Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N7 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

N7 Real Estate

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

Article about a company that does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. Repeatedly created and moved to mainspace after being draftified. Possible WP:UPE and WP:PROMO. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per general notability: N7 Real Estate appears to be a company of notable size and significance. It has a global footprint with presence in Dubai, Melbourne, and Pakistan. It was also recognized as the top real estate company in Dubai in 2019. The company's recognition, operations, and coverage by notable sources like Forbes Middle East suggests it meets the general notability guidelines of Wikipedia. --74.141.27.27 (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC) — 74.141.27.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "It was also recognized as the top real estate company in Dubai in 2019" may be true but that doesn't translate to automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the company's global activities, local business reliable media coverage, and industry recognition and cooperation with the biggest Dubai construction companies. --BoraVoro (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I would mention the same as the people above if it wasn't there already. The list of its sources a priori suggests it meets WP:GNG. It's easy to find out this yourself if to google the company name. As it was written above, the article was repeatedly draftified, moved to the mainspace, etc. Fmpov, I think the editor should be warned on this for the future and addressed via his Talk page on the proper procedure for publishing on Wikipedia. But the subject article itself, from what I can see, worth being kept. M85ße (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read the comments from other editors who published below and am changing my vote to Delete after finding out the references were fake. I should definitely be way more attentive in the future and check those by its links, not just checking the names. Although there're still mentions on the Internet, these fake references shouldn't be tolerated. M85ße (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's a reason we don't have supplementary criteria in the subject specific criteria for organisations and companies. There is a paucity of sources that even mention the company, hell, even some of the sources in the reflist fail that test (anyone read the Haaretz article? The Forbes Middle East article currently authored by "East, Forbes Middle" currently sitting at ref 7?). Actual coverage meeting CORPDEPTH? It's a desert. For reference, we do not accept coverage of corporations going about the course of their daily business. We do not accept coverage of a business that merely mentions its name. We most definitely do not accept "coverage" of a business that does not even mention it at all. That the article is refbombed to hell and back with these supposed references does not change that. Also, I cannot verify that what is currently ref. 5 supports the claim made. In fact, it seems to fall in to the last category. Hard fail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly tempted to tag it for G3, db-hoax. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero chance of this passing NCORP. Per User:Alpha3031 above, when you go through the long list of refs, they either don't mention the company or its a marketing/promotional piece about their aims.  Zero encyclopedic value in this company, but clearly the UPE who made it (and it is a UPE article) wants the credibility of Wikipedia on their name. WP:SALT may be needed. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've taken out all the fake refs where there was not mention of N7 in them (e.g. Bloomberg, Haaretz, Forbes Middle East etc.). The two remaining online refs are promotional pieces of by the company, and two others I was not able to search for (they are not online), so I left them in; maybe not a hoax, but their notability (and article) was heavily faked. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete possible WP:PROMO. No significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.