Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novogradac & Company LLP
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Novogradac & Company LLP
Advertising. The IP address for the SPA creating the article is San Francisco, the home city of the company, so I smell COI. I have twice now added the {{ad}} tag, which the editor has now twice deleted. This is clearly advertising. It reads as if it was ripped from the company's website. All of the edits are by SPAs. Note that User:1wombat1 is repeatedly removing the AfD tag. Looking at the history, the article has been PRODded and had cleanup and ad tags added, and the editors keep deleting all of the tags with no comments. Corvus cornix 22:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- The whole thing reads like an advertisement. Delete. ДҖ--Huanghe63talk 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Previous prod removed by anon IP. Look at the edit history: many of the older edits read "change approved by Michael Novogradac:" in effect, WP is hosting a second homepage for this company. Plus the article has no independent sources. Can someone warn the anon IP about removing the AfD tag? UnitedStatesian 23:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have warned. They have finally responded on my Talk page. Corvus cornix 23:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- The warnings have done no good, they keep deleting the tag even after four warnings including a final. I've listed them at WP:AIV. Corvus cornix 01:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have warned. They have finally responded on my Talk page. Corvus cornix 23:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am the original creator of the page. I am new to wiki editing. My original article was just a few paragraphs. It was then expanded heavily by another user. I saw "this page reads like an advertisement" tags every now and then, so I'd edit language that looked too glowing to be more neutral or cut things here and there. I would then remove the tag (thought if an administrator put it on it would be impossible for me to remove; it was possible to remove, so removed in conjunction with making edits.) Company is well-known in affordable housing and real estate sectors. Lack of controversy about company should not make page "non-neutral" should it? Page appears neutral to me. Some other editors actually made some productive edits to make it more concise, two others just slapped tags on and made threatening comments on my userpage "removing my tags is vandalism and very RUDE!" Luckily, other editors make good revisions to enhance quality instead of being on power trip. 1wombat1
- It seems a bit disingenuous to claim "I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to remove AfD tags" when the notice itself says "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." And your vandalism of Corvus cornix's user page didn't help matters. If you thought the article should be retained, why didn't you come here to comment, as the notice told you to? Deor 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I just found out that this page is a real location. Since the coding is so open, I thought Corvus Cornix was a rogue trying to cause grief by typing threatening stuff in the tag. Can't a person type ANYTHING in a tag, like "Don't remove this tag or your computer will be destroyed and you'll be arrested!"? Anyway, the page looks pretty concise now. I've done a few more edits today (without removing any tags even). 1wombat1 14 June 2007.
- It seems a bit disingenuous to claim "I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to remove AfD tags" when the notice itself says "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." And your vandalism of Corvus cornix's user page didn't help matters. If you thought the article should be retained, why didn't you come here to comment, as the notice told you to? Deor 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Bacon and spam, bacon eggs and spam, spam spam eggs bacon and spam, and rat tart. Groupthink 20:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless fixed -- It's just pure pink stuff in a rectangle can right now. Chainsaw it all off, find some notable references, fix, and report back. Shouldn't be hard, if there are any.--Mike18xx 03:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
