Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RentSeeker

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. Undisclosed paid editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RentSeeker

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

Article, written with a decidedly advertorial slant, about a company with no strong evidence of the reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:CORPDEPTH. This is based mainly on primary sources, with a small smattering of glancing namechecks of its existence in reliable source coverage of other things, which means none of the sources here assist notability at all. And for added bonus, all of those glancing namechecks in reliable sources are simply reference bombing one statement in the article -- namely "this website also published multiple reports and INFOGRAPHICs on the Canadian housing and rental markets which are used by economists, policy makers, journalists and real estate developers [insert 11 separate references]", which is not actually a notability claim at all. And I have some paid editing suspicions here as well -- I can't yet prove them outright, but the creator's only other major Wikipedia contribution to date is slathering the formerly neutral Domenico Vacca in a fresh sheen of advertorialized promotional bumf, which does dovetail with their username "Axtalent" sounding so much like a PR firm of some kind. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bearcat there is no paid editing or something else here. I think you must check the references deeply. It is just like Zillow a real estate business in Canada. I passionate to contribute, will looking help if my written style is promotional. I will appreciate if you can edit this content. Axtalent (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely per nominator. Clearly reference bombing and fails to use reliable sourcing. -- Dane ^talk 17:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also re: WP:PROMO, WP:NOTYELLOW. Puff-piece of no encyclopaedic interest to anyone but potential customers. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis}
Delete. Despite claims to the contrary, there's absolutely been violations of WP:PAID here. --Yamla (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete badly sourced and promotional. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2017 (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.