Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Egg Realty

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. Sandstein 11:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Egg Realty

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

All sources are either routine mentions of business activities, interviews with the founder, or self-published. No sources independently focus on the company, failing two criteria listed at WP:CORPDEPTH. Additionally, strong indication of WP:COI and promotional page. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 22:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom--MLKLewis (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles that are independent such as the New York Times, all business and Long Island Business News. I would like to know what is considered promotional since it talks about where there name comes from, and what they do for philanthropy. No where, does it advertise their listings. I would like to know that so I could fix it.-Jtravlos Jtravlos (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Jtravlos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply - There needs to be significant independent coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coverage is not significant, or not independent. References at the time I reviewed them either fail to mention the company, are insignificant, local coverage, or in one instance, written by one of the founders. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can some please give me some more precise advice or more specific critiques? I appreciate the linked pages, but they really do not help me. I did take out one article that I didn't realize that I put up that the founder wrote. However, I do not understand what is wrong with the other articles. All other articles that are independent such as the New York Times, Brokers weekly, all business and Long Island Business News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtravlos (talk • contribs) 15:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - At the risk of causing further anguish with more reading material, WP:CORPDEPTH is probably the main issue. Coverage of the company is local, and the depth of coverage is not significant. Some of the material is coverage of locations opening. None of this is the type of material that would be usable for establish that the article should be included. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources in article, some are a bit dubious but there are quite a few. Some of the content is a bit promotional and I will trim it appropriately should this survive. JORGENEV 14:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local firm. All the coverage I could find at Google News, and all the links provided in the article, are purely routine: they opened a second office, they closed a sale, etc. Nothing to distinguish them from a million other real estate offices. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CORPDEPTH. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2011 (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.