Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eaton Harbors Corporation


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Eaton Harbors Corporation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable company with no claim of notability. Almost no ghits, no gnews, no Google books. The single reference is an extremely hard to find book so I can't use it to see if there are any other references, but no news coverage and not publically held. Logical Premise Ergo? 03:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I did speedy it, but Eastmain decided that A7 has to do with references and not claims to notability. I've left a note on his talk page, but in my opinion the article should be speedy deleted. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 03:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - Blatant advertising and non-notable. Just because it has a reference does not mean it is notable. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 09:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But conversely it doesn't mean it's not either. You can't know unless you check said reference. - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which, as it happens, is very difficult to do. If there were multiple sources, checking would be easy. There is one, period, in totality. Kinda hard. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 13:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A7 applies when an article does not indicate notability. "Assertion" ,"claim"  or synonyms do not appear in the criterion, which states that it is "a lower standard than notability." The basic criterion of notability is (multiple) (independent) (reliable) sources/references.  So having references (that are not obviously irrelevant or made up) is an indication of possible notability, which is all that is required to satisfy A7.  The article does not appear to be blatant advertising either, so it does not appear to be speedy material.John Z (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I cannot support that one mention in a book which is about a local neighborhood -- and no other mentions anywhere else - comprise "(multiple) (independent) (reliable) sources". I suggest that it should be deleted due to it's failure of both Notability (organizations and companies) and of WP:RS. The book is, at best, a secondary source. There remains no independent third party coverage.-- Logical Premise Ergo? 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The corporation has some of the functions of a municipal government, paying for the maintenance of private roads and common facilities in this community, any levying assessments which are very much like taxes. The article seems neutral, which means it isn't an advertisement. And while it is convenient for references to be online, there is no requirement that they be. -- Eastmain (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/32050434 for a list of libraries which hold the book used as a reference in this article. -- Eastmain (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Local homeowners' association that fails WP:CORP for lack of non-trivial WP:RS interest. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its a neutral article about a company that manages sizable amount of land in Eaton's Neck and Asharoken. As Eastmain said, the corporation is notable because it acts as a semi-municipal government for parts of the towns. At the least, it can be merged into either Eaton's Neck or Asharoken's article. Noneforall (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Notability is marginal, admittedly, but it can be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How can notability be confirmed? It has zero mention anywhere, at all, outside of a single book. It's just a incorporated homeowners association. You can feel free to merge the article content into the other articles, but your !vote simply makes no sense. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 04:24, 3 November 2008 (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.