This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bogorodica (talk | contribs) at 22:13, 3 June 2014 (Deletion review since article has reasonable notability and scientific standing although is a newer concept). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:13, 3 June 2014 by Bogorodica (talk | contribs) (Deletion review since article has reasonable notability and scientific standing although is a newer concept)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) < 2014 June 2 Deletion review archives: 2014 June 2014 June 4 >3 June 2014
]
- ] (]|||logs|]|) (])
<REASON>Bogorodica (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DVMt/sandbox
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DVMt/sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I lost 70 new citations that are not currently part of the main article page. I was going to gradually add the sections contained therein at the talk page. The editor who requested the deletion has a long standing issues ownership The current version suffers badly in readability as well and QuackGuru misrepresented the deletion proposal. It also stated I was indef blocked, which is not the case. I had done work to the page this year, negating concerns of staledraft, and the copyvio allegation was resolved by changing a few words. Regardless, I put in dozens of hours compiling additional references and they're gone. Also, I did not have a chance to address the comments that were posted because I was blocked and didn't feel I had the chance to address the concerns raised. Thank you for your consideration. DVMt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC) DVMt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please review the deletion of this page as one of it primary contributors I was surprised to see it deletion. In hindsight perhaps the timeline of the companies product could be less detailed and I am prepared to undertake this edit. However the timeline of products is important and this page was a valueable source and widely referenced. I have no connection to the company concerned and 99% percent of the products are out of production so the page was never an advert! A lot of other brands have this kind of page and thinking of other hobbiest type products have detailed pages including product details taking camera as an example. Unfortunately the moderator User:Mark_Arsten is no longer active so can't review the page deletion.Yachty4000 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)