Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus & Millichap


 * 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Marcus & Millichap

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article appears to be promotional, as it has no third-party sources, reads like an advertisement, and was created by a SPA (User: Sternsjohn) whose user page redirects here. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Difluoroethene (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another company that specializes in investment sales, financing, research and advisory services for investment real estate in offices advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Not just another real estate company, they're one of the largest, if not the largest, in the U.S. I stubbed the article and added a couple reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Qrsdogg. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly this corporation is notable on any common sense meaning of the term. As is often the case with large organisations it will require a lot of work to create a satisfactory and informative history and description, but the information will exist - it isn't the shortage but the abundance of material that will make the task difficult. Those aren't grounds for deletion. --AJHingston (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Qrsdogg's improvements. Of the two sources currently in the article, only the book mention is impressive - the one from Retail Traffic reads like a press release - but Google News finds plenty of other material in important sources like the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have some concern about these sources
 * The first, from Retail Traffic, reads very much like a press release (which, as a self-published source, is not an indicator of notability). To attempt to confirm this, I googled a chunk and got a large number of identical hits which makes me believe further that this is a press release.  Still looking for the original, or a source that clearly identifies it as a release.
 * The second, from The complete guide to buying and selling apartment buildings, is a very brief mention of an index that M&M use, but appears to have nothing significant about the article's subject itself.
 * I did a sampling from the google news link above, and found only
 * Further press-release type material, and
 * Items that are not actually about the article's subject,
 * In the absence of multiple independent significant coverage from reliable sources, I don't see how this can calim to meet the general notability guide. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The Notability requirements at WP:COMPANY demand some sort of independent third-party publications that discuss the firm. I'm not seeing it yet in the sources (two) provided so far.  Unless more sources can be provided, it does not meet WP notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources added don't convey notability in my opinion. It is a big company but lots of big companies aren't notable. I'm willing to change to keep with better refs. Szzuk (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Simple Google searches reveal thousands of articles in reliable sources. Article currently has two sources, but can easily be expanded. No BLP concerns warrant deletion at this time. -- Pink Bull  21:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A google search is not sufficient to determine what's a reliable source without actually looking at a source. Is there a particular source that you can bring to the discussion that you feel meets the guidelines? - Aaron Brenneman (talk)


 * 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.