Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi Corporation


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Multi Corporation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability (per wikipedia) not asserted. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: This sounds like a large company of the sort you might expect to be notable so I went looking for references in Google and didn't get much. The article checks out but they seem to be privately owned and attract little media coverage. I can't see anything other than primary sources to reference it to. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Creator Input It is hard to find sources via google, because multi and corporation are frequently used words. Furhtermore,it is hard to find articles due to the many changes in name the corporation and the subgrouping of the company have undergone. If you search for Multi Vastgoed, Multi Development, Multi Development Corporation, Multi Development UK, etc. one finds a lot more. Furthermore, a lot of 3rd source articles are available on www.europe-re.com. The company is active in 16 european countries with 700 employees. It has projects in line and completed all over europe. If this company is not notable, than I do not understand anymore what kind of company is notable. Some internet sites (although a lot in Dutch):          --Verena Köster (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria for notability are listed in Notability (organizations and companies), a link to which appeared prominently at the top of the article until it was deleted today. You should carefully read all of the maintenance templates in the article and try to address each concern.  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The quick device for Google is to use Google News- "Multi Corporation" gouda gives 4 articles, though it needs a knowledge of Dutch to figure out the extent to which they are reliable & not PR. DGG (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and I stand corrected. Looking at those four hits again, now more closely, they are spammy or inaccessible. No. 1,, is members only. No. 2, , does look a lot like a press release disguised as a bit of news; there is no source but I am not assuming good faith (it's real estate ;)). No. 3, , leads to the main site; searching that site for Multi corporation gives a few hits but they're all members only, so I can't verify that these are RS. No. 4 again looks like a piece of news, but despite the lack of mention, this smells and tastes like a press release. My apologies for not looking this closely the first time around. Weak keep: I don't think the article needs to mention every individual project--but that's pruning, not to be done here at AfD. DGG's 4 hits (one of which in German) are decent enough to establish notability for the corporation. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Article has been up a week and is still only sourced from the company's own website (www.multi.eu), two press releases (here and here) and an entry in a directory published by a "multi-media publishing, research and consultancy firm" (here)--none of which constitute WP:Reliable sources which means the article fails Notability (organizations and companies). Additionally, the Verena Köster account appears to be controlled by a Multi Corporation employee which would violate WP:Conflict of interest.  Finally, someone made bad faith edits from a Netherlands-based IP address (where both Multi Corporation and Verena Köster are based) in apparent attempt to subvert legitimate concerns about the article.  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. The creating editor has already created basically the same article in three different forms, under this spelling and another spelling, that were both deleted. I too suspect Verena Köster may have a WP:COI because his only mainspace edits are to the different versions of this company article or inserting references or links to this company in a few other articles. ww2censor (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Creator Input I yesterday made some contributions to other articles. The article was my first try to contribute something. It would have been very helpful to get constructive feedback. I lay down by this discussen and will see what happens. Anyways, it is very frustrating to see all this happen. -- Verena Köster (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 08:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC).
 * If you act like a spammer, people will believe you're a spammer. You continue to add your employer's name to wikipedia (here, here, and here).  Why would anyone consider you anything else at this point?  If you want to advertise your company, you'll have to find another forum.  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2009 (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.