| Revision as of 07:18, 15 December 2006 editTawker (talk | contribs)Administrators18,670 edits →Frame Technology got speedied?: +r← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:37, 15 December 2006 edit undoBozMo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,164 edits →reverted the wrong oneNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| AntiVandalBot reverted the wrong one when it reverted me on ] today. ] ], 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | AntiVandalBot reverted the wrong one when it reverted me on ] today. ] ], 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == AfD == | |||
| Ref the early end to the last AfD thanks and you might like to close out ] too which is almost identical. --] ] 11:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:37, 15 December 2006
 | Tawker is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon. |
Ok, the bot takes care of almost everything I do, I'm swamped with work right now. I'm outta here. If you need anything urgent, email me. -- Tawker 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Tawker/Jan06. Sections without timestamps are not archived |
Archives (by month) @ User talk:Tawker/Archives
Frame Technology got speedied?
Hi there, I put a request for speedy deletion for the Frame Technology Coporation redirect to the Frame Technology page -- and see that just a couple of hours later, it was removed. Much more surprising: the Frame Technology page it pointed to was also deleted (for being non-notable.)
This surprises me for a couple of reasons -- first, there was no nomination to do this, so no chance for anyone to object. Second, Frame Technology was definitely notable for its time. It was responsible for Frame Maker, arguably a very significant application in the history of desktop publishing (eventually acquired by Adobe.)
Could this please be restored? It was never my intent to suggest that the article itself be removed, just the redirect. Thanks, --NapoliRoma 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can't speak to restoration or not, but as the name suggests, speedy deletions don't require nominations, they may be deleted by any administrator on sight, provided they meet the criteria. CSD tags are for the benefit of non-admins, who don't have the ability to delete on sight, but must notify an admin; tagging is indeed a notification matter, but it's a notification that the page should be deleted by the first person who comes along and can, not that the deletion needs to be discussed. Hope this helps with understanding why the page was deleted without tagging. Essjay (Talk) 05:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thanks -- I hadn't understood that nuance.
- (It strikes me that as a rule, non-notability is an easy one to misjudge unless you have encyclopedic knowledge of the area in question, and thus should only be a criterion for plain-old deletion candidacy, not speedy deletion.)--NapoliRoma 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, AVB has been acting up. In short, I thought that was also a speedy, taking a look at the page it looked like a nn-corp. Perhaps it can be merged w/ Frame Maker? -- Tawker 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
reverted the wrong one
AntiVandalBot reverted the wrong one when it reverted me on Zugzwang today. Bubba73 (talk), 18:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
AfD
Ref the early end to the last AfD thanks and you might like to close out Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopodia too which is almost identical. --BozMo talk 11:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)