Talk:Builder broker

Contested deletion of Builder Broker page - new section

This page should not be speedy deleted because... there is a whole industry that has been around for over 10 years, 10 years documented that is found so far, and there is nothing that you have that related to this industry.

I have removed the three links to the reference websites at the top, however I thought I was following the rules but first putting in the links for the referencs first - Section 4 - Gather references on " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creata_a_new_page"

The Estate Agents page was a base line for this insertion/ creation and being that way at the start of the text.

If I am to create a sandbox first and then place all of the information up then I can understand and will proceed as such.

Builder Broker - This is not related to any person, assoc or alike,it is a clear and instructions for a non biased piece of information about a industry, the same just like estate agents, that is directly related to every place on the planet that has the need for housing and pricing of that housing.

Sources for this are numerous, the ones that I choose to start include the association page and a website that seems to have alot about it. There is a large volume of traffic from Google that supports this, when doing a serach for the term Building Broker or Builder Broker in google.com.au. Link to such a search is here: http://www.google.com.au/#q=builder+broker&fp=2ef706e1a418876d&hl=en

This is not a "made up word" which may have been the start of this flagged process, as it clearly states not to just make up a word in the starting points. I totally agree with this.

This page must be directly linked with both the ;builder" page and the real estate agent page but its neither of these categories as well. Would love some helpful criticing of this. Thankyou for reading this.

--Nicole2H (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Builder broker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110404091315/http://www.builderbrokersassociation.asn.au/ to http://www.builderbrokersassociation.asn.au

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability and references

Hello North America -- From the guideline: Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them).

So it's a judgement call. If you or any editor reasonably believes there is a good article out there, the vote would be to keep the article. In this case, and thousands like it, five years have passed and no article turned up. Notice that the guidelines says have been published, so there is no reason to wait another five years.

You describe the possibility of finding a reference in a printed book; that's your reason to remove the PROD. OK, fine. If there is almost always a possibility of finding a good reference, then we should mount a campaign to get all of these tags removed:

• Needs references: 205,993
• Needs references (BLP): 2,693
• Needs more references: 314,956
• Needs more references (BLP): 49,760
• Needs in-text citations: 88,873
• Needs reliable references: 63,889
• Has unsourced quotes: 1,137
• Has unsourced statements: 325,873

That would remove a million tags from WP articles. Waddaya think? Rhadow (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)