Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strike (estate agent)

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. ✗plicit 23:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strike (estate agent)[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)

Does not meet WP:NCORP, previously deleted by PROD. This PROD was challenged by an IP, hence article recreation. There's been no improvement since recreation, and I'm unable to find any additional coverage online. Given that "strike" is a pretty common word, I narrowed searches by including the founder's names and still turned up nothing not already cited. The coverage in The Independent is on the weak side as far as depth of analysis with respect to Strike (formerly housesimple) but does contribute towards establishing notability; I'm unable to evaluate The Telegraph citation due to a paywall. The other cited sources, however, are pure PR, leaving us short of NCORP even if we assume that the Telegraph is rock solid. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Pretty significant estate firm. Quite a bit of coverage recently in relation to the sale of Purblebricks [1] [2] Furius (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see past the paywall of the first source (The Times is generally a good source but I would want to verify the depth of coverage regarding Strike), but the second source looks like a promo piece of minimal depth and dubious reliability in a trade magazine. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just an advertisement, or am I missing something? Athel cb (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the text as-written is near G11 territory, but given its history of deletion by PROD and recreation at an IP's request, my thinking is that an AfD would result in a lasting consensus, whereas deleting via G11 would just end up kicking the can down the road. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a non-notable company created and edited by a number of users with a COI (1, 2, 3). The page was originally created as Housesimple in 2017 by Housesimple2017 and has been G11 CSD tagged twice (1, 2) in the past as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable characteristics despite the efforts of WP:COI PR to persuade otherwise. Hindsight only reinforces lack of WP:N since recreation.Plutonium27 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2023 (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.