Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMAX International

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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RMAX International

There is already an entry for this company at RMAX (AfD discussion) which is the subject of a current AfD discussion (the creator of this page has voted on the AfD for RMAX, so he is aware of the existing page). This seems like part of an ongoing effort by User:B-ham to advertise topics related to Scott Sonnon. Dsreyn 00:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 01:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I thought RMAX had been selected for deletion, so I used Dragon Door Publications, which had never been contested, as a verbatim model so that it wouldn't cause anymore problems to create RMAX International. Now if you want to go ahead and contest Dragon Door Publications for deletion which I did not create, then that seems fair enough for me to consider dialogue on the issue. However, since Dragon Door Publications wasn't objected to, and RMAX International is just an inverse of that uncontested template, I fail to see what the problem is. B-ham 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem with the RMAX International page is spelled out quite clearly in the nomination above. In short, Wikipedia is not a forum for you to promote Scott Sonnon or related concerns, and you should not circumvent the AfD procedure by creating a new page for the same topic under a slightly different name. Also, this AfD nomination of RMAX International does not require you to agree to "consider dialogue". Incidentally, Dragon Door was previously deleted through AfD, so the fact that a new article has been created there hardly sets a good precedent to follow. You seem to assume that any existing page sets the bar for subsequent pages. However, there are always pages around that violate policies or procedure; the fact that nobody has contested them yet doesn't necessarily prove anything. Dsreyn 03:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Understood. Thanks for the clarification. B-ham 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMAX, the way for you to demonstrate that this is not original research is to cite sources where people independent of the inventor have written about this health system. (Testimonials published on the inventor's web site are not independent of the inventor, note.) Creating another article on the same topic, simply with a slight variation on the name, is not citing sources. Uncle G 09:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, please note that the existence of one article should not be considered precedence regarding the existence of another article, unless the former article had survived an AfD or something similar. Peyna 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Additionally, the page that had "never been contested" had only been in existence for about four hours when the RMAX International page was created. Dsreyn 02:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per comment by Dsreyn -Zappernapper 07:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bondegezou 12:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as this is essentially a copy of RMAX, though worded differently.--Isotope23 14:00, 8 September 2006 (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.