Cozi Central (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not Notable Kcizas 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find information on who deleted the page, but I'd like to request that it be reinstated. The product has gotten press recently from a variety of notable sources including The Wall Street Journal: http://solution.allthingsd.com/20070404/synch-family-schedules/, The Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003578591_brier19.html, and USA Today: http://www.usaweekend.com/06_issues/061224/061224calendars.html.

• Speedy undelete, contested prod. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeachersCount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Compliance with Wiki guidelines TeachersCount 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeachersCount is a non-profit organization. The entry about TeachersCount was written in an encyclopedaic tone. Outside references are included. The format follows wikipedia formatting. Content taken from the TeachersCount website has been released under the GRFL guidelines, as per an email sent to wikimedia. I've written to Veinor asking why the entry was taken down once again. I don't see any compelling reason why. Please help!!!!

TeachersCount 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chitika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The original Chitika page was created with every intent of being a balanced and unbiased representation of the company; however when the article was edited to include a small snippet of information about one of their products (that was admittedly biased), one of your administrators deleted the entire article, rather than the offending snippet. I politely ask that the original article (created on 12 April 2007), be restored Inasnap 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, doesn't actually appear to have been a spam deletion, but a woefully improper G4, which wouldn't apply to prodded articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Slap Rambling Man with a trout for saying 'General-4' in the deletion log in the most obvious situation where General-4 doesn't apply, but keep deleted as valid Articles-7 or General-11 deletion. No prejudice against creating an article that asserts notability and backs it up with reliable sources, as usual. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we undelete the history to be able to evaluate it for application of A7 or G11? Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'cache' link at the top of this thread should show a representative example of what was in the article... not a G11, arguably an A7, at a glance. --W.marsh 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn/afdSince the only previous deletion was a PROD, G4 isn't appropriate here. Send it to AFD where we can decide if this meets WP:CORP. --W.marsh 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Award Rambling man a trout for citing G4 on an article previously only deleted via PROD. The article was tagged for both G4 and WP:CSD#G11 (spam). The cache is representative of the final content. It sure looks like spam to me. I have no objection to giving it a run at AFD, even though I think it will need massive cleanup to avoid deletion. GRBerry 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most valuable comic books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was the thought of deleting it because "value" was not a proper thing to measure, but after I suggested that it be moved to List of most expensive comic books and be rewritten, all the comments seemed to agree with that idea, but the page was closed before any further discussion.And there are other similar article like most expensive paintings and list of most expensive photographs. Rodrigue 16:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, I wouldn't say the extent of the agreement implies the debate was about to turn around. However, I think this debate would not imply a restriction on creating a new article on List of most expensive comic books, which is certainly a distinct topic, but probably better to start fresh and provide sources. Mangojuice^talk 16:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Right now, the list is unsourced. If sourced, it will almost certainly violate copyright and therefore violate Wikipedia policy against posting other published lists. No new argument for overturning deletion has been made. It should be noted that Rodrigue has cheated, circumventing the AfD process by recreating the article under a barely different name, List of most expensive comic books, which is inappropriate. The previous AfD decided to delete, not to rename. Doczilla 07:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse deletion Hugely overwhelming consensus. Frivolous DRV from user with history of trying to make WP:POINT in regards to this subject. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per consensus of AfD and no new arguments, or just userfy the list to Rodrigue. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfication is not necessary - if you read the AfD, you'll see he just copied a table on first appearences from another article claiming that the comics listed were the "most valuable." That table still exists in the original parent article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not endorse delition - why is this a copy vio? Why can't we make a copy vio free page if it is? - Peregrine Fisher 08:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? Nobody said it was copyvio. Good grief, did you even read the AfD? Perhaps you are confusing it with the current article on AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, primary (and nominator's) complaint at AFD was original research, not bad naming. There is, obviously, no prejudice against creating a new, properly cited article (probably at the new name to address concerns that were raised), but if it's created the same way as the last one, it'll have to go too. No more guesswork, please! This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Xtifr _tälk 17:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FerrocementArmature drawing-1a.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:FerrocementArmature drawing-1a.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Upload log indicates this was a self-made image and uploader's (belated) comment at ifd [1] confirms this. If undeleted I will add an an appropriate copyright tag (probably gfdl-self) and add it to Ferrocement Nardman1 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming the picture is good and provides accurate specs and encyclopedic value, why not undelete it and add it to the article? So my vote, then, is conditional. If it's good, undelete. If it sucks (as many self-made things do), keep it deleted. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, and also delete Image:Graphic01.gif which is the same image. This is clearly a case of a well-meaning user submitting an image they created but no longer own. See upload logs for original upload summaries. Also, even if they do own the copyright I'm not clear they aren't just giving Wikipedia permission to use the image, which is insufficient. Mangojuice^talk 16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination, I'll work with the uploader on their talk page to properly tag the reuploaded image. Nardman1 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Arya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

someone sent me a message saying you're deleting this page. to all intents & purposes that's fine, I don't really mind, I just tried to increase the database slightly, if this is too much trouble I wont bother again, I'm not really that bothered anyway, Just trying to be helpful. All I would like to know is Why??? - the numpty who sent me the deletion request left the 'give reason for deletion here' text still intact, so it seemed a bit silly to me. If you want to delete it as it doesn't convene to regulations or whatever that's absolutely fine with me, I'd just like to understand why if possible, so if I decide to post anything further I wont make the same mistake - thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndyB3004 (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy undelete. Contested prod. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misfile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Author has had a book published through Demented Dragon[2] Starlightgirl 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC) — Starlightgirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And what difference does that make, does everything he touch now magically turn to gold or become notable somehow? --pgk 06:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, valid and nearly unanimous AFD, valid G4 speedy deletion. The Amazon link isn't even about the subject of the article, and even if it were, its sales rank is 370,252. The sales rank for the actual comic? 1,816,240, and Amazon doesn't even carry it anymore. --Coredesat 08:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, as Coredesat rightly says, no credible grounds to reverse deletion. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. No new information provided, process was carried out correctly. --Wafulz 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per all Sleep On It 09:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid processes throughout, new information does not provide sufficient grounds for overturn. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]