Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spec Property

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 07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spec Property[edit]

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

Non notable company with no major coverage in any high tier media. Aksnahar (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep

WP:KEEP — The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion as an outcome of the discussion.
WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS — "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, or accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion:

This user (Aksnahar) was marked as sockpuppet Sockpuppet investigations
"accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion": User contributions "Aksnahar"--27century (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: 27century (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another note 27century has disclosed that they are paid to edit other articles and presumably, this may also be the case for this article. The nomination does seem dodgy as well because Aksnahar was also, almost certainly, an undisclosed paid editor per this. SmartSE (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Note, despite the claim made above, no finding was made against User:Aksnahar in the above SPI investigation. Although I concede the account's behaviour is quite odd, it doesn't follow that this article shouldn't be discussed because of that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Article has a spammy tone and the firm doesn't appear notable based on the sourcing Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Afd2 tag was incorrectly applied above and page was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--no opinion on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 17:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick D's right about the spammy tone but I think this probably scrapes by WP:AUD, on the basis that we have some coverage in Malaysia, as well as Australia. Weak keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources in the article amount to a WP:GNG pass. SST flyer 03:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTPROMO. There's nothing of substance. The owner's bio is irrelevant to the company. The fact that they have X number of properties doesn't make them notable. The fact that they lodged a business suit isn't notable. So much of their "coverage" is legally-required real estate transactions listings in the paper that what's actually about the company is minimal. Keep in mind that the "coverage in Malaysia" is sourced to Bloomberg, not a Malaysian news source. There's no way this meets the bar for GNG, because there's not enough RS for WP:CORPDEPTH to be met.MSJapan (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree with "Keep in mind that the "coverage in Malaysia" is sourced to Bloomberg, not a Malaysian news source.". If you look at Free Malaysia Today's link you can see that "This content is provided by FMT content provider The Malaysian Reserve". --27century (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is routine coverage (notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops) and a redressed press release. Still doesn't help to satisfy CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:CORPDEPTH pretty badly.

Let's look at the "Malaysian sources" [1],[2],[3]. All of them are essentially reprints of the same press release - which essentially documents notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,. For the purpose of CORPDEPTH, it is very clear that these should be discounted. We need in-depth coverage which talks in detail about the company.
This [4] is more indepth, but this is a property website and not a reliable source.
[5] Article mostly focusing on the owner.
[6] This lawsuit is more focused on the minister and the issue with very hardly anything about the company
[7], [8] Trivial or routine coverage
Rest are not reliable sources or fall into trivial and routine coverage.

There is literally not one good source which talks about the company. This is a very clear delete. (Add to that the paid editing concerns and I see a case of WP:NOTPROMO to be applied here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my analysis has also simply found these links to be trivial and unconvincing, there's nothing else to actually suggest better thus delete as there's nothing else to suggest any of the needed items. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sourcing looks to be quite impressive until you dig down and look closely at it. As noted by those above, the majority of the sourcing here is either not from independent sources, doesn't cover the subject in detail, or is simply routine and trivial. Reprinted press releases do not count as independent coverage. The article is a good effort given that the author had to work with, but ultimately I don't see that this can meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - As stated above, while some limited sourcing exists... it's all rather different than expectations. I don't think that the article passes the notability bar. Even with future revisions in order to make the page sound less promotional, I would prefer to see this all just deleted. The arguments mentioned above are pretty compelling. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2016 (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.