Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REALTORS Association of Hamilton-Burlington

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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REALTORS Association of Hamilton-Burlington

REALTORS Association of Hamilton-Burlington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-Notable corp/association, as far as I can tell. Also, shaky on

• Delete as local instantiation of the
  WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:ORG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosguitar (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete for failing
  WP:CSD#A7. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:ORG. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - First of all, Hamilton-Burlington is in Canada; RAHB is not a local instantiation of NAR (U.S.). Outside of the Toronto Real Estate Board, the REALTORS Association of Hamilton-Burlington (RAHB) is a significant regional board in the Golden Horseshoe, and one of the oldest real estate boards in Canada. RAHB market reports are cited by the media, so how does it fail WP:ORG? Do Google News links count?[1]. -- Robocoder (t|c) 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 23:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, as notability to come. --Gavin Collins 09:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I would just note that this article has been extensively cleaned-up since the start of this debate. Bland assertions that it fails
  WP:ORG are no longer really relevant, given that Robocoder has added a number of sources which give it some marginal notability. There also appears to be press coverage [2], some distinctly non-trivial like an entire 2006 write-up in the Financial Post. Also, it's definitely not a local instance of the NAR. --Haemo 03:51, 14 September 2007 (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.