The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The article was non-bias and described the service very well and was in my opinion a non-criteria for a speedy deletion. Ke5crz 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
While this DRV discussion was ongoing, the article was recreated. I have listed it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pownce. Corvus cornix 20:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This page was deleted several times because the content was spam (see here). However, a user recently created the article Benjamin 'Ben' Stewart about a television character, and I wasn't able to move it to this title, which I think would be a better page name for it. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 18:58, July 6, 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Orphaned talk page not actually orphaned... or maybe it was before, but it no longer is. Please undelete the talk page; it will be mighty useful in improving article content. Thanks! 65.112.197.16 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Speedied in the middle of a deletion discussion for CSD:A7, but movies are not currently included under A7. Request restoration pending a full AFD. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Page was deleted (by User:Renata3) as non-notable and copyright violation. Creating user claims to be the original author, so copyright issue is negligible but replaced by conflict-of-interest question. ;-) Have requested confirmation of identity from the editor in question (update: confirmed, see below), and am personally prepared to work with him to take care over COI. User recreated page after its (speedy) deletion, appears to have taken due care to present only factual information. "Juce C++" gets about 52,200 results on google, and there is a favourable review by The Register (that's a well-known UK technology site, for you lot on the wrong side of the Atlantic ;-P). In my opinion, this makes for significant independent coverage.
NB: As discussed on WP:COI, a COI is not grounds for deletion in itself. tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 09:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |