One could argue that Rule 3 already covers this:

3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate. EACH link in your post must include a description of content

Given the past history of overly strict interpretation of our ruleset by some mods and certain bad actors bent on consensus cracking, I try to take as generous of a stance as possible on what is "adequate" and let votes curate content. I'd rather err on the side of leaving something borderline up than deleting something that turned out to be important. In this case, while this submission could only be described as bare minimum, I felt the title did describe the key content of the link, and the ad was suspect.

I totally understand your frustration though (boy, do I!).

One way to decide whether to bother with a submission like this is to compare the number of views with the number of up vs. down votes. In this case, that's 116 views with only five upvotes and with 2 downvotes. The fact that 116 people looked at it but almost all felt it wasn't worth upvoting is pretty telling. Probably not worth your time.

Another problem with a really strict interpretation of Rule 3 is that it gets really time-consuming to enforce for mods when applied to a complicated submission with numerous links like @MercurysBall2 and @darkknight111 often make. They both usually do a great job describing linked content. But, to apply the rule fairly, every link has to be fully described and if even one lacks details, though the rest of the large submission is amazing, we would have to flair it and then remove it if they don't have time to edit in more information. I can tell from years past, this sucked for mods and researchers -- especially during a hot dig with lots of pieces the OP needed rapid help archiving researching.

Not saying no to an update of the rules. Just sharing my point of view. :-)