Wikipedia:Deletion review/Upfront Rewards


 * The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep deleted. - brenneman  {L} 07:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Upfront Rewards

 * 16:09, 3 April 2006 Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", providing the edit summary: (complete slander). Now, obviously, his claim is false; one could argue that it's libel, but it's certainly not slander!  But that's just a technicality, and I don't mean to engage in Wