Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBK Rental Living

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MBK Rental Living[edit]

[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 company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, which special emphasis on the latter. To begin, the company and article lodge no real claims to encyclopedia significance, and a WP:BEFORE check turns up no quality, in depth sources. Coverage that exists is for the most part limited to press releases or announcements of new developments opening, both of which fall under NCORP. It should be noted that some coverage exists around MBK Housing, the parent company of MBK Rental Living, but the subsidiary does not inherit (per WP:NOTINHERITED) notability from its parent company. This is repeatable logic for large companies that have invested in the article subject. In short, the company has not accrued the significant, in-depth coverage need to make a claim to either encyclopedic notability or significance. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company has over a billion dollars in revenue. Just take the number of units produced in California times $800k each. That seems pretty significant. Seems like there is this push for less content on Wikipedia. Seems like there would be a want for more information, not less. The information is factual. We give up. It's 4 on 2 now. 4 super users against 2 new ones. Way to treat new comers. And I think you mentioned ip addresses. We are roomates, so I would think we would have the same ip address. There's no conspiracy here. Just a stupid homework assignment we were given. We've already printed it out and submitted it. You can delete the article and our accounts for that matter. My roomate says he will never donate money to wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenterGuru (talk • contribs) 04:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. RenterGuru, if this is a homework assignment, what course is it, and from what university? We will need to explain to the instructor about what is necessary for a proper Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for strong promotional tone. Alexius08 (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can feel some sympathy for the authors of the article if they really have been sent here by an organisation they trust and have a reasonable expectation will assign them only valid work. If so, that organisation has let them down badly. I strongly urge them, per DGG, to identify the organsiation so that it can be given advice on appropriate use of Wikipedia and to protect its future students from suffering the same experience. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is written too much like an advertisement, would have to be scrapped and start again from the beginning to pass standards. MutchyMan112 (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe it is written in good faith. I think it is a naked attempt at organic promotion. scope_creep (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this meets our notability guidelines.T v x1 11:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references appear to be in the nature of press releases, so that they do not establish corporate notability. As per above editors, written promotionally so that not much would be left if the promotional stuff were removed, and the content is not independent anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the student is editing in good faith, is the professor making the assignments in good faith? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over on WP:COIN several people expressed doubts as to whether there really was a professor at all. Both the authors are now blocked and I doubt that we will ever get any further information to settle that question. If any more such "students" show up promoting property companies in the same area, and telling the same story when challenged, then it might be worth digging further but I hope that all involved have learned their lesson and we won't hear any more of this from them. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Didn't take much effort off wiki to discover this is pure PROMO Lyndaship (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2018 (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.