Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Step Realty

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. Even having read a new editor's post on another page, the simple fact is that this business fails WP:CORP badly. RS's are not RS's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Step Realty

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

The article appears to be advertising. The article is about a company that is not notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think at first blush, the sources seem to satisfy WP:CORP. However if you actually look at the sources, it's pretty clear that they are puff pieces placed/arranged by a good PR firm. The company has done nothing notable since their media-blitz around launch, and the article should be deleted, by common sense if not explicitly by policy.

I've edited it down significantly from the full-blown WP:ADVERT and WP:LINKFARM that it used to be. Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Note that I am not Toddy1 who nominated this, although our names are similar.[reply]

Delete Closest to a RS on this startup is the Palm Beach paper (forget which one), which had a piece written by the paper's fashion editor! Imagine the indepth probing of the company's business plan! EEng (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A newcomer (Hockeyguy676) has expressed opposition to the article on The Next Step Realty being deleted on an admin's talk page (see link). He has been advised that the discussion here is his opportunity to explain why the article should not be deleted. Please can no decision be made for another 48 hours to give this newcomer a chance to express his/her views in the correct place.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would " a bunch of faggots" like us want to do that? :) I wouldn't object to extending the close - not that there would be anything wrong with that. Toddst1 (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2011 (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.