Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LEI Financial


 * 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 - there seems to have been enough time for the creator to come up with independent sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

LEI Financial
Seems like nonnotable corporation to me, even with the one source given; moving here per argument against speedy deletion on article talk page. NawlinWiki 17:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Falls well short of WP:CORP, unless there's better evidence than the advertising . --Mereda 17:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe this contribution is not an advertisement and is a relevent to Wikipedia for the following reasons:
 * the company is notable and is one of the fasted growning Real estate comapnies in the country.
 * The company has been published in numerous works and many are non-trivial
 * There is no self promotion of the any of the services only statements about the company and its offerings.
 * I do understand that the company is not a public company, there for is lacking stock market indices and is a young comany, there for not having a large number of non-trivial publishings, but the contribution, in my opinion was written in a very factual matter, perfect for Wikipedia. I do understand that I may be wrong and would like your opinion on how I may be able to fix the article so that it may accepted on Wikipedia. Please advise me before completely deleting the submission. Thank you Mferree --mferree 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue is not the article, it's the company. There are thousands of companies like this one. Second largest real estate firm in New York or LA would be notable. Seventh-largest in San Diego doesn't seem to make it. Fan-1967 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the company has been the subject of "numerous" non-trivial published works, then please cite them. Wikipedia is not a business directory.  Purely factual entries can be written about any (registered) company, given that names, addresses, telephone numbers, and other directory information are facts.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is not in the business of hosting factual entries for all of the companies in the world.  To show that Wikipedia should have an article on this company, cite sources to show that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied.  See BETDAQ and 1-800 Contacts for two examples of what you should be looking for. Uncle G 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: is the original contributor. Vectro 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence from independent sources of meeting WP:CORP. External coverage needs to be about the company, not just trivial mentions (rankings, directory information, etc...).  GRBerry 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Understandable, please give me time and I will post the other non-trivial mentions. I only put the one because it was the only article I mentioned. I appriciate the opinions and help. --mferree 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete; fails WP:CORP. Also, can this really be called a Conglomerate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vectro (talk • contribs) 05:54, 20 October 2006 (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.