Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RentLaw.com

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 March 18.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Icewedge (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RentLaw.com[edit]

Non-notable website, the speedy tag was removed by a "new" user whose only edits have been to edit war to remove db tags. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The edit warrior has turned out to be a sockpuppet of an indef-blocked troll. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. -- IRP ☎ 22:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Procedural use of relist to reflect on new AFD log for this discussion. This AFD was relisted at 15:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC). Please add new comments below this notice. Regards So Why 16:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on speedy Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - not a speedy candidate, not clear spam. Seems notable enough for inclusion, with sources like these. So Why 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete poorly written spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Fails WP:N and WP:WEB as well. Them From Space 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article was speedied before and taken to DRV where it was decided to let the AfD run it's course. So I bring it back here. --Tone 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm with SoWhy; I can see how this could be improvable, though it's not high on my personal list of priorities to do that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'nuff said. Untick (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert spam.--HidariMigi (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per WP:N, WP:ADVERT, and WP:COI (orig editor)
Delete - this is not a real property law article - it is spam. Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Source found by SoWhy is decent, but not really about the group. More like a person being quoted about something. If it happens a lot, they are notable. Here, it seems to trivial. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. The article linked by SoWhy does not appear to be about this site/company, so I don't see how it applies (even if they have a dial-a-quote from someone associated with it). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:52, 21 March 2009 (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.