Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Option arm definition

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 speedy delete using Copyright Judo by MONGO (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). Whilst this isn't strictly within the bounds of the speedy deletion criteria, I don't think that there will be much disagreement over whether we need text that is a copy of a copyrighted ("Copyright © 2000 - 2006 LynxBanc®") non-GFDL web page, that is "used by permission", when we have a perfectly good free content article on the subject at adjustable rate mortgage. Uncle G 10:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Option arm definition

Appears to be an advertisement masquerading as an article. The material is apparently taken ("by permission," although this is dubious, being unsourced) from lynxbanc.com. Several {{prod}} notices have been placed on the article, and both were deleted without explanation. Switchercat ^talk_cont 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A8 as copyvio of [1]. --Alan Au 01:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Alan - speedy delete. Bigtop 01:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Flag as copyvio. The speedy delete must be within 48 hours of creation. --Wafulz 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio with the likely intent of advertising. Just for your information though, you're not allowed to replace removed PROD tags. Removal, even without explanation, is considered a contesting of the tag (albeit a weak one), so the next step is AfD. In this case, speedy delete (which cannot be removed by the article creator) should have been used, but at any rate, don't replace removed PROD tags. -Elmer Clark 01:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry. It looked like it might be unintentional, because it wasn't mentioned in the edit summary, but I'll try avoiding that next time. Switchercat ^talk_cont 02:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and tagged as such. There is no need to clutter AfD with this obvious case. NTK 03:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Umm, just because an article is business-oriented doesn't make it "speedy-delete" "advertising". We already have something on this topic at Adjustable rate mortgage. I see no business name included in the article. Nevertheless, delete because the "used with permission" note at the bottom doesn't really suffice, and redirecting this article name is pointless. –Outriggr § 04:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, copyvio'd commercial content is speedy-able. See criterion A8. -Elmer Clark 04:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, whether copyvio or not, this is blatant, shameless advertising. JIP | Talk 06:30, 21 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.