Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company – G11 speedy deletion overturned. Closed early because of unanimous consensus. An AfD nomination remains possible if anybody wants to do this. – Sandstein 09:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Link to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Not spam; the company's main claim to notability arises from the Coopers & Lybrand audit failure and the Senatorial investigation into the company's collapse, which left the company unable to fully meet its obligations to its policyholders. You can view a few snippets of the report here. Compy book (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Restore although some parts of the article were spammy (particularly the second paragraph which reproduced sales brochures), this was balanced by negative material such as the company's collapse and the fact that "returns after the first year dropped dramatically". As the company went bust in 1991 there is no promotional motive in creating this article and we can be more lenient than we would otherwise be. Hut 8.5 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Overturn deletion, Restore and do not automatically list at AfD. I am surprised at the deleting admin, this doesn't look remotely close to being so "blatantly" promotional that a "fundamental rewrite" would be required. Even had this been a currently active company, this was not within the G11 speedy delete range in my view. It needs more sources and from them, more details, but in this case I will be astounded if those sources can't be found. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Overturn WP:G11. I did some searching, and didn't find any good sources. There's enough to pass WP:V for sure, but they're mostly routine coverage and I doubt they would pass WP:N. That being said, I don't see any way WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) applies. Based on my searching, I would argue to delete at AfD, but I could easily see this being kept, so WP:CSD clearly doesn't apply here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] On a procedural note, it doesn't look like the nom made any attempt to discuss this with the deleting admin. It's really a good idea to do that (and part of the instructions for listing something at DRV). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] The deleting admin has resigned his adminship and retired from Wikipedia. Compy book (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Wait, really? Bummer. clpo13_(talk) 23:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Yes see this. JzG has not edited since that edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Any perceived promotionalism - and I don't think this would have been a valid G11 even had the last revision been the only one - could have been solved by reverting to the version before this gutting of the article in 2012. —Cryptic 23:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Well i must say, that "gutting" does seem to have removed mostly unsourced content, some of it rather POV, although I wouldn't be surprised if it could be supported by sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] The sources were removed in the same edit. Inline referencing was almost unheard-of when the article was written, and it had never been updated. —Cryptic 08:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Allow listing at AfD. Someone wants a discussion, let them have it, it should be a right for any contest of G11 and many other speedies. The article should have been considered speedy-proof as a previously contested PROD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, G11 was an odd choice given that the company is apparently no longer in operation and the article discussed their poor investment returns and other financial woes; not typical subjects for marketing copy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply] SNOW overturn Not only did G11 not apply at all, no other speedy deletion criteria did. JzG essentially wheel warred when he used the tools in an inappropriate manner and without (that I can see...) discussion to undo what JohnCD had dutifully done by restoring a contested PROD a short time prior to the out-of-process speedy deletion. No other editor had tagged the article for speedy deletion, which makes the against-policy G11 that much more outrageous. There's no excuse for that conduct. Refer to AfD as desired, no prejudice against it. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company – G11 speedy deletion overturned. Closed early because of unanimous consensus. An AfD nomination remains possible if anybody wants to do this. – Sandstein 09:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Not spam; the company's main claim to notability arises from the Coopers & Lybrand audit failure and the Senatorial investigation into the company's collapse, which left the company unable to fully meet its obligations to its policyholders. You can view a few snippets of the report here. Compy book (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore although some parts of the article were spammy (particularly the second paragraph which reproduced sales brochures), this was balanced by negative material such as the company's collapse and the fact that "returns after the first year dropped dramatically". As the company went bust in 1991 there is no promotional motive in creating this article and we can be more lenient than we would otherwise be. Hut 8.5 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, Restore and do not automatically list at AfD. I am surprised at the deleting admin, this doesn't look remotely close to being so "blatantly" promotional that a "fundamental rewrite" would be required. Even had this been a currently active company, this was not within the G11 speedy delete range in my view. It needs more sources and from them, more details, but in this case I will be astounded if those sources can't be found. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn WP:G11. I did some searching, and didn't find any good sources. There's enough to pass WP:V for sure, but they're mostly routine coverage and I doubt they would pass WP:N. That being said, I don't see any way WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) applies. Based on my searching, I would argue to delete at AfD, but I could easily see this being kept, so WP:CSD clearly doesn't apply here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On a procedural note, it doesn't look like the nom made any attempt to discuss this with the deleting admin. It's really a good idea to do that (and part of the instructions for listing something at DRV). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The deleting admin has resigned his adminship and retired from Wikipedia. Compy book (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait, really? Bummer. clpo13_(talk) 23:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes see this. JzG has not edited since that edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any perceived promotionalism - and I don't think this would have been a valid G11 even had the last revision been the only one - could have been solved by reverting to the version before this gutting of the article in 2012. —Cryptic 23:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well i must say, that "gutting" does seem to have removed mostly unsourced content, some of it rather POV, although I wouldn't be surprised if it could be supported by sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources were removed in the same edit. Inline referencing was almost unheard-of when the article was written, and it had never been updated. —Cryptic 08:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Allow listing at AfD. Someone wants a discussion, let them have it, it should be a right for any contest of G11 and many other speedies. The article should have been considered speedy-proof as a previously contested PROD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, G11 was an odd choice given that the company is apparently no longer in operation and the article discussed their poor investment returns and other financial woes; not typical subjects for marketing copy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
SNOW overturn Not only did G11 not apply at all, no other speedy deletion criteria did. JzG essentially wheel warred when he used the tools in an inappropriate manner and without (that I can see...) discussion to undo what JohnCD had dutifully done by restoring a contested PROD a short time prior to the out-of-process speedy deletion. No other editor had tagged the article for speedy deletion, which makes the against-policy G11 that much more outrageous. There's no excuse for that conduct. Refer to AfD as desired, no prejudice against it. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.