Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulk REO

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 merge . Merge discussions should take place on the appropriate article talk pages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk REO

edit
Bulk REO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is inherently spammy in nature and there aren't any reliable sources available to document it. While the article has been deleted and recreated 3 times over the past week and improved every time, the fundamental problem of a lack of references sources can't be overcome. Every google result I can find is either self published or a spam site. My PROD was contested by a likely IP vandal, but relisting at AfD so everyhing is above board. Request article be deleted and salted unless someone can find a way that this article can ever be well-written from a reliable source. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, still looks a bit spammy to me; if that could be overcome with an economically coherent description and non-spammy source (which describes the subject from an independent perspective rather than offering amazing deals or "free tips" for traders) then I would happily keep. I would oppose salting if there has been progress over time - ie. even if it gets deleted now, I wouldn't want to preclude the possibility of an acceptable article being written later. 18:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by bobrayner (talk • contribs) 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I have tried looking for such sources, but they simply don't exist, which is why it needs to be salted. Consider why we don't have a wikipedia article on ch3ap vi4gr4..... Sailsbystars (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to become a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)MBradleyUltimate[reply]

Doesn't change the fact that it fails notability and reliable sourcing guidelines. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CITATIONS added.MBradleyUltimate (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

INTERNAL WIKILINKS added. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect – Wouldn’t a merge and redirect to REO make sense here? I was able to find sources for the reference “Bulk REO”, as shown here [1]. However, not enough for a standalone article at this time. However, as “Bulk REO” is actually just a spinoff of REO a truly notable subject, it makes sense, in my opinion to just merge and redirect this article to REO. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's even worthy of mention.... most of those google news hits are self published PR pieces. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most but not all. I even found a Google Scholar hit on the term as shown here [2]. However, do agree, just not enough for a standalone piece. ShoesssS Talk 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the google scholar entry and it's not about bulk REO, just mentions it 5 times in passing in a 156 page report. That's the problem. It's not a separate concept from REO, it's just a simple combination of two words that don't form a unique or notable concept. So maybe a sentence in REO mentioning that properties are sometimes sold in bulk, but I can't see how one could even add that without committing WP:SYN, given available sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define how it differs from short sale And why this one is acceptable?MBradleyUltimate (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's nothing to disambiguate, and disambiguation is simply being used as an excuse to keep a non-notable topic. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is short sale acceptable? MBradleyUltimate (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is bulk purchasing acceptable? MBradleyUltimate (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is bulk buying acceptable? MBradleyUltimate (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect If you don't think they are acceptable, nominate them. They look to me like terms one could reasonably expect to be looked up. This just looks like a minor variant of REO. Peridon (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep. That looks more informative and useful. Peridon (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
short sale defines variants too. The point why I'm asking is that, they basically have the same form, purpose, template and yet they don't accept bulk REO. If you look at the history, this started out simple just like short sale. Then people kept asking for references, links. And I followed. But if you look at short sale, bulk purchasing, bulk buying they are considered acceptable. they all look the same. I need a valid reason for this. I dont see the point why you keep pulling it down and yet there are other terms out there that are considered acceptable. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to nominate them because I am using them as a benchmark. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the basic rules here is that the existence of one article doesn't give any other article a right to exist. Apart from which, articles should give information, and to be frank, I didn't get anything from this except that there is REO and Bulk REO. "Bulk REO can also refer to: * Bulk Purchasing - buying goods or services in large volume at a lower cost per item" - no, Bulk Purchasing is Bulk Purchasing of any sort of goods, but not usually real estate. Or, it can "refer to Real Estate Owned - properties that became under a lender's ownership after it has undergone foreclosure" - once again, that's not right as real estate owned is not of necessity 'bulk'. I am a real estate owner (to use the American term). I am not a bulk real estate owner. "Bulk REO or Bulk Real Estate Owned, at a real estate investor’s point of view, is like investing on wholesale real estate properties" - sort of. Well, I would expect bulk to be equivalent to wholesale in some ways. ('At' should be 'from', by the way.) Peridon (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Short sale looks reasonable to me. The other two look somewhat pointless as they stand and are tagged for lack of references. Peridon (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly and yet they do exist for about what 3 years and nobody even bothered deleting. I am doing the best I can to improve the article. Thank you for the suggestions and corrections. I'm learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBradleyUltimate (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the 'team' scrutinising new edits is working more keenly. I know that I'm finding much less spam and far fewer hoaxes than I did a year ago. Peridon (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I made updates. Would appreciate reviews and decisions as well on whether to delete it this or not. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peridon, I invite you to look at the sourcing for the article. The Article as it stands is OR, based on a a self published source (articlebase, and by the author of this wiki article no less! WP:COI anyone?) and a spam source (ultimatebulkreo). I see that the author of the article has added two seeming legitimate sources. However, the "wholesale REO" chapter in Millionaire RealEstate Mentor is available through google books[3] and doesn't support the information in the article. It talks about wholesale prices but says nothing about buying multiple properties. It also never calls it "bulk REO." The other book reference [4] is in a chapter that doesn't seem to be about bulk purchases either, although the actually cited page is redacted. Also, both books appear to be Get Rich Quick schemes, rather than scholarly tomes. Again, my challenge as in the nomination is for anyone to find a single reliable source documenting the topic as described in the article. Other wise, it fails WP:BASIC and should be deleted. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to accept a McGraw-~Hill publication until someone finds it doesn't refer to the subject. If anyone does check these hard copy books out, let us know. Peridon (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, those two books you have mentioned are published materials. Are you telling that they are not RELIABLE SOURCES? The chapter in Millionaire Real Estate Mentor, I do hope you read it thoroughly before you conclude that it doesn't talk about buying. The Chapter title itself talks about buying. It discusses the logic of buying bulk properties and how it works. By common sense, bulk and wholesale are synonymous. I agree with Peridon when mentioned that they are similar. The material is also published in 2003. New terms have sprouted after 7 to 10 years. When you do research for a material do you literally go for the exact word? I do believe as a researcher that if you look for sources you also go for terms that are similar to them. You haven't answered my previous questions also. Why is bulk buying, bulk purchasing and short sales even acceptable? You haven't answered that and instead look for another arguments. Delete them first.

