- Tidy Trax (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I created a company in 1993/1994, due to acts of a collusion i was not able to sustain the company in my name, I wanted to make an article to gain public interest. The interest i should gain could aid in justifying "anyone's claim made against me" "to my company Tidy Trax". I have not used any Materials the discussion Highlights of the Current Companies Logos, or copyrighted Materials, I originally made a Wiki Page that could be edited By me and with ideas of other Wiki Users who could have edited the on the age what they did not think was liturgical . before i could continue to Edit the brief Article, people made comments on minor errors that i had made. I dd not see the reasons provided for the deletion of my article Tidy Trax a violation/Breach of Wikipedia guidelines to result on the Article to be deleted. The people who requested the article be deleted refuse to join in to the fun Wikipedia advertises for people to be able to discus/change/Edit articles people post in Wiki.
I see the Deletion of my article to be canceled, this would be fair. this would let me full use the skills Wiki has for users to abide by.
I wanted to highlight that the Article I created was created with full intention's to have Wiki members participate in editing the page , The people who made a commercial disputing against my post are having fun, gaining satisfaction by abusing the resources, every one involved in Wiki Promotes there web pages, and promotes commercial disputes. I decided to create an Article that could be edited without harassment from other Wiki users . If the Speedy deletion is canceled , then users would be able to use the Article i created as Wiki explains people can do
Vaio12343 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've just made a very good case for why it ought to remain deleted. Wikipedia is not intended for promotion, or to help someone maintain their side of a commercial dispute. Editing Wikipedia can be enjoyable, but it's not intended as "fun", but a opportunity to gain satisfaction from providing information about what's already notable as shown by 3rd party reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sustain this deletion. Best I can decipher, the person asking for review is either delusional or deeply confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia. I would also invite other editors to examine this individual's userpage, as it may violate our rules about attack pages and unsourced assertions of criminal activity by persons unnamed. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - the consensus was pretty clear on the AfD. The article itself made no real claims to the company's notability and was rather promotional in tone. If you're looking for a way to promote your company, you'd be better off looking at Gumtree as Wikipedia just isn't the place for this sort of thing. —BETTIA— talk 11:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. While AFD participation may have been a shade light, nothing said here indicates the close was inappropriate or that the subject has any claim to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Apart from the fact that the nominator appears to be a bit confused about the purpose of articles on Wikipedia, they do not provide a valid rationale for overturning the perfectly valid AfD result. If some reliable, independent sources could be found indicating the subject's notability then that would be a different matter, but none seem to be available -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 19:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - Though the AfD did not get much comment, the nominator seems to not quite understand the purpose of Wikipedia. What he says suggests that the article will be inherently in violation of WP:ADVERT and there is no indication that the company is notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as per everything the OP said (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion because, contrary to the implication in the nom, the original poster did not create, nor did he ever edit, the article Tidy Trax that this DRV is about. He did create a different article titled Tidy trax. If he wants to start a new DRV for Tidy trax, the article he did create, he should start a new DRV; this one has already been going on for five days and it wouldn't be reasonable to change which article this DRV is about when so many people have already provided their recommendations. However, I would note that Tidy trax was completely unsourced and written in an autobiographical style, and so it is unlikely that it would be restored in any event. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly deleting admin comments Metropolitan90 brings up a great point. I don't know which article this DRV was intended for, but if it truly was for the AFD I closed, then I wasn't notified of this and my lack of participation was not intended to be a slight to anyone.--v/r - TP 18:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
