Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zimmer Real Estate Services

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. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmer Real Estate Services

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

Non-notable company. Has a number of GHits that are mostly listings. GNEWS are brief mentions of involvement in projects. Article lacks references outside of internal website mentions. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Best article in Wikipedia. User:ZimmerRealEstateServices.com Just kidding. Doesn't seem notable unless there is something that should be included in the article that isn't. JB50000 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:Company: The very first line of WP:Company states An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. A simple google search produces more than 24,100 hits so there is clearly reliable third party sources. This debate is not about whether the article sucks but whether the company is notable enough to be included. Any company that develops large projects such as the headquarters campus of Sprint-Nextel, develops the new headquarters of the Kansas City Federal Reserve, and has a contract to build a plant to build nuclear bombs should on its face be notable. This article was tagged ONE MINUTE after it was posted at 12:04 AM Eastern with with a speedy delete. Instead of replacing the inhouse references as I intended (and which are easily available in the 24,100 hits), I had to spend the time getting the speedy tag removed. The tag was removed at 12:52 AM Eastern. The nominator then placed it in AFD at 1:32 AM Eastern.Americasroof (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Americasroof (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The total number of GHits is only about 325. I understand the first page in the search indicates a higher number, but if you go to the last page it settles at 325. BTW - per WP:Google, "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability." Unfortunately, as indicated above, it appears the GHits that are mostly listings and fail to meet WP:RS. Keep in mind notability is not inherited from other organizations nor does "real-world" notability equal Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Zimmer has a contract to build a nuclear bomb factory. It's not in passing. Zimmer has the contract. Most people would think that is notable. My incentive to create the article was to show that the Zimmer has already developed several high profile projects in Kansas City including the billion dollar campus of Sprint-Nextel, the new Federal Reserve headquarters and a basketball museum by the Sprint Center, and the complex around the Kansas Speedway. Zimmer will hire the architects, the actual builders, etc. But Zimmer has the contract!!!! On its face when a company develops billion dollar projects, it's notable. Americasroof (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, "real-world" notability does not equal Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a recent news search yields mention in 3 local articles, including that it's the "sixth most active commercial real estate firm in Kansas City". I'm not sure whether that's sufficient notability, but it's more concrete than the number of google hits argument. The tone and description of projects in the Wikipedia article make it somewhat promotional.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Among the three articles you lightly dismissed is one about it developing a $673 million project, pay $5.2 million a year in taxes and save 2,500 jobs -- all in the service of building nuclear bomb components. The Kansas City Plant is getting much publicity. Americasroof (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The articles are not written about Zimmer, but only mention them in passing. They do not appear to be "significant coverage" as required by WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly. Apart from "BizJournals" hits, Google News Archives yields a bunch of local stories that mention when one of the parties to a commercial real estate transaction are represented by this real estate agency. That isn't substantial coverage. The article tries to claim inherited notability by naming important clients they've represented in Kansas City area real estate deals. That just ends up making the page look more like advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Odd you would dismiss the bizjournals which detail major projects. Little wonder Wikipedia generally sucks when it comes to business articles. Americasroof (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If the article was about those projects, the bizjournals article might be applicable. ttonyb (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The developer of an extensively covered project is prima facie notable. Donald Trump is a developer. He puts together the various projects and hires the architect, builder, gets the financing and manages the project and manages the project after it is built. Zimmer is in the same position. If the projects it builds are notable then it itself is notable. Architects achieve notability because of notable buildings they design. Americasroof (talk)

Comment – I think you are missing the point. Donald Trump is not notable because of what he has done, he is notable because he meets the criteria for notability. In addition, per WP:VERIFY, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" and the ability to provide substantial reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ttonyb (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FWIW, the bizjournals.com website is an aggregator of local trade papers, and tends to reprint press releases in bulk. It's not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, and BizJournals results can usually be skipped when looking for sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not substantial independent coverage. Racepacket (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of available reliable sources that establishes notability. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this company was notable, there would be news articles about it versus just minor mentions of its projects for notable companies. This search doesn't give any promising results, and the article as it stands now doesn't appear to contain any third-party reliable sources. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:04, 20 January 2010 (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.