Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PropertyGuru (company)


 * 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. Consensus appears to be that the sources are not of the depth needed to meet the higher NCORP bar. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

PropertyGuru (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

clear case of Run-of-the-mill, majorly having refs from just one source The Straits Times, Discussion on it will clearify the scenario more. Suryabeej     ⋠talk⋡    11:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Suryabeej      ⋠talk⋡    11:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. A clear case of advertisement. Does not satisfy WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and GermanKity. Jack Reynolds (talk to me &#124; email me) 12:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a protocol for dealing with WP:MILL articles which if followed would have lead the nominator to consider WP:ATD. The claim that the article "majorly having refs from just one source The Straits Times" is not justified. The subject has wp:sigcov meeting the wp:3REFS minimum in wp:RS one of which, is listed green at WP:RSP (Bloomberg News). In regards to The Straits Times, it's WP entry says, "daily average circulation of 364,134 and 364,849 respectively in 2017" and while there is some criticism further down the page alluding to its unreliability for politically charged matters there is no consensus at WP:RSN stating that The Straits Times is unreliable for purposes of establishing WP:NCORP. Additionally, the WP for Business Times (Singapore) reads "The Business Times is Singapore's only financial daily" and although it shares the same parent company as The Straits Times it hasn't been part of the paper for almost half a century. There's also significant coverage in CNA (TV network) one of Singapore's national news channels, all of which adds up to WP:NCORP.Black crows circling (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Suryabeej, User:JackReynoldsADogOwner and User:Nomadicghumakkad are all relatively new to the project, joining around the same time actually although I won't discuss their editing skills or behaviour in a deletion discussion.Black crows circling (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of being notable. The references are routine coverage that fail WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP in general.   scope_creep Talk  21:25, 15 June 2021 (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.