In Automatic Lease Renewal Laws in Washington State the OP asked if a particular law, to which a link was given, applied to a particular situation. It was clearly not a request for legal advice, because the OP said the matter had been settled by tenant and landlord signing a new lease, so it was a curiosity-based question about what the law would have provided had agreement not been reached.
It turned out that the section of law cited applied to mobile home lots, and the law that applies to house rentals is different (with yet a third section applying to commercial leases). An answer has now been provided that cites the two applicable sections of state law, and analyzes the more complex one.
After that answer was posted, and edit was made removing the backstory and details, with the stated reason:
Removed irrelevant situation (Law SE cannot provide legal advice to specific situations, and OP has since changed to seeking similar laws, making it doubly unnecessary).
It is my view that the situation given in the original question significantly helped other understand the reason for the question, and how the answer applied to this and similar situations, exactly as SE threads should do. Law SE threads can and often do respond to quite specific situations and hypothetical as long as they are not requests for legal advice, which this was clearly not, as mentioned above.
I have therefore rolled back the edit above. But I am bringing it here for discussion.
Should this or a similar edit have removed the situation described in the original question? Why or why not?