Deletion of Carlingford Court

Comment: per . There's nothing in the article which gives a clue as to why it is notable. Just because it exists is not a good enough reason to keep, and I can't find any trace of it having been deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground (WP:HOLE)

Comment: According to , a business is notable "If the organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works whose source is independent of the organization itself."  This article has none of that. I would also point to : "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:V)

Comment: I have reviewed the new version of the articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlingford_Court&oldid=106535477 but in my opinion there's still not enough there to justify the article's existence.  Two references to street directories, and one article in a local business magazine talking about a building expansion.  That's still not "multiple non-trivial reliable published sources" per .  I stand by my original opinion that this article should be deleted, and/or have any genuinely notable information merged into a parent article about the local community
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: article has been previously nominated for speedy and prod but never that I can see for AfD. No assertion why subject is a |notable corporation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)