- 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. (non-admin closure) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- RentAHitman.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion of criminal services in a provocative manner. Article is nothing more than copies of crime reports and interview. Staberedu (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Note that I am the creator of this article. Nominator has provided no valid WP:DELREASON. They seem to consider this article promotes criminal activity but have misunderstood the site. It is a joke website that looks like the homepage of a contract killing organisation, but there are no "criminal services" provided. Subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources - Dumelow (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Joke — men received jail sentences. it's no place for anonymous police operations. There's no sources to corroborate the notability of the site itself. ~ujqy (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not many arguments to listen to, so far. But I’m thinking Keep. Nick Levine (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; it certainly doesn't read like an article promoting crime. On the contrary, the message is that if you attempt to purchase assassination by internet you're quite likely to get passed to the police. But most importantly: the site appears to have resulted in more than one news event, and it's attracted detailed attention from several reliable newspapers, so it probably qualifies for sustained notability. Elemimele (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep: Nominator provided no valid reason for deletion; additionally they seem to have misunderstood the article, and this misunderstanding seems to play a critical role in their nomination. No prejudice against renomination, but this nomination is so flawed it can't reasonably continue. Curbon7 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2022 (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.