Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audley Retirement


 * 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. Michig (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Audley Retirement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP as I can't find any substantial coverage in RS whatsoever. It's basically a spamvertisment created by a PR agency on the company's behalf. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as I see no better improvement. Pinging past users and .  SwisterTwister   talk  07:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nom, spam, advert or similar. Szzuk (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Euryalus (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: The WP:COI editor has followed correct disclosure procedures etc. in preparing this article. This is clearly a firm going about its business but is there evidence that it is notable for an encyclopaedia? A Highbeam search turns up just a few routine announcements; a Guardian search is better, with this describing the firm as "one of the biggest developers of retirement villages" in the UK, and passing quotation in a couple of other articles, , the latter a piece based on the firm's publicised research). However while these do establish the firm as prominent in their local sector, I don't think they amount to demonstration of WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2015 (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.