Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Public Real Estate Association

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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Public Real Estate Association[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable organization. Most of the sources in the article simply mention that it exists, not that it does anything of note (other than be related to another article of questionable substance). —Ryulong (琉竜) 20:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the sources not in the article, but readily available from the news, book and scholar searches linked above? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of it really seems to show anything other than it exists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for your speed-reading ability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this nomination seems to be on the basis that there are limited on-line resources and seems to completely ignore the off-line sources which a Google search above says exist. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See [1] for example. And EPRA index should be merged into this article. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:52, 7 October 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.