Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life House


 * 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. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient Star   Mississippi  03:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Life House

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Overly promotional article stood up on finance news pieces and passing mentions. Company is not notable, fails WP:ORGSIG, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, so Condé Nast Traveler, Fortune, Vogue, Travel + Leisure, Architectural Digest are not reliable and quality sources in the world of travel? I have eliminated everything that could have been intended as an advertisement; the article certainly needs to be improved, but the cancellation seems to me really excessive!Cheers--Alessandra Boccone (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They have an established, long history. The article here is using them as passing mentions of the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko can you help me understand? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandra Boccone (talk • contribs) 08:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandra Boccone (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional article, funding announcements used as "sources", press releases or mentions in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, because reading the 173 sources immediately we understand that we are talking about a solid reality and encyclopedic relevance.Alessandra Boccone (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment No one is going to evaluate 173 sources, and from skimming the URLs it seems they are mostly trivial or dependent coverage, which WP:ORGCRIT notes is not sufficient to establish notability. What are the best WP:THREE sources that show the company is notable? The best sources are those where the author has conducted original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Jumpytoo Talk 03:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Due to WP:NOTADVERTISING. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:01, 21 June 2022 (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.