Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tidal Homes


 * 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. Also, generally, only the nominator can withdraw an AfD; others will say "keep."  Kurykh  05:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tidal Homes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I deleted this db-spam a few minutes ago, but have had second thoughts and am bringing it here for discussion. While I don't think it looks particularly notable, it's certainly not blatant advertising. However, it does seem unsalvageable, being more about other features of the town the company's based in than about the company itself, and the town already has its own article so there's not really anything to merge. —  iride  scent  15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote to withdraw AFD for a week (or prod) It seems that the area has some potential for an article. I wouldn't be surprised if the article gets renamed after it develops (ie, the monument rather than the donor), but I would think that maybe what the article needs is time to develop, contact author, and see if it can be salvaged.  IMHO, it sounds like there may be something interesting in there, although poorly written at this stage. I agree that the purpose doesn't seem to be spam.  It is just hard to tell what the purpose is at this point. Pharmboy (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The typical run time for an AFD is five days, plenty of time to assert notability and find sufficient sources, should they exist. --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Run-of-the-mill house builder with no sign of notability and no secondary sources. Fails WP:CORP. Deor (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, references do not support the notability of the subject, and nothing found on a search of Google News Archive (other than some lawsuits) either. --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable company, no good sources. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (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.