Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limeroad.com: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:09, 11 January 2017

Revision as of 14:37, 25 January 2022

Line 28:

*<s>'''Delete''' It is written like an advertisement. [[User:Runku4g|Runku4g]] ([[User talk:Runku4g|talk]]) 06:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)</s><br>

::<small>[Revert as per [[WP:BLOCKEVASION]] using strikethrough font.&nbsp; 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]</small>

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' I've blocked the article creator {{user|Himanshu.butta}} for spamming. Discussion should focus on whether the sanitized version of the article is worth keeping. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)<br />

<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->

*'''Keep''' sanitized version. It may be doomed to be a stub forever, but there are no rules against that. --[[User:CosmicAdventure|CosmicAdventure]] ([[User talk:CosmicAdventure|talk]]) 19:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' sanitised version. It's a bit better, but I'm still unconvinced by the sourcing. (Also, why are we sourcing claims about an Indian company's activities in India to not merely an English paper, but an English tabloid.) - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Line 37:

****I am saddened by your assumption of bad faith - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

*****I addressed a reasonable and legitimate question directly to a different editor, and you responded with the assertion that the answer to my question was "reasonably clear." Obviously it wasn't "reasonably clear" to me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question. And you didn't exactly "proceed with discussion", you in fact cast a whole new !vote, hence my very reasonable question about whether users were supposed to cast entirely new !votes after the break, or merely proceed with a discussion of a particular version of the article. The bad faith here was yours, not mine. [[User:Safehaven86|Safehaven86]] ([[User talk:Safehaven86|talk]]) 04:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

:This is still the same discussion, so everybody's opinion only counts once. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<fontspan style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</fontspan>]]</span></small> 05:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' -- the "sanitised version" is equally unconvincing. [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 06:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)