Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halstead Property


 * 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 redirect to Terra Holdings.  MBisanz  talk 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Halstead Property

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH, as available sources in various internet searches consist of routine coverage, passing mentions, quotations from company personnel, public relations content and directory listings. North America1000 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Was on the fence with this one initially as there are a ton of references. However, looking closer, it comes down to WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance, this Forbes reference is good except it is an interview. I found quite a few in Google Book search for New York Mag but the coverage is all announcements or brief mentions. Got excited to see references from The New York Times but again, brief mentions or routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the major firm in NYC, probably the major real estate market internationally. There have been major controversies and the stories on them will not be announcements. I'll check further when I get back to nyc after Wikimania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with the nominator and CNMall41. Sources consist of routine details normally derived from company sources, passing mentions, affiliated company persons as the only source, and so on. Trivial coverage means this topic does not satisfy CORPDEPTH and GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename and rewrite into Terra Holdings, the highly notable parent of this company. While I agree with DGG that the company is notable per se, I am concerned here and elsewhere with organizational fragmentation and suggest not skipping the parent organizations to focus on subsidiaries. Volunteering to the rewrite myself if the idea is adopted. gidonb (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We would need redirects from Halstead Property and Brown Harris Stevens to Terra Holdings and would be able to cover all three in one article. gidonb (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with you on this, and I should have mentioned it. It is pretty standard as a general practice to  cover merged firms under the newer and comprehensive name with sections for the earlier-- unless when one of the earlier firm is very much more important, which is not the case here-- the name Terra \Holdings may still not be widely known, but as an actual business enterprise its the combination we want to talk about. (Or for unusually large and complex holding company situations, again not the case here) and in fact this would be a good technique  also  in with businesses where numerous semi-notable firms exists; WP:NOT explicitly suggests a combination article in such cases.  DGG ( talk ) 14:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi David, thank you for your support and your ever so insightful comments! In this AfD I eluded to the pain with companies that organize a parent company into functional or spatial units. The units can be companies or non-companies and often are notable. See in the AfD how I had to plead for a sensible organization and my request was heard. With mega-sized companies these unit companies provide opportunities for structural organization of information, when the article of the parent is too large. With regular large companies, however, these units empty the parent of meaningful content or, more frequently and partially alongside, just duplicate the content with temporal and tone inconsistencies because each article lives its own life. With newspapers and magazines (in my example) the problem becomes even worse yet these companies are a general challenge. This is a side further to your comments. Glad to see that you continue to provide excellent feedback at AfDs, not focused on deleting or keeping but, rather, on making WP work! gidonb (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Lest we (again) delete notable information and for clarity I wish to add that if the article is not rewritten into a new one, it should be kept. Hence keep was the first part of my opinion above. gidonb (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, rename and rewrite into Terra Holdings, per and . A not-too-common suggestion at AfD which proves that thinking outside the box is a welcome change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – There seems to be a clear consensus here that the AfDed company is not notable. There is also a suggestion that its parent company is notable and that someone should create an article about that company, which will be different both title-wise & content-wise to the above article. But that's outside the purview of this AfD, as this AfD is not about the Terra Holdings. If someone has the time to find out the relevant sources along with creating that article, there won't be any problem in recreating the above page as a redirect. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see any consensus yet. But "clear consensus"??? gidonb (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I commented that it "seemed" that way. Secondly, consensus isn't !vote count. The delete !voters gave their policy-based assertions, but the keep !voters just made some claims of the above company's notability without providing in-depth coverage in third-party sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. If such bare claims can prove WP notability, then everything will become notable. In fact, the odd suggestion by you has resulted in the creation of its "highly notable" parent company's article, which also seems non-notable to me. As that article has been created now, I will request you to add in-depth third-party sources to the article, although that's irrelevant to this AfD. – NitinMlk (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 17:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. If an article on the parent company is created in the future, sure the content here can be merged. But since it doesn't exist and this topic fails GNG, the article should be deleted. -- HighKing ++ 16:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the company Terra Holdings now has its own page. It needs help with referencing, but it seems people wanted one, so here it is. If this page is acceptable, then I change my ivote from "delete" to "merge" into Terra Holdings. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – You created the article in good faith, but you should've asked the relevant participants to provide sources first. Anyway, now that Terra Holdings has been created & its notability isn't the concern of this AfD, I guess Halstead Property can be redirected there as there's hardly any relevant content to merge. BTW, only the very last sentence of the Halstead Property stub seems merge-worthy to Terra Holdings, but even that sentence's claims are outdated, as the sources are 15-16 years old. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Terra Holdings, as per WP:ATD-R. I couldn't find in-depth coverage for Halstead Property in the third-party reliable sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The keep !voters made claims that its parent company Terra Holdings is notable, thereby there should be an article about that and that this company should be merged/redirected to the parent company. The parent company's article has already been created. And anyone is free to expand that. I would've !voted merge but there's hardly any merge-worthy content in the AfDed stub, as explained by me earlier. In any case, the redirecting will keep the revision history intact, so there won't be any problem in finding any useful bit. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Terra Holdings. L3X1 (distænt write)  11:48, 1 September 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.