Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off plan

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 KEEP, but... destroy most of the material in the article, prune it down to a stub, slap an ((Expand)) tag on it, keep an eye on it, and hope somebody eventually makes a proper article of it. Herostratus 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off plan

Written as an advertisement for a property firm. I tried to clean it up a little by removing the linkspam, but it comes back. Wikipedia shouldn't be a free advertising service for real estate brokers. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 21:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and rewrite. Seems like a real process, but there is very little left to be salvaged in this article. --Daniel Olsen 00:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Google Web isn't the best research tool in this instance. All that it turned up were advertisements by real estate agents. Google Scholar is a far better tool, turning up a complete explanation of "buying off-plan" in Harry King (2003-11-01). Buy to Let in Spain: How to Invest in Spanish Property for Pleasure and Profit. How To Books Ltd, 105. ISBN 1857038908. , warnings about the pitfalls in Colin Barrow (2005-02-01). The Complete Guide To Buying Property In Portugal: Buying, Renting, Letting and Selling. Kogan Page, 56. ISBN 0749443030. , some discussion in Sarah Blandy and David Parsons (2004-10-05). "Affordable Housing and the Private Residential Market" (PDF). 3rd FIG Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific, Jakarta, Indonesia October 3–7, 2004: 11. , and some additional discussion in Seow Eng Ong, Fook Jam Cheng, Boaz Boon, and Tien Foo Sing (April 2003). "Oligopolistic bidding and pricing in real estate development: Experimental evidence". Journal of Property Investment & Finance (ISSN 1463-578X) 21 (2): 154–189. MCB UP Ltd. doi:10.1108/14635780310469120. . So the concept is definitely real, and not simply a marketing invention.

    However, this article is nowhere near being how an encyclopaedia article should look, and closely resembles the blurbs on the web sites of the aforementioned real estate agents. As Daniel Olsen says, a rewrite from scratch is in order. Uncle G 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Having now seen the first sentence of this edit, I now know why that is: It was written by the managing director of one of those real estate agents. Uncle G 00:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, it's a how-to in its present state. How long should we give it to be rewritten? JCScaliger 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well you can always make a start yourself, right now. ☺ Uncle G 00:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I have tagged it for a complete rewrite per this discussion. Daniel Case 15:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See also Property investment clubs and Buying off plan, similarly bad and created by the same "user," Ann@new-homes-direct.com. Can/should we tack those on here? - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Give them their own AFD's and post cross-links; if they are the same cruft, we don't want any confusion about them. Unless I am convinced otherwise, Delete unless rewritten by close of this AfD JCScaliger 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Convert to serious article - the topic is real - the article needs improvement. Turn it over to Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. Williamborg (Bill) 04:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 15:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Convert and block editors adding link spam. Rklawton 15:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Very spammy. --Dennis The TIger 02:14, 3 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.