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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F+A Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An architectural firm with no particular claim to notability, with the possible exception of its involvement in Mall of the Emirates -- in which case an article on the mall that mentions the firm is sufficient, we don't need a separate article on the firm. I believe this one was speedy-deleted and then quickly recreated, so it seems someone has an agenda to push here. Finally, possibilities for inclusion of more reliable sources seems quite limited; of the two currently on the page only the second seems to meet the standard Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On the fence about this one. Notability seems to be the only issue. If there were any other problems with the article, deletion would be easier, but this is sourced, cogent, written to an okay standard, and factual. So let's keep it. --Lockley (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article is well-referenced and non-promotional in tone. It lists awards and shows they designed several note-worthy buildings (not just the one the nominator mentions). I see no obvious problems with this article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems to be more of a cleanup issue than anything else. — neuro^(talk) 14:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is well referenced with reliable sources, and not promotional in tone. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (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.