Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PropTiger.com

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. Joyous! | Talk 01:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PropTiger.com

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

Literally a seriously overblown article with not only published advertising but republished advertising costumed as "news" as shown by the obvious thinly covered signs of those publications, which are notorious as it is for republishing whatever the company pleases and pays for, and the fact the article was intentionally formatted like this by over 10 advertising-only accounts, one of which was actually named "Realestate", explains everything especially since it's obvious as it is, the company itself is advertising-motivated about this article. To note, I can be guaranteed that since nearly all of these start with names, they are surely company employees, and along with the other one I listed earlier, see also the user "Way2wealthRealty".

My own searches are then finding such republished news, but that's expected since we cannot confide at all with such publications, especially since all that searches naturally found were literal republished company financials and specific business plans and lists. Let's not continue making it worse by allowing such a blatant advertisement, as we made the mistake of allowing this for nearly 2 years now, but at best, it emphasized the sheer blatancy of how the company continued advertising this so-called article, especially since it's only about 5 years old, it means there's nothing but its advertising. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP and WP:Promo Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the only thing of any conceivable importance is that Murdoch bought it, and that's not nearly enough. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Routine coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 00:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While some of the sources (e.g. ET Bureau) are questionable, Murdoch's involvement and subsequent coverage is enough to meet WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not significantly talking about the company. The ones which do, turn out to be based on extensive quotes by company employees. Keeping in mind WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND, I don't see enough at the moment to have an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above, it also fails WP:AUD. The media relevant to the topic is clearly of very limited interest. It's simply not encyclopedia-worthy.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:33, 28 November 2016 (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.