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; all it needs are sources. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keen Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:CORP. ArcAngel (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced and unreferenced. Dreamspy (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per above. Lady Galaxy 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, early leader in green architecture, numerous Google Books results (not just listings) such as Marketing Green Buildings and The Ecological Engineer. At the least, should redirect to Stantec Inc. of which it is now a subsidiary. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but needs cleaning up. Sources are there (per Dhartung). Plutonium27 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability might be thin, but notability exists. Suggestions: thin out the 'timeline' stuff & introduce some pictures of the architecture they have done. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:58, 15 March 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.