some of the deadlinks barely nothing left. TheChronium (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Megtetg's analysis of the sources. To go further, the mentions in Chiro's references above are all trivial and aren't about the company themselves (are a line saying the company is involved.) Leaving aside promotional issues, there's just nothing that rises to SIGCOV as presented. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also agree with Megtetg's analysis, there may be sources *but* not a single source meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.