Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 29

US Petrochemical (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am trying to create article on US Petrochemical someone has deleted this page and blocked it. Need assistance. Worldchem

Comment. The previous incarnations were deleted for lack of notability and for being written like spam. As such, restoring any of the old versions would be inappropriate. However, if you could display that this company is notable by providing multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the company, the protection can be removed and a new article written. Someguy1221 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion: if you think you can demonstrate notability and verifiability from reliable sources, the best way to proceed is to create an article in userspace (i.e. User:Worldchem/US Petrochemical, then bring that here for a new discussion. If the article was salted because of persistent spamming, you'll find people a lot more cooperative if you present a non-spammish draft for consideration. Checking the comments that on your personal talk page now, I highly recommend that you read the policies and guidelines I linked above before proceeding. Xtifr _tälk 08:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Eternum Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Subject is notable and contains references AtomicDog1471 12:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - no notes by AtomicDoc1471 of what the references are and the AfD was unequivical - Peripitus (Talk) 12:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• I think he means the addition of this reference: http://www.gameogre.com/reviewdirectory/reviews/Eternum_Online.php ; however, this mmorpg.com directory entry was already pointed out in the AfD. Marasmusine 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no RSs for notability, proper closure. DGG (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse G4 speedy deletion per Peripitus. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and refactor the AfD debate being speedy delete since the AfD debate was only one day and CSD A7 "No reasonable assertion of importance/significance" applies. As far as I can tell, neither Eternum Online nor eternumonline.com have ever been in the mainstream news. Since the AfD discussion was closed only after one day, it is unfair to allow CSD G4 (Recreation of deleted material) apply to this topic. This, this deletion review should be closed to make it clear that CSD G4 does not apply to this topic and/or refactor the AfD debate as being a speedy delete close. -- Jreferee t/c 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)