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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henrybuilt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Realtively small company making kitchens and furniture with no particularly notable features. No obvious ways of linking to other Wikipedia pages Newhaven lad (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, California, New York, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I expected to be voting delete, but this, weirdly, has coverage. Looks like much more than some small manufacturer; nationally-scoped company with both mainstream and design-industry coverage. Besides the decent references already in the article (The New York Times (though its a bit short), Dezeen, Dwell, Surface), [1] (some interior design industry publication), [2] (Sunset). And to the nom, while taggable, an article being WP:ORPHANed isn't a deletion rationale. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand being an orphan isn't a reason to delete - but when I couldn't find anywhere it might link to that made it feel less notable Newhaven lad (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Also some coverage in Architectural Digest [3], I think we have just enough. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. I commend the nominating editor for their effort to ascertain the article's notability, and encourage them to read WP:CANTDEORPHAN, if they are unaware of it, for possible fixes in this situation. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (!vote change) per subsequent discussion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. ALL of the sources rely entirely on interviews with the CEO or info from the company. There are no sources I can locate that meet GNG/NCORP criteria, including all of the ones listed above in this AfD (some of which are a mere 5 sentences). The key isn't "coverage", but depth of Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:HighKing. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 06:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: twice recreated by a SPA (COI declared). No significant independent coverage; it lacks both notability and importance (I know, imp is not among WP criteria, but having importance one may expect coverage, hence an incentive for a wikipedian to dig deeper). - Altenmann >talk 21:20, 24 March 2024 (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.