PlayBox TV ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

PlayBox TV is a Television system created by Playbox Technology (also deleted). This system enabled small/community TV stations to transition to computerised broadcast systems. worldwide. Previously these types of stations had to use old, labour intensive equipment, which was often cast off by the commercial networks. The notability can be derived from this, and the fact that the software originates in Bulgaria.

Gordoux ( talk) 23:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment I've read the notability guidlines and they mention nothing about software being developed in Bulgaria as being automatically notable, nor the rest of your stuff. What it does mention is non-trivial coverage in multiple-independant reliable sources do they exist? I notice it was deleted as blatant advertising anyway... -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 08:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Gourdoux, all we would like to see if some sort of third-party coverage to indicate that there is some notability. The company's website, a press release, and a one-line note about the opening of an office in Atlanta doesn't seem like enough. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I deleted it as db-spam, and I haven't been contacted about this article before Stifle's note (thanks, Stifle). - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Cannon Beach City Center, Oregon ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The reason given for deleting was the lack of incoming links, but there is an incoming link. NE2 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Correction: The reason given for deleting was "implausible search term". As closing admin, I endorse my own decision.-- Aervanath ( talk) 04:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Which means absolutely nothing if it has incoming links. -- NE2 04:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The deletion appears good to me. Incoming links can be moved to the correct article. The existence of incoming links is not a reason to keep an inplausible search term. LK ( talk) 18:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Incoming links should not be changed; please read WP:R2D. -- NE2 19:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply
    • That's a misreading of WP:R2D which just says not to bother fixing working redirects. I reiterate, the existence of incoming links is not a reason to keep implausible search terms, incoming links can be fixed. LK ( talk) 04:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
      • It was a working redirect... -- NE2 13:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Why is the search term implausible? - Mgm| ^(talk) 05:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. I cannot imagine anyone typing this into the search box when looking for Cannon Beach, Oregon. Stifle ( talk) 15:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The search box is not all that redirects are for. -- NE2 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply
    • And is there some other reason why this should not be deleted as an implausible redirect? Stifle ( talk) 11:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, because there's an incoming link. -- NE2 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Removed as part of a larger edit to the article. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
          • Reverted per WP:R2D. This is getting silly. -- NE2 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
            • I appreciate that you did not revert the whole edit but only the part in dispute. However, WP:R2D does not support restoring a link to a redirect deleted through a deletion discussion. If this review overturns the RFD, then by all means restore the links, but until that happens... – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 23:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. While we do not delete redirects just because they have no incoming links, we also do not automatically keep redirects just because they do. By the way, the single useful incoming link was re-added unnecessarily by NE2 after it had been once removed. While WP:R2D does say that working redirects should, in general, not be replaced (except perhaps as part of a larger edit), it is a misreading of the guideline to assume that such edits, once made, should be reverted. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
  • You're the one misreading the guideline - note the part about redirects to a subtopic. -- NE2 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
    • In this case, there is no indication that either "Cannon Beach City Center, Oregon" or "Cannon Beach, Oregon city center" is a valid subtopic, either as a separate article or a section within the Cannon Beach, Oregon article. I've found nothing in the article (the phrase "city center" is not even present there) or via a Google search to suggest that it could be. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 21:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
      • You're saying that the center of a city is not a valid subtopic for the city? -- NE2 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Yes, it's not a valid "subtopic" for this town of less than 2,000 people? Does any city warrant a redirect page for its "city center"?-- Travis Thurston+ 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
          • Another unnecessary redirect page: North Bend City Center, Oregon. Why not just fix the links in the article? In response to WP:R2D, I recently found this policy to be helpful in these situations. I also feel that policy wp:own applies here too.-- Travis Thurston+ 23:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply
            • Linking to the subtopic is fixing them. A link of the form topic|subtopic should never exist. -- NE2 00:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Beating up ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• This page currently redirects to Assault, but around 3000 English Wikipedia pages mention beating-up. Some sort of distinction from other forms of assault is needed, more than can be fitted in a dictdef in Wiktionary. See Talk:Beating up, which includes a start at a new version trying to satisfy previous criticisms. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• How is this a question regarding deletion? Its an editing question relating to an article split. DGG ( talk) 20:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Since I took sides in the AfD about deleting the previous separate article Beating up, I thought I better get other people's opinions before I thought of re-making that article. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 20:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply

going back, the history seems a little odd: It was first given a SNOW KEEP at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up.. on Oct 5, 2008. It was renominated one week later none the less,at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up (2nd nomination) and got what amounted to a totally opposite result. The page was essentially an expanded list of definitions; Anthony supported deleting it; I thought it should be kept. DGG ( talk) 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close, this issue is not a review of a failure to follow the deletion process; it should be taken up on the relevant article talk page. Stifle ( talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Jet Set Zero ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

With regard to notability, the article meets Wikipedia guidelines to the point of the "presumption" of notability, owing to the [1] Robsward ( talk) 02:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply

It was deleted as advertising so I'm not sure what notability has to do with it at this stage. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion but allow recreation. The deleted article is not the worst offender I have seen when it comes to promoting its own stuff, but it did not do much to assert notability, and much of it was asking people to go to a certain website. If the nominator here thinks the subject is notable, I have no objection against the posting of an encyclopedic article on the topic. As far as I can see, there are no protections against recreating at this point, so feel free to be bold and post one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close nothing to do here, the article can be freely recreated as long as it addresses the issue that caused deletion. Might still be sent to AfD at some point, just like everything else. Hobit ( talk) 12:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment seems the article actually deleted and the subject of this review was Jet set zero which is now a redirect. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 14:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close as an article has been created which addresses the problems that caused the previous article to be deleted. Stifle ( talk) 15:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply