Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes Homes

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 Snowball keep. The nominator's concern about notability has been addressed below, and the fact the article is written like an ad is something that can be fixed without an AfD. I will insert the relevant tag. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Homes[edit]

Was speedily deleted twice. It looks pretty ad-like and it seems to fail WP:CORP. Spellcast (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion one way or another. Some quick digs found a few [1] interesting [2] pieces about them, some local coverage [3], and apparently an award [4]. If anything, the article is WP:POV Yng varr 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly notable, no question. 70,000 unique hits for "mercedes homes", there is only one such company, passes WP:CORP, not to mention this search which demonstates beyond doubt that is passes the primary notability criterion "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources." Please do a news archive search before nominating for AfD. Lobojo (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to pass WP:COMPANY although it could use a little expanding and some citations. --Pmedema (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Notable without question. Is one of the 20 largest home builders in the country with over 140k unitque vistors per month. Please fix this article asap. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavaliauskas (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the company is notable with those Google links. It's just that it read like an ad and the external links looked like spam. A keep is probably in order, but it needs a lot of improvement. Spellcast (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Kavaliauskas Number of visitors does not make a company notable. Right now, it appears that consensus is leaning towards keeping the article, but as Kavaliauskas also req'ed this article be created in the first place [5], it might be beneficial for that user to address the concerns which caused the article to be brought up to AFD in the first place. Yng varr 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should not be stifled from expansion any further. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (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.