Elixio (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to request un-deletion of Elixio. Elixio is a global online community for business professionals.The network been around for about 5 years. Below articles mention Elixio as an emerging social network for business professionals:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/jun/21/social-networks-emerging

http://mashable.com/2012/02/19/niche-job-networking-websites/

http://www.business2community.com/b2b-perspective/4-b2b-social-media-networks-you-should-know-about-0153340

http://wave.wavemetrix.com/content/upcoming-social-networks-find-their-niche-00115

Kind regards, Elmaacho — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmaacho (talk)05:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and list at AfD so the community can decide. Imo the Guardian coverage puts it over the bar for speedy deletion and a proper discussion is warranted.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD I honestly think this was a reasonably speedy--I'm not sure a one paragraph mention is enough to "indicate the importance or significance" of the site. But given the other articles listed above this is probably a better case for AfD than speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore/list at AfD the source coverage provided is enough to warrant further review, and it was present in the article at the time of deletion. Hut 8.5 09:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is a spam magnet and the deletion processes and guidelines we currently have in place are insufficient to counter the flood of this type of article. User:Elmaacho ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is clearly a WP:SPA attempting to promote Elixio. It is a waste of editors time in putting it through the Afd process. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third Way (Belarus) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was speedily deleted as not indicating importance or significance. My memory (which may possibly be faulty) of reading this page before it was deleted is that it contained references to reliable sources, so those references were indications of importance or significance, which is supposed to be a lower standard than notability. I have attempted to resolve this with the deleting admin here and given a reminder here, but have had no reply, although that admin has been editing in the meantime. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of sources was as follows:

• My position for the moment is restore, unless and until Schuminweb has the courtesy to acknowledge Phil Bridger's question about this.—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck because of what Phil Bridger says below.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review. I was the one who tagged it for speedy deletion as A7; that was an error--I should instead have tagged it as G11. Judging from the Google translation of its website, ref. 2 above, I should have marked it as copyvio as well DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that this has been restored I see that it is a valid G11 deletion, although not a valid A7, so I'm happy to withdraw this request. This could have been handled much more simply if the deleting admin had replied to my questions. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Almost certainly a notable topic on which a good article could be written. But this article isn't even a good start other than a couple of the sources (maybe). So overturn as an A7, speedy as a copyright & G11 issue. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]