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 No Consensus, defaults to Keep. Moving /temp.
Nakon 05:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Spamvertisment for little known company. Subject fails
WP:CORP.
L0b0t (
talk) 05:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Did you even bother to read the article or just the deletion log? There is no spamming whatsoever and no advertising whatsoever. It does not list all of the properties, only the notable ones — ones officially defined as
skyscrapers because of their height. It is also notable for letting a skyscraper (and office parks) go into foreclosure, which is very rare. (I have added reliable sources on these.) –
radiojon (
talk) 06:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Please
assume good faith. Of course I read the article and the company website and did a search for the company name. Finding absolutely nothing about this subject that passes muster with the
inclusion criteria for corporations, I opt for delete as advertising spam. Cheers.
L0b0t (
talk) 12:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)reply
It says they are an advisory company, but they own these buildings? I don't understand.
ChildofMidnight (
talk) 07:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Close nomination. Deletions due to copyvios or spamming do not address notability and have no effect on future creation. The correct course of action is to post on
WP:DRV and see if the temp version is acceptable enough to get the protection lifted. -
Mgm|
(talk) 09:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Often spamming is detected as copyvio because the copyvio detecter finds the same text in the firm's web site and in the Wikipedia page about the firm, if the same man uploaded both.
Anthony Appleyard (
talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 04:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete Can't see anything notable, or even interesting, about this company. It owns some buildings. So what? The fact it is in financial difficulties isn't notable either, certainly not currently! --
Michael Johnson (
talk) 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep It seems to own quite a number, and has fallen into notable financial difficulty with some of them, according to the sources. That wasn't the case in 07. Quite a different situation. Just as the nom asks, it has in fact become more notable since, and how the present article can be construed as a advertisement escapes me entirely. DGG (
talk) 05:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - Nom's question (Has the firm Equastone become more notable since?) is easily awnsered, Yes. Foreclosure on 2 skyscrapers is a notable business failure of any 1 company. Spamvertisment ???... please explain how because I cannot see it.
Exit2DOS2000•
T•
C• 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Significant for the company maybe, but how is does a foreclosure on a piece of real estate make a company notable? --
Michael Johnson (
talk) 05:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)reply
How many skyscrapers have you heard of that are in foreclosure?
Exit2DOS2000•
T•
C• 07:11, 17 April 2009 (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.