- CADprofi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
CADprofi page has been created on April 2011. This page has been quite poorly created with almost no reference links and in a discussion debate at the end of April 2011 it has been voted to be deleted. After some time (aprox 8 months) I have created an another page CADprofi but this time with a text that meets the notability guideline? CADprofi page has been recreated, there was a new discussion and it was voted to stay in this discussion (which seems that was also deleted). Klimbert- No opinion yet on whether the company meets our
generally accepted inclusion criteria but the recent decision to preemptively protect the title after a single rewrite was patently in error. Wikipedia policy says that we are to limit protection to those areas necessary to protect the project. This appears to have been excessive. Rossami (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC) [reply
- Regarding "there was a new discussion and it was voted to stay in this discussion (which seems that was also deleted)", where did this take place? Are you claiming that that discussion itself was deleted? Tarc (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any other AfD's relevant to this page. I
thinkthought Klimbert means there was a discussion on the Talk page - but RHaworth didn't delete a talk page so I'm not sure. Without being able to see the content of the two deleted versions I can't really say about the G4. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see that Klimbert asked RHaworth about this before coming here, and was told 'Search this page for "decency". If you insist on trying to force an article in, go to deletion review.' [1] I do not see this as a very helpful reply -- though I can not figure out the meaning of the first sentence. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are various sentences along the lines of "kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your service is notable and writes about it here" on the archive which that entry appears on. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- temporarily restored both the article and the talk page for discussion at Deletion Review I too can find no other deletion discussion butthe original one; I think Osburn is right, that the article talk p. was the intended meaning. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- The article that was deleted was about a marginally notable company, but I think it would cut the mustard as a stub until someone expands it and adds citations.--Mblumber (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for all your answers. The discusion that is there at the moment is a discussion of the old article version from April 2011. There was a new discussion although I'm unsure if it was on the talk page or rather it was on the speedy deletion/deletion discussion page. I will try to find it in the archives. Klimbert
- Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy deletion. The speedied version[2] was clearly not a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" compared with the version deleted at AFD.[3] as is required for G4. It would be nice to see the later discussion but that would not validate the speedy. Thincat (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
