Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pari Passu Realty Corp.


 * 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. Spammy tone can be dealt with, but the notability is there. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Pari Passu Realty Corp.

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

Reason Gioindo (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as promotional spam. Drawn Some (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral Weak keep. Very spammy, but there are some sources:. Not sure if this is enough to establish notability. Fences and windows (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam, and full of unsubstantiated grandstanding statements such as "in the vangard". More suited to a real estate column in a local newspaper. --Michael Johnson (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious advertising: The firm is at the vanguard of a trend in the real estate brokerage industry away from the commission and fee structures that dominate that industry. Oonh, it's a vanguard that we are now, is it? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be alone on this, but as they've been Bloomberged, I'd suggest a Keep. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Bloomberg piece is actually about Realogy, which unlike this appears to be notable. Several of the other references to reliable sources that are in the article have similar flaws: they say little or nothing about this business, and are added to explain how its "vanguard" business model differs from others. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of the NYT article, which is in large part about this company.DGG (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - based upon a useless and non-existant nomination rational. If a nominator will not take the time to make a nomination rational (even if it requires a second edit), the Article should speedy close default keep IMHO. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  10:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a further note; Intrestingly, the nomination of this Article is the only edits User:Gioindo has ever made, which makes me think there is something more going on here than meets the eye. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as there is no verifiable evidence of notability, and the lack of sourcing shows in its promotional tone and undue reliance on the views expressed in the company's own website. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree this is spammy. I cannot read the NYT article without subscription, but judging from where the inline cite is placed in the article it appears to be there to verify that they have a NYT article!  Everything else - all things factual - are referenced to their own website, not WP:RS, sorry.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:46, 17 May 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.