|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Akanemoto ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache | MfD)) I create this page. This page include many pages and revisions. I want to see the pages. please restorning. -- Akanemoto ( talk) 06:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was kept due to popular vote, not consensus. None of the arguments which countered the Keep votes were addressed, merely ignored. The discussion did not attract enough users for a consensus. I move to either overturn the decision or relist the article for deletion and expand the discussion. Closing admin has no talk page, merely a link to deletion review. ScienceApe ( talk) 04:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
quite a few of the contributers who voted "Keep" were Jewish WTF!? Not only is this proposal for deletion absurd, but ScienceApe's standing is near zero if not less than zero after this statement. Close the deletion review already. Arguments for deleting the article mostly boil down to opposition to the theory (which I agree is pretty weak) rather than notability. CAVincent ( talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC) - After cooling down, I realize I was overly sensitive here and owe ScienceApe an apology for the personal attack (re: his standing). I'd remove it, but then part of his response wouldn't make sense. CAVincent ( talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Scripps Health ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Page was deleted citing G11. It is my feeling that the page in question was no more advertising that that of any of our local competitors: Or, for that matter, any other article on Wikipedia about a healthcare organization. Original article was created by members of the community and should thus be reinstated. I also feel that the former Scripps Health page did a good job in representing our organization's dedication to our community, our mission and our deep history. Issue was discussed at length with responsible admin to no avail. Markle1111 ( talk) 22:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Xdelta ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) I'm asking to undelete article about Xdelta tool from http://xdelta.org or you can create new article. Reasons are simple:
In short I see no need to deny Wikipedia visitors from rights to have this knowledge. I can see some benefits from this article for everyone interested in delta compression topic. The only persons who will really benefit from this deletion are manufacturers of commercial tools with same functionality who are surely interested to hide such knowledge as far as possible. 91.78.236.168 ( talk) 16:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Kink.com ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) This article was deleted by User:Orangemike under CSD criterion A7: 'doesn't assert importance or significance'. I would argue that the previous article did that; here is a cached version of the deleted page: [1]. It includes in-depth references from reliable sources such as the New York Times [2], the San Francisco Chronicle [3], the Village Voice [4] and 7x7 Magazine [5]. This article would arguably have passed AFD, had it been submitted. It may be on a topic distasteful to some (the website is a publisher of fetish pornography), but it definitely meets Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Hollis Mason ( talk) 04:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User:Akanemoto ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache | MfD)) I create this page. This page include many pages and revisions. I want to see the pages. please restorning. -- Akanemoto ( talk) 06:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was kept due to popular vote, not consensus. None of the arguments which countered the Keep votes were addressed, merely ignored. The discussion did not attract enough users for a consensus. I move to either overturn the decision or relist the article for deletion and expand the discussion. Closing admin has no talk page, merely a link to deletion review. ScienceApe ( talk) 04:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
quite a few of the contributers who voted "Keep" were Jewish WTF!? Not only is this proposal for deletion absurd, but ScienceApe's standing is near zero if not less than zero after this statement. Close the deletion review already. Arguments for deleting the article mostly boil down to opposition to the theory (which I agree is pretty weak) rather than notability. CAVincent ( talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC) - After cooling down, I realize I was overly sensitive here and owe ScienceApe an apology for the personal attack (re: his standing). I'd remove it, but then part of his response wouldn't make sense. CAVincent ( talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Scripps Health ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Page was deleted citing G11. It is my feeling that the page in question was no more advertising that that of any of our local competitors: Or, for that matter, any other article on Wikipedia about a healthcare organization. Original article was created by members of the community and should thus be reinstated. I also feel that the former Scripps Health page did a good job in representing our organization's dedication to our community, our mission and our deep history. Issue was discussed at length with responsible admin to no avail. Markle1111 ( talk) 22:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Xdelta ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) I'm asking to undelete article about Xdelta tool from http://xdelta.org or you can create new article. Reasons are simple:
In short I see no need to deny Wikipedia visitors from rights to have this knowledge. I can see some benefits from this article for everyone interested in delta compression topic. The only persons who will really benefit from this deletion are manufacturers of commercial tools with same functionality who are surely interested to hide such knowledge as far as possible. 91.78.236.168 ( talk) 16:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Kink.com ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) This article was deleted by User:Orangemike under CSD criterion A7: 'doesn't assert importance or significance'. I would argue that the previous article did that; here is a cached version of the deleted page: [1]. It includes in-depth references from reliable sources such as the New York Times [2], the San Francisco Chronicle [3], the Village Voice [4] and 7x7 Magazine [5]. This article would arguably have passed AFD, had it been submitted. It may be on a topic distasteful to some (the website is a publisher of fetish pornography), but it definitely meets Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Hollis Mason ( talk) 04:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |