Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayfield Homes

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. MBisanz ^talk 10:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hayfield Homes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Hayfield Homes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Declined speedy, since it has sources. An unremarkable business. TheLongTone (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies GNG. More sources and company's current operations added to the page.

...the above unsigned opinion is that of the page creator.TheLongTone (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. No indication that this company is notable. Coverage consists of:

Showhome, Business Desk and Development Finance: I think these are trade magazines. "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability" per WP:ORG.

The Times (first link), the Irish Times and Bloomberg: WP:RS, but none of these mention Hayfield Homes.

The Times (second link), Stratford Herald (first link), Stratford Observer and Banbury Guardian: I think these are fine, but don't make up significant coverage.

Stratford Herald (second link): does not add anything to the first SH link.

Worcester News: reads promotional. Tacyarg (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I looked at the citations, and agree with Tacyarg's analysis. WP:ROUTINE coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Narky Blert (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the above analysis, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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.