The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, issues with Google's cache should be reported to them directly, not by making pages on Wikipedia. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xcritic[edit]

Xcritic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Recreation of previously AFDed page, still no claims of notability that stand up Blowdart | ^talk 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Mr Kleiman is back pushing his own site, with the obvious conflict of interest and no changes to the article which was deleted last time, except this time there's some excuse hinting at libel because google cached the old talk page. Setting aside the legal threat as no changes have been made, the notability references are about the old site it was spun off fun and the page being exactly the same as last time the AFD should be a no-brainer. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note User:Gkleinman did not make a legal threat. Another user created a page at xcritic which was pretty clearly defamatory. That page was properly deleted, but unfortunately Google grabbed a cache copy during the brief period it was on Wikipedia. As I understand it, the Google cache will be reset next time Google crawls Wikipedia, so that is not a valid reason to keep this page. Gwernol 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course leaving it as a 404 would have been just as effective. Recreating an article that was soundly killed off, and one with a clear COI at that smacks of his self promotion again. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created as a stop gap to deal with the issue Gwernol mentions. I've submitted the page to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography so that the obvious wp:coi issues can be addressed. I think it's unfair for you to characterize my participation as you have. Since the page was deleted I've avoided WP:COI issues in my contributions, and have as per WP policy only suggested relevant links and sourced articles in discussion. Gkleinman (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh rubbish. Your problem is with google cache. So take it up with google, not a recreation of your own company vanity page. Oh and avoiding WP:COI since deletion? Adding yourself as a notable alumni to your old high school is *not* avoiding COI. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no moratorium on civility rules when participating in an AfD -- please use more care when discussing other users and article subjects in the future. Shell ^babelfish 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note There was a casing difference in the page name; the original page was XCritic; the afd is Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_7#XCritic_.28closed.29 here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blowdart (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note A quick check of google for XCritic did not list the "libellous" page or cached version in the first 5 pages of results. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note someone created XCritic as a pure attack page; it has been speedily deleted. This article appears to have been created in an attempt to over-write Google's cache of the attack page, unfortunately, it was created at Xcritic instead. Shell ^babelfish 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.