Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silverleaf Resorts

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 06:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silverleaf Resorts

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

Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:CORPDEPTH. Appears to have been written solely to promote the company.--File Éireann 09:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [[1]]. Article clearly meets all seven criteria stated; article also has been edited repeatedly to conform to WP standards and practices -- under the guidance of several notable WP editors (article history will show efforts made to comply with and address all objections in good faith, to ultimate satisfaction of objectors). Completely willing and able to make any changes necessary here, too -- but this is a noteworthy, well-cited, multi-million dollar, previously publicly traded company. It exceeds the notewothiness threshold. It is written in a neutral manner, with considerable third-party citations. Please reconsider - thank you to all in this thread for their time, effort and consideration. Johnsaavn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.151.208 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs clean-up to meet Wikipedia standards, but the company clearly meets WP:ORG. --Crunch (talk) 00:57, 3 May 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, J04n(talk page) 11:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, notwithstanding the above claim that "article also has been edited repeatedly to conform to WP standards and practices -- under the guidance of several notable WP editors (article history will show efforts made to comply with and address all objections in good faith, to ultimate satisfaction of objectors)", there is [no talk page] supporting this. Second, the person objecting is the creator and, for practical purposes, only active editor of the article (and otherwise largely involved with other Cerberus and related articles...). This is definitely in violation of WP:COI. As for the article, it does read WP:SPAMmy in part. And it is certainly not balanced. The awards are from an affiliation organization of which the article's topic is a business partner ([see also this]). I.e., more WP:COI. The subject may yet get notoriety with accusations such as [this], [this] and [this] - in time. Nothing else noteworthy on G or GN. Does not meet WP:COMPANY.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Burn. Delete. When independent people look at corporate spam The results can be obvious. Wikipedi9a is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to be very deletionist about corporate spam, --I come here after deleting my usual dozen for the day -- but this is not an example of it. It's a straight descriptio of a company that is large enough to be notable. I am very ready to see promotionalism, but i don't see it here. A enthusiastic description of their properties would be promotional, but this is a straight financially oriented company history of the plainest sort.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 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.