Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aston Chase


 * 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. Clear consensus to delete from policy-based arguments. Michig (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Aston Chase

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable estate agency. Referenced only through Crunchbase and the company site. The 'Press coverage' section is solely one or more directors writing or speaking about things, and is not independent press coverage about the company. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The Crunchbase article's edit history shows it is primary, with editing by people associated with the company. Though various instances of people from the company being quoted in the press exist, no WP:RS secondary coverage about the company have been found that could meet WP:CORPDEPTH. It is just a firm going about its business. AllyD (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Since it was established they have remained committed to their niche market. Reference to this kind of real estate market couldn’t be found in any related Wikipedia pages. Therefore, it's make sense that people who are looking for high-class properties will find there answer between Wikipedia pages.
 * I disagree. Aston Chase is a real estate company working out of the most prestigious regions of London.

Since I agree with the comments above I had remove the CrunchBase reference and I added a new reference from Euro Cheddar blog and another article. Reuvengrish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Providing a service to people who are considering utilising the services of a firm is not the purpose of Wikipedia. For that, there are business directories, there is a firm's own website, and the prudent prospective customer can run a Google search for other customers' positive or negative experiences of a firm. AllyD (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would back up AllyD's comments. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Be realistic - would you expect an article in the Britannica? Working in a prestigious area and sticking to this market is no more notable than only dealing in two bedroom back street terraced houses - it's just more expensive. Please also note that blogs are generally not considered reliable independent sources WP:RS, and that one seemed to contain a comment from rather than about the company. We're not saying the company isn't doing a good job - but not every individual or company gets an article. Peridon (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable and farly commonplace; this is an encyclopedia not a trade directory. As for the above comment: "a real estate company working out of the most prestigious regions of London" if working out of a prestigious London region qualified for inclusion in Wikipedia, we would have the biographies of 10,000 whores, but we don't - do we? Giano (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did delete an article about a West End escort agency the other day... Peridon (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. London real estate agency. They've gotten quotes and brief mentions here and there, but nothing beyond the trivial in RS sources, that I can find, or that is presented. They could become notable in time, but at this point having this article seems primarily a promotional exercise. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Reuvengrish (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. I don't see how Aston chase is different from all the other companies related to the category "Property companies based in London". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Property_companies_based_in_London) why should they have an article and Aston chase don't?
 * That's not a reason for keeping. There is probaby a good case for deleting half of those other pages too, and I expect in due course some of them will follow this page to the guillotine. Giano (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.