Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do Good Real Estate
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Good Real Estate
- Do Good Real Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A speedy on this as A7 (no indication of importance) & G11 (entirely promotional) was contest on the basis that there was at least one good ref for notability. Myself, I consider the two articles to be entirely based on the company's PR, as routine local coverage, and not to show anything that is actually important. I also think with no indication of financial significance in the article, and the refs reporting donations of only $15,000, the importance is so trivial that the article is essentially promotional for the brokerage. I can't see how to rewrite it because I don't think there's anything significant to write about. I think it would be better to have a community decision on this one DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the person who nom'd it for
{{db-spam}} in the first place, and as I (also) don't see a claim of significance/notability. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Delete, on the grounds of notability. I'm not sure there is much to be done with this article, more than the feasible work that has already been done. There is not enough force from authoritative sources to keep this one afloat. Now, I think the initial claims about Certified B are credible indications of significance (the bar here is low), and I don't agree that this is blatant spam. But still I think it is too soon for this company to have its place in this encyclopedia, and I advocate deletion. Perhaps this can exist another day. NTox · talk 01:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this wasn't at AFD, I would have speedied it as non-notable and promotional in tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think this is a fantastic idea, but WP:TOOSOON. Notability, in short, can be established later, and I think it will, but on account of the Too Soon clause, I'm going with delete. I have no prejudice to recreation if it can establish notability later. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (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.