Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coretrust Capital Partners

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coretrust Capital Partners

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

non-notable, run of the mill business with nothing more than funding announcements and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems culturally relevant as this company's work has been studied and used as a model as evidenced by the Case Study https://www.haworth.com/research/customer-stories/case-studies/coretrust

Coretrust's ownership of major urban properties makes it significant because the company controls them and therefore has a hand in shaping the built environment and public realm

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the nom. None of the sources convey notability. I do also have concerns that the SPA author might have very significant COI. The case study quoted above is not independent - see this quote "..Coretrust approached design firm Gensler, Haworth, and our dealer partner Peoplespace " from a Haworth web-site. Looks like a marketing job with somebody scratching around for good sources. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can't find substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Notable: Coretrust owns 4 million square feet of trophy office space including one of the 4 most prominent trophy towers in Philadelphia, 2 Liberty Place — Rmaggie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

*Do not delete - Notable: Coretrust has the first indoor-outdoor terrace in an office high-rise without stationary doors. This was done in a 40-year old building and featured in many news sources and discussions.

Delete - does not appear to be notable; none of the sources cited (or that could be cited, as seen with a WP:BEFORE check) meet WP:NCORP, and none lodge a credible claim to encyclopedic significance. As @Velella: noted above, the "case study" (one without even an author listed) concerning the topic looks suspiciously like placed PR, and this article creator's username also implies this article has been created contrary to WP:NOTADVERTISING. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 15:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. I don't see any sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2019 (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.