Angry Video Game Nerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Just want to make this a redirect to ScrewAttack Buc 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not? In case, the redirect should be protected. Tizio 15:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds good to me. --- RockMFR 16:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see anything wrong with the request (provided the redirect is protected).-Wafulz 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G.ho.st (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There are plenty of worthy articles on internet. G.ho.st has been reviewed in Red Herring, PC Magazine, Info world and thousands of Blogs. G.ho.st notability now is very high it returns nearly 120,000 Google results. Rami Abdulhadi 09:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Eight deletions, three protections; given G4, it would be difficult to claim that process was not followed here, although I can't see it ever having gone through XfD. One of the deleting admins did suggest DRV, but wouldn't AfD make more sense here? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Township of Asstree, Alabama. Heather 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• allow creation of new article if the sources are used. The last few deleted versions look like blatant advertisements with no salvageable content. JoshuaZ 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Changing to undelete and go to the 5 Feb version per below. JoshuaZ 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please remember that G4 is never appropriate unless there is an AfD (or other XfD for non-articels) soemwhere in the history -- it is not for things previously Speedy deleted. The original delete was a speedy under A7 -- which doesn't apply to articles about software anyway. All others cited G4 (repost). The most recent few versions are spammy, and if they were they only versions i would say this could bdeleted as blantent advertising under G11, and forget that an incorrect criterion might have been listed in the log. But IMO the version of 5 February 2007 by User:Adel.Hazboun is not spammy. The text of that version reads "G.ho.st is a hosted OS or WebOS developed by Ghost Inc. It is an acronym of Global Hosted Operating SysTem. It provides, over the web, a working environment that is similar to the classic desktop provided by personal computer operating systems. As a web based service users are able to create, save and return to a working environment from anywhere over the Internet. G.ho.st software is currently in alpha stage." (plus an info box, a list of features, and various links). Overturn as improperly speedy deleted (because G4 doesn't apply, and there is celarly enough of an assertion of notability to avoid A7 -- which doesn't apply anyway) and revert to the version of 5 Feb, or the best spam-free prior version. After which, cleanup and source, or face an AfD. DES ^(talk) 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point, I didn't notice the lack of AfD (however all of my G4 cited deletions also read hugely like spam to me). I am happy to abstain provided a neutral and non-spam article can be written (lacking, as I said in one of my email conversations with an owner, original research) but prepare for an AfD otherwise. (5th Feb version looks like a good base article to me.) Ian¹³/t 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I try to make a point of including a link to the afd in the deletion log when I do a G4 -- If I can't find one, a warning flag is up. But I can see how a recreation of a spammy article doesn't tempt one to double check the history fully. DES ^(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is certainly a point worth noting for the future. Thanks. Ian¹³/t 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, nothing new here. Congratulations to the requester on finding deletion review wiht his very first edit, though. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please overturn deletion This is Zvi from G.ho.st. I truly apologize if our initial article was premature (before notability) or appeared biased in any way - we have absolutely no intent to reduce the quality of Wikipedia's wonderful content in any way. I believe that Notability is very clear now after multiple articles in major magazines and thousands of blogs and a major award from InfoWorld. I promise that our future article, if allowed, will be brief, factual, and based on externally validated data only.
• Overturn and restore A prima facie case has been made for notability. Obviously notability may have been acquired recently, so the previous deletions carry little weight. Haddiscoe 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, but I don't think that a governmental agency fits under "people, groups, companies and web content" to which A7 is supposed to be limited. I don't know if this would survive an AfD or not, but IMO a speedy delete is not the best route for articles such as this. Clear evidence of notability might emerge at an AfD. Furthermore, from a very brief google search, it appears that the Commission was involved in a major class action suit over how cable television companies could or could not charge late fees, an action that influenced subsequent state-wide legislation. A scholarly account of the case is at this rand corp site, and a report on the legislation that refers to the Commission is at this state senate site. The site of the [http://www.secctv.org/downloads/about_SECC.pdf Sacramento Educational Cable Consortium] referred to the Commission, and this Multichannel news story discusses action by the commission on possible content restriction. of cable programming. In all I think the likelihood of a valid and useful article resulting is high. Overturn and expand. The deleting admin was requested to consider undeleting this -- no response has been made so far. DES ^(talk) 03:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have undeleted it.
  • At 20:59, 24 June 2007 User:Int21h created it.
  • At 21:22, 24 June 2007 User:Erechtheus speedy-delete-tagged it.
  • At 21:45, 24 June 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard deleted it.

Anthony Appleyard 05:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. DES ^(talk) 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added some of the sources cited above to the article. DES ^(talk) 06:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]