Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viva Properties


 * 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) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Viva Properties

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

NN corp - all of the mentions are either in passing or lack the substantial coverage in sources independent of the subject that the notability guidelines require. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Provided sources are not sufficient to establish notability, and cannot find anything else on Google or Google News. Laurent (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Note that this article is about an Australian developer of apartments / flats / tenements. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I confirm that the links in the article do not establish notability. Fails WP:CORP. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertising without a doubt.  Get  Dumb   09:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep descriptive article about reasonably notable company. The sources are weak, but that's usual with internet companies of this sort. A more honest way to do paid editing is to accept the job only if the company can provide good sources, or pay you for finding them and you do find. DGG (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom the article clearly fails notability and WP:CORP and clear paid advertsing. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly unsubtle advertising. the 2 articles I found in google news search are the director commenting on the housing market rather than articles actually about viva properties and does not assert notability of Viva properties. having said that it's still not wide coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly advertising, fails WP:CORP. Orderinchaos 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has substance WP:CORP. User talk:Gregor20 11:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC) — Gregor20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Based on what? It fails CORP miserably. Have you read the policy in question? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bet he hasn't, Cybercobra. Look at his edits. COI at it's finest and furthers the argument to delete as advertising.  Get  Dumb   04:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gregor20 is the name of the Elance client that commissioned this article as well the username Greg Rips (co founder) uses on Twitter. Ha! (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: The coverage in reliable sources amounts to "company got awarded a contract, incidentally mentioned in an article about rent and incidentally mentioned in an article about opposition to 21 houses being built." Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass the guidelines for notability. Ha! (talk) 15:11, 24 June 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.