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 keep. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus Mortgage[edit]

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

Unrelentingly promotional. CSD Tag was reverted by a non-admin for a reason not based in policy viz: that the article had sources. Should really be a G11 but to forstall argument lets just delete this #NOTPROMOTIONAL and #NOTADVERTISING Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reference list looks impressive, but under scrutiny almost all the references are actually just press releases from the company itself, propagated without commentary by various web sites. -- LWG ^talk 03:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article is salvageable. It does rely on a lot of unreliable sources, but when I search the Google news archives I come up with several business journals and newspapers. One of the sources already listed is a business journal. User:Spartaz suggested on the article talk page that this article be recreated after deletion, but I intend to cut out a lot of the fluff and include some sources right now, so keep an eye on it. Blueskymorning (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but be wary of those sources. As I mentioned, many of them are appeared to be no more than cursory reposting of press releases, and while it is true that inc listed them as a "fastest growing in the US" company, it is one of 5000 so listed. Given that someone is on the case, Keep for now. -- LWG ^talk 06:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a policy based reason to leave something promotional in mainspace but I'd be happy to see this userfied if it isn;t fixed by the time this AFD closes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can here. It certainly reads better to me in terms of promotional language. I'll let those of you with a better understanding of Wikipedia policy take it from here. Blueskymorning (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Had a look at some previous versions and this AfD was obviously justified. It's not a great article and still reads like a sales brochure (despite Blueskymorning's excellent work) but the sources are there to back the claims up and the depth of coverage means it probably meets WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH. That it could do with a big helping of WP:NPOV de-flowering is not a reason to deleted, though. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up the sources are there. The article is poorly written and promotional, but AFD is not clean-up. If clean-up efforts stall due to promotional/biased/single-purpose accounts, it's worth opening an RFC or visiting some kind of noticeboard. Vcessayist (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2012 (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.