From the list that you mentioned:

  1. It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by citing reliable sources. - I FOLLOWED.
  2. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. - I FOLLOWED.
  3. Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. - I FOLLOWED.

So now what? Another argument? I suggest you remove them first before you keep on asking for more. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link redirecting to website is removed to satisfy issues on spam sources. Suggest more for improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBradleyUltimate (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not every source is a reliable source. Not one of the sources you have currently cited qualifies, based on my experience. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to weak keep. I think there's still some room to improve the content, and the sources are not the best, but there are now four of them and I have no intention of recurrently biting a new editor who has tried to comply with suggestions so far by adding content and sources. I would still oppose salting if this article gets deleted; salting is a great tool if somebody keeps on hammering away creating a bad/invalid article with no attempt to comply with policy, but the AfD nomination acknowledged that progress had been made before, and I see more progress now, so I don't want to rule out the possibility of an better article appearing in future - I think salting would be the wrong tool in this case. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm too biased by having seen previous incarnations of the article and now deleted comments hinting that the article writing was bought and paid for (something along the lines of "I was assigned to write this article"), which is why I'm being perhaps more bitey and holding the article to a high standard. I'll let the rest of the community decide what's best and step back from this page. Also, I removed the salt portion from my request, since your reasoning is sound. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was assigned to write this article because the one who asked me is not techy enough to use Wikipedia (with all these naming conventions and special codes]. I believe that you should take responsibility of this conflict that you have started in order to avoid being a biter. Thank you for helping me out and making me realize lots of things here. I had so much as a newbie. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I know that AfD discussions should be about existential issues rather than content, but it would help me to get my head around whether this is a serious topic if someone could explain what is meant by "these properties sell for 40 to 60 percent lower than the actual market value". Surely the price that can be obtained for anything is precisely 100% of its actual market value? Or am I misunderstanding basic economics? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a little misleading but not wildly so. Prices, if accurate, are being compared to sales of similar goods in a subtly different market. For a related example, last year I planned to buy a house at auction; prices appeared a lot cheaper than conventional housebuying but that's because (a) it's harder to borrow money for this type of purchase, (b) the products on the markets are similar but not identical, as properties at auction usually needed a refurb, and (c) the buyer takes more risks because many of the consumer protections available in retail no longer apply. bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bulk_REO&oldid=1074870648"