Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windermere Real Estate

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Windermere Real Estate.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Seems to me like an advert for an undistinguished real estate company. blankfaze | &#9835; 04:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

It's not an ad (I don't work for Windermere; I don't even work in the industry) and Windermere is not undistinguished. It's the best-known real estate company in the Pacific Northwest. I wrote this article because "Windermere Real Estate" is listed in the companies section of the Seattle article. (Note: We did decide that only companies headquartered in Seattle that do interstate business should be listed in that section, otherwise it could get unmanageably long.) --User Talk:Lukobe/User:Lukobe 04:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC) (Note added by Lukobe 17:03, 25 May 2004 (UTC))


 * Comment: This is just the sort of thing on which we need a mini-policy. I'll be interested to see which way it goes, and will record it in WIWO when decided. Andrewa 07:11, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep this. It's not an advert--it simply provides information about the company. And said company appears to be fairly notable.  Does anyone here doubt that more people have heard of Windermere than some Rambot towns, or math concepts, or whatever else you feel should be included? Meelar 13:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I suppose I agree with you; there are plenty more obscure articles. From just the info in the article, though, the company didn't appear to be distinguished.  But I am not at all familiar with the Seattle area.  And my apologies, Lukobe, for I should have checked What links here before listing it on VfD.  I hereby retract my orginal complaint.  blankfaze | &#9835; 18:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Otherwise we'd need to set an arbitrary limit on when a company is big enough to be included and when not. And that will result in lots of bickering whether a company is on the right or wrong side of the limit. I agree with Meelar, if we don't exclude not well-known cases of other fields, why for companies? If someone takes the trouble to document something that isn't well known, does it harm Wikipedia to include it? I don't think so - in fact, I think that would only increase the overall quality of Wikipedia. Abigail 14:03, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward keep. The local white pages lists six offices including a brand new one not two miles from my house. - Lucky 6.9 17:05, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've tried to clarify its notability in the article. It has obliterated a number of older, previously well-established RE co's in Western WA, at least. Niteowlneils 18:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.