Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyNCRE (My No Commission Real Estate)


 * 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. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

MyNCRE (My No Commission Real Estate)
Delete. Advertisement for company that does not meet WP:CORP. Twenty-five unique Google hits for the term "MyNCRE". ... disco spinster   talk  00:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC) All these reasons stated clearly shows that this article does not meet WP:CORP. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  05:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Irongargoyle 00:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, 100% advertising for nonnotable business. NawlinWiki 00:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails CORP. SynergeticMaggot 00:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As per all of the above. Tarret 00:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Another Wikipedia abuse as an advert. As above, also fails WP:CORP and is a small-area business. -- moe .RON   talk  00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per well written nom. This discussion needs a pirate -- Samir   धर्म 01:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as soon as possible. Aplomado  talk 01:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, advert.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, poorly written, does not meet WP:CORP and not suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 04:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete after I tried to put a PROD tag on a recreation of this at a slightly different name only to find that User:Zoe had speedied it before I could even go to let the author know what I was doing. Quick work, that. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Allow me to state the reasons why this article should be deleted.
 * Firstly, this company has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
 * Secondly, this company is not listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.
 * Thirdly, the article is very poorly written as well.
 * 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.