Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article came to my attention after a blatant attempt to turn it into pure advertising, and after examining it closely I increasingly came to the conclusion that its apparently impressive list of reliable sources is largely there to make it look important. I removed the "Professional bodies" section which was not about the company at all but just general legal requirements, and then I examined the "Market commentator" section and that's really just a list of links to things the company has said. Anyway, as of this version (permalink), here's my take on the sources: As far as I can make out, all that sources 4 to 8 demonstrate is that the company's marketing people are good at getting its name out in public. After that, all that's left is the fact that it made losses and then returned to profit. A Google search finds further quotes from the company in news sources, some press release things, entries in commercial guides, mentions from member companies - but I can't find anything in-depth at all. I did find this book link which looked superficially good, but the footnote makes it clear it's the company's own marketing blurb. There are hits in other property buying guides, but they appear to be just entries in lists of companies. In short, I don't see that notability according to WP:NCORP can be demonstrated. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Just Companies House registration, which every company has (actually a dead link)
 * 2) A report that the company had turned from loss to profit, which is nothing notable
 * 3) Essentially the same as 2
 * 4) Just quotes from a number of Scottish companies in response to a news story
 * 5) Dead link, redirects to The Scotsman main news page
 * 6) Dead link, redirects to The Scotsman main news page
 * 7) "The research, by the Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre..." seems like essentially a press release, or based on a press release
 * 8) A BBC story from 2009 reporting on a report by the company, which also looks like it's based on a press release
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Issuing press releases about house price trends that are then picked up and reported does not in itself meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the issuer. The Scotsman does have local coverage of ESPC's financial problems around 2009 and more recently about a referral to the Competition and Markets Authority (about which I can see nothing however on the CMA case site). In sum though, I am not seeing WP:RUNOFTHEMILL being exceeded. AllyD (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I also stumbled across this article because of the all the promotional fluff that was recently added. However, I admittedly didn't take the time to read the article after I reverted that crap until now. Definitely does not meet WP:CORP. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:22, 9 November 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.