Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keller Williams NYC

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. L Faraone 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Williams NYC

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

A local branch of a national company; we do not normally make an article for such, unless there are really strong reasons, and I do not see them here. The references are insufficient. We normally don't redirect either, or merge, because the place for a company to list its branches is on its own website. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like the Keller Williams Realty has been a battle itself according to the history in order to try to keep that article neutral to little success, and this is an attempt to end-around constant promotional glowing of the New York branch in that article. No redirect with about as much notability as your average ReMAX or Prudential agent in the New York area, and once and for all it might be time for a clean-up and semi-protect the main KWR article (though that's obviously not for this AfD to decide). Nate • (chatter) 01:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this particular franchise operation meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge - what little useful info in the article there is can be merged into the parent article easily. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No particular notability on its own terms. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:08, 31 May 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.