Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office warranty


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Office warranty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article implies that an "office warranty" is a standard part of commercial real estate law, but it is actually a neologism. Googling the phrase returns this article, a recently-founded and very Internet-marketing-savvy company specializing in office warranties, and basically nothing else. Meanwhile the creating editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and is believed to be a paid editor (according to the blocking administrator's comment).

There is no speedy deletion criteria which precisely fits this situation, but I do believe the article should be deleted, and the sooner the better. Thparkth (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete this is maybe a Wiktionary entry and the one source that was provided was about something different. fwiw I was investigating some things on Elance and found a job asking for a WP article on "office warranty" to be created. The editor who created this has been subsequently indeffed for socking and if you look at the socks they all have all the hallmarks of freelancers (paid editors).  again, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - In the absence of references, no evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Does G5 apply? Adam9007 (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically no, because the user was not blocked at the time the article was created (in any of his personas). Having said that it, the block came only a few hours later, and I personally would definitely look the other way if an admin decided "close enough is good enough" and deleted it as G5. Thparkth (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised if this gets snow deleted anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Let's see...which of the several compelling reasons for deleting shall I go with... unsourced? sockpuppet? dicdef? .. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - complete blank on sources, looks like something somebody made up one day if I'm honest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ritchie. Made up content should be deleted on sight. No google hits. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2016 (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.