Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Bridge Homes NW


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Stone Bridge Homes NW

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite the sources, this is a non-notable company: top ten builders in Portland is not notable; winner of one non-notable award; "6th among single family home builders" - non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I contested the prod because this appeared to barely pass WP:GNG, although the sources are a little thin. It was hard to find more in a quick review of Google hits because of the piles of press releases that came up on the first few pages. However, the owner claims that very few builders are doing solar-ready homes in Oregon, which if one can find an independent source for, might be worth mentioning. Also, I suspect very few companies of this sort are owned by women, that might also be able to be sourced. Neither of these things in themselves confers notability, but they might be things to follow up on if anyone is interested in "saving" the article. Note that in general I have a hatred for developers, solar-powered or otherwise. It won't hurt my feelings this gets deleted. Valfontis (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Valfontis (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete I had originally PROD'd this one as it was a no-brainer deletion, but not CSD'able. Non-notable placing in truly non-notable awards (6th of "local" builders). ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I contested the prod, I guess I don't have a brain. Oh well. :) Valfontis (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think the real no-brainer deletion is Kelly Ritz--she has fewer sources than the article for her company. I wouldn't contest a prod on that article. Valfontis (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have not done the research to see what else it out there, but what is in there is somewhat questionable. The Oregonian articles are suspect in that although they cover the topic in depth, they are not standard articles by the paper's writers. They are "special to" and other not exactly notability conferring types of articles. As in, I suspect they are PR pieces in disguise (more so than most biz articles) and that perhaps the company (or their PR firm) has been working on this. My main question is, did the nominator look in a good faith attempt to see if there is the coverage to confer notability? Currently I see no such statement. Without that, I would actually vote keep on procedural grounds, as that has almost always been a requirement (and still is) prior to starting an AfD listing (and common courtesy prior to even a PROD given the deletion policy). Aboutmovies (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - based on DGG's source check. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment see also Articles for deletion/Kelly Ritz  DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A check of G news shows there isn't. Normally when the references are a combination of local PR-originated pieces and one or two articles from a good RS that have nothing directly to do with the subject, it's fairly safe to assume there's nothing better, though of course it does need to be checked--a really thorough search can turn up surprises. But such sourcing is normally an indication of either paid PR work, or extremely naïve article writing by beginners. It can be hard to tell them apart, especially now that  the paid PR writers have learned to deflect criticism  by pretending they are naïve beginners. I find a fairly  good distinction is if the article is well formatted and the content is worthless, it's not a naïve beginner. Since we cannot detect anonymous paid editing directly, our only defense is to be rather strict on whatever looks like promotional articles.  I don't actually like that approach: I'd much rather fix articles no matter how improperly motivated, but I see no other way to deal with  the increasing  amount of promotionalism.   DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence anywhere of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per DGG, as I trust that he has done his due diligence (thank you). Also, though not a deletion criterion, note that the article creator has been blocked as a sockpuppeteer and PR spammer. Valfontis (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the subject is notable, a legitimate author will eventually write an article. No need to reward sockpuppetry and possibly payola with allowing there works to stand. Thought experiment: we allow the article to stand, the paid author gets paid, gets a new internet provider, gets a new account, and does it again. Not good. Thought experiment: we delete the article, paid author does not get paid, goes away. Or gets paid, but clients then complain that the article about them is no longer there and wants their money back. I'm going to have to !vote delete on the ground of not encouraging bad behavior. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Paid editing is not a deletion criterion, as far as I know. Can you direct us to the guideline that says it is? Per WP:ATTP, please address the article, not the editor--what policy based concerns about the article's content do you have? Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite buy that WP:NOTADVERT doesn't apply to paid editing. Advertising is even a speedy deletion criterion (WP:CSD, I think) 86.** IP (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The motivation behind creation of the article is irrelevant, but a few splashy articles in what amounts to the local 'sponsored by realtors' section of the newspaper aren't sufficient to demonstrate depth of coverage. They aren't written neutrally or with high journalistic tone. Otherwise, notability comes down to "hey, we put some extra wiring in our houses for solar". tedder (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2012 (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.