Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BizBroker24

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BizBroker24

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. -SFK2 (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Brand new company which has no credible sources. Also as aside; formatting on the site is terrible. They pump these sites out quicker than you can shake a stick, and page layout and formatting quality is woeful. Should have done gotten a website usability report done on it made, and actually make it work, as intended. scope_creep talk 19:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I worked hard on this article after it was initially nominated for deletion. I studied several other broker articles and tried to make it more effective and look less like an advertisement. The most interesting thing about this company is that they are strictly focused on brokering online entities websites and apps. I could not find another broker company on Wikipedia dedicated to this niche. I think it is fairly easy to delete an article and that is very counter productive. Aren't we supposed to work to make Wikipedia a more informative place?--Cube b3 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but only for companies whose have already established themselves, are widely known and have a long history and/or done something really spectacular (positive or negative). A form with just a bit more than 4k Google hits fails "widely known". The Banner talk 20:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I respectfully disagree that the company isn't widely known. I have posted several references from very well recognized websites. These same websites have been used to reference countless pages on this platform.

Also I Browsed the article on Broker, it is safe to say it isn't even on Wikipedia standard. None of the Broker related articles are. So it is fair to say the subject of brokers and the companies involved in this venture aren't covered extensively on Wiki. We need to bring awareness to that and work to improve them all rather than just start deleting.

BizBroker24 focuses on a niche. I am quoting myself at this point, "The most interesting thing about this company is that they are strictly focused on brokering online entities websites and apps. That has merit. The page also provides information on how online content is brokered and what are the variables that BizBroker24 factor in before buying and selling a website.

I have worked tirelessly on that article and I urge you to help me bring it on the quality standards that we hold so highly. I am maxed out I worked on it to the best of my ability. Deleting it would just discourage people from making articles on that subject again. I believe I am reiterating myself again as I made the same case for UK2 Group.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is why you picked that company (and because you mentioned it) and UK2 Group? In this case a simple Google search would have made clear that you have a notability issue. For sure, I appreciate your efforts but you are a bit unfortunate at picking your subjects. The Banner talk 12:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I recently had to shoot down my own sandbox-article, as I was not convinced of its notability after writing it [reply]

That would be a good question had I made the page. I actually came across it after it was flagged. I have been on this magnificent platform for almost a decade now and you are welcomed to browse through my contributions. You will find that I am prominently attracted to the business side of IT firms and video games but occasionally I do wind up editing other things.

What about you? What attracts you to write articles? Should we move this discussion to either of our talk page? P.S. I answered the UK2 group related question on it's deletion page :)--Cube b3 (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hey guys, my apologize. I did not want to create any kind of war / conflict on the wonderful Wikipedia platform. I own many online business and I did not have an idea about the worth of my online business sites and domain name. One day I came across the bizbroker24 site and after I contacted them my site was sold in just 5 weeks for a very good price (6 figures). For this reason I thought it can be really helpful for the world community to know more about these kind of "exit strategy" and service for internet marketer.I shared information that I thought I would help people in working with brokers to sell or buy an online entity. I would love to share my whole experience but I have signed a NDA (non Disclosement agreement) with the buyer so I cannot disclose website, sale price, etc. If someone is interested in my experience, please contact me in private.Thank you for the attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euve19644 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of some of the more recognizable sources that have had any coverage on them: http://www.bizbroker24.com/press/--Cube b3 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and ask the creator to re-review WP:NCORP with a more critical eye ES &L 19:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.