Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real estate gurus

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. ShadowHalo 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real estate gurus

Merge into Real estate? Seems slightly wiktionary to me. Philippe Beaudette 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing different about "real estate gurus" as opposed to any other guru (e.g. "she's a stock market guru") and doesn't deserve a page by itself or a merge. Bencherlite 00:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef. Don't redirect, since the title is inherently hagiographic. No content worth merging. --N Shar 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef and unlikely to expand beyond one. Investors and real estate are already covered elsewhere, little point in this article. WjBscribe 02:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.Julia 02:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Natalie 02:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect, no wiktionary. A word like "guru" may be attached to any vocation. Shaundakulbara 03:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I'm not too sure if this would make a good merge/redirect/Wiktionary move either.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Not sure that "real estate guru" is the best general label to hang on these people, though what I'd call them might run afoul of WP:LIBEL. The article seems to be about people who conduct seminars offering plans of real estate investment, and as such this may be a spam magnet. Anything worth saying can go in real estate investing for the time being, that article needs desperate help also. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not in common enough usage. --Gwern (contribs) 05:44 14 February 2007 (GMT) 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have said redirect if there was much more info but it has very little context and relevat info, therfore failing WP:NOT#DICTIONARY.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT.-- danntm ^T _C 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.Corporal Punishment 23:52, 14 February 2007 (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.