Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkleigh


 * 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) 20:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Parkleigh

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete: This Wikipedia entry comes across as a blatant advertisement for the Parkleigh store. The content reads just like an "About Us" page!  Beteljuice (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G11 and tagged accordingly. If that is declined my !vote will default to delete as advertisement for a non-notable business. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no indication of notability. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per this Google News search. Please remember BEFORE. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I didn't think to check Google news, but they all look like pretty trivial mentions in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm torn on this one. Parkleigh certainly gets a lot of mentions, but the number of instances of significant coverage appears low.  I wonder if an article on the Park Avenue neighborhood, to which this one could be merged, might not be more likely to pass muster.  Powers T 15:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete not worth including in any article, even as a redirect. I'd have speedied it without hesitation   DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete just like a zillion tiny shops all over the world, it's there and it exists but there's really nothing in an encyclopedic context to say about it. Arguably could have been an A7 speedy. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Non Notable and clearly reads as advertisement. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, db-spam.  Anna Lincoln  08:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Notability (organizations and companies). This company has not "been the subject of [emphasis mine] significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." — Satori Son 16:43, 26 February 2010 (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.