Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CALA 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  17:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

CALA Homes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. de-prodded because they claimed to have found sources on Google News - but apparently chose not to add any - and anyway I couldn't find a single source on Google News Amisom (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - If the only search was in Google News, then WP:BEFORE was not conducted properly. You could also use Google Search and Google Books. Also, isolating the search for "CALA Homes" in Google News brings up sources. The company is covered - although sometimes negatively - in textbooks and others for both copyright and intellectual property law. There is also this and this. The last reference states that it is the largest private house builder in the UK. Add in this, this, and this I believe it meets WP:CORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 16:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per CNMall41. --Doncram (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Refs identified in this afd are sufficient to establish notability. Szzuk (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the Keep !votes above, *none* of the references listed meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not only must references be published by independent third party reliable sources (which most contributors are aware of and like to quote at AfD pages), in order to count towards establishing notability, a reference must also be "intellectually independent" and contain in-depth information on the company. The references listed above are either based on announcements made by the company or information provided by the company - none are intellectually independent with independent opinion or analysis. The Telegraph articles rely on information and/or quotations provided by the company or their officers, thereby failing WP:ORGIND. The Scotsman article is a PR piece from the company, fails WP:ORGIND. The glasgowwestend article is from a small publication reporting on a small residents association meeting objecting to a building project - insufficient for establishing notability. I do not have access to the FT.com article so I cannot comment. -- HighKing ++ 17:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor company, coverage is PR and reprints a la 'business as usual', fails WP:NCORP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided by CNMall do establish notability as required by WP:GNG, The Telegraph's coverage and   is directly about the subject, and it satisfy  independent, reliable source. It is one of the oldest companies in the UK, in existence since 1875. (Almost 150 years). The Telegraph report also says it is the largest private house builder in the UK. Financial Times also covered it . But "delete! vote" is dismissing all these as a PR by wave of hand. Being covered by two reputable UK papers indeed shows a company is recognized and no PR strategy is able to manipulate these two papers to compromise their hard-earned reputation by advertising firm under cover of news coverage. Also wonder how The Scotsman's  report is vaguely termd as PR, perhaps because writing that is cheap. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2017 (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.