- RentLaw.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
The AfD should have been allowed to run considerably longer than 9 minutes. Juliancolton speedy deleted it as a G11, the article though did not read like irredeemable spam to me, it was at worst somewhat promotional. The article should be undeleted and a new AfD started. Forward planning failure (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this user has been blocked indef as a sock of User:RMHED. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01
- 03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- The AfD is relevant. I stumbled upon this page while working at WP:UAA, and when I went to speedy delete it, I happened to notice that it was being discussed there. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, it most certainly was an attempt to advertise. Case in point: "RentLaw.com also encourages landlords, tenants and others to "join for free" and today has over 40,000 active members." –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite, which is the actual criterion. Blatant advertising has several markers that are not present in the above text. Blatant advertising is often written in the first person, and exhorts the reader in the second, for example. Blatant advertising would read something like "If you are a landlord or a tenant, we encourage you to join, as 40,000 members already have. It's free!". (This sort of text is regularly deleted under G11. My last G11 deletion was Fns dream homes, for example. That is blatant advertising. It has several distinctive features not present here.) The text that you are quoting, above, is, quite ironically, in a far less promotional form and is a lot closer to what an article would comprise after the very fundamental rewrite that the G11 criterion talks about. Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly can't see any legitimate information in the article, aside from perhaps the first sentence. Additionally, the user who created the article was most certainly a role account, judging by their username and behaviour. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Relist a presentation of the size of an organization is an indication of notability, not outright advertising. Saying that it's open to both sides, is relevant also. G11 is for articles that are so spammy they cannot be improved by normal editing, and this one is not in that class, though I have some doubts about notability. Julian, your closes are usually excellent, but this time you got impatient. DGG (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist Let's give the AfD a chance to experience a full life, rather than having it aborted after nine minutes. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The article was clearly spam:
History RentLaw.com was founded in 1998. The company was one of the first National Landlord Tenant Guides on the Internet. Much of RentLaw.com's early success was due to early direct marketing and newletters. The company also quickly became top among many search engines with little or no paid advetising. After first focusing on the New York / New Jersey markets the team at RentLaw.com quickly expanded the site to cover the entire US market. RentLaw.com has been featured in news articles both about Landlords and Tenants. With the guide now covering topics like Evictions, Security Depsosits and Section 8, the site contines to draw a diversified audience. RentLaw.com also encourages landlords, tenants and others to "join for free" and today has over 40,000 active members. Hispanic Edition In the winter of 2007, the team decided to expand its reach into the US Hispanic markets, one of the fastest gowing markets in the US
NO objection to a non-spamy NPOV version of the article being written and that can be done now without the process wankery of a5 day DRV folloowed by a 5 day AFD. The article can just be writen today. Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse with no objection towards recreation provided rewritten article is in an encyclopedic (i.e. not promotional) tone. Spam is not allowed on Wikipedia, notable or not; the creator must understand that the article must meet the applicable policies, i.e. it cannot be a copyright infringement, advertisement, or anything else that would otherwise fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. MuZemike 07:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Of the external links 2 pointed to the website that is the subject of the article, 1 links to a trivial news mention. The amount of references is reversely proportionate to its spamminess. If the nominator can rewrite this with better sources, I'd be happy to reconsider - Mgm|(talk) 09:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, textbook G11. As with all speedy deletions, there is no bar to recreating the article as long as the problems which led to the speedy deletion are overcome. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. I'm with DGG, this was potentially improvable and sourceable. I can't agree that it was "textbook" G11, though I do understand why an admin in a hurry might think so.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse per WP:BEFORE. The article wasn't improvable, so the speedy was within the realm of good-faith decision-making. That said, it couldn't have hurt too much to let the nomination sit for 24 hours and put an ((advertisement)) tag on the article. THF (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Note that Forward planning failure (talk · contribs)'s entire edit history consists of edit warring to remove db tags. "new" editor with an agenda. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "agenda" here seems to be to tell you that you are wrong. Sockpuppet or otherwise, xe was right about that. You were wrong, in treating the removal of a speedy deletion request as vandalism. You were wrong to edit war over the CSD notice, as you did here and at World Multiple Sclerosis Day. And you are wrong to be so determined to thwart the actions of one other person that you've completely lost sight of the issue to be determined here at Deletion Review — whether the deletion was correct or not — and are willing to argue that a deletion should stand with a rationale that is solely a xe-is-in-favour-so-I'm-therefore-against rationale. That's called wolf voting, by the way. The issue to address here is whether the speedy deletion criteria apply, whether to undelete the page, and whether to list the article at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy and send to AfD Spammy, but not horrible. Speedy wasn't unreasonable, but this was below the threshold of what I'd like to see get speedied as a G11. That there is likely a CoI is annoying and should be dealt with separately. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think we need to more carefully delineate the use of G11 if any good people here think think falls into that category. I would never delete an article like this via speedy G11, and don't even consider it borderline. If it contains information that could be used for a better article, it's not a speedy. Referencing is not necessary to prevent a speedy. A single google news search does not prove non-notability, and non-notability isnt a reason for speedy either. DGG (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse probably not G11, but given the sockpuppetry and 3RR violations, a reasonable application of WP:IAR.
Anyone who removes speedy tags from their own articles consents to the deletion in my view. Sockpuppet removed the tags, but my earlier comment stands. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allowing a speedy deletion to stand just because 3RR was violated by someone who wasn't even the article's creator is letting completely the wrong things affect one's judgement. There was pretty poor behaviour all around here, not least on the part of the editors who abused vandalism-rollback tools not only to reinstate a contested speedy deletion notice but also to remove subsequent talk page explanations of why that speedy deletion was contested as if they, too, were vandalism. That's a black mark against one administrator hopeful, but it's largely irrelevant to the issue to be decided at Deletion Review. The 3RR breaches of the editor who contested the speedy deletion are no more relevant than the abuses of vandalism rollback, talk page discourtesy, and tag teaming of the editors who were in favour of speedy deletion. What matters is whether any speedy deletion criteria apply. I wouldn't have speedily deleted the article, myself. Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Relist per DGG. No harm in letting the AFD run and it was not a clear cut case of G11 (because it was also informative and not "(...) exclusively promot[ing] some entity (...)"). Regards SoWhy 14:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
