Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CubeSmart

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. No deletion rationale has been provided by nominator or anyone since. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CubeSmart

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

Basket _Feudalist 12:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publicly traded company is notable, only problem is lack of reliable sources. Fitnr (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hey Basket, can you please complete the AFD process and provide your reason or rationale for the nomination? Not sure how we can address your concerns if they haven't actually been presented. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 19:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not because it's a publicly traded company, but because it's a NYSE listed publicly traded company. We've essentially always kept such articles, except when they;re hopelessly promotional--and this one is neutral & factual. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 6 October 2013 (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.