Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KAIZEN 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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KAIZEN Realty[edit]

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

I can't see how this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. There's one article about the company and an associated interview published by the same local business journal on the same day (part of the same story). Beyond that, everything I could find was either from the company (press releases on PRWEB) or a passing mention of one of the company's agents. Stalwart111 00:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly suspect there is some paid editing involved here given the obvious (to me anyway) links between the creator and company. Stalwart111 01:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert for a run-of-the-mill local company. The local business journal articles are inconsequential -- the kind of coverage that many local businesses get. If somebody writes about this company as an innovator that is emulated by other real estate brokerages, then it could become notable, but I don't see that now. --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references included to the article for the company is from reliable resources. The company is a renounced Real Estate Brokerage company. The website of the company reflects the everything clearly about the structure of the company. There is nothing written as advertisement of the company. The journal is an independent source that I have researched about the company.This complete the notability of the article. One thing to strongly protested, you mentioned that the edit is a paid one. You can not state anything like this without any evidence. Please consider the facts about the article and KEEP this one.Eragon.raju (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To meet WP:CORPDEPTH, a company must have received coverage from multiple reliable sources, not a single local business journal. I have posted a note on your talk page about the paid editing/conflict of interest. Needless to say, the "evidence" is available to anyone doing the standard requisite WP:BEFORE-related searches for this and your other articles. Stalwart111 05:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company going about its business, but no evidence found (beyond the Memphis Business Journal material discussed above) that it is notable. AllyD (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The informations included to the article about the company is significant and correct. Can you suggest me how to keep the page. I would like to modify the page.Eragon.raju (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2013 (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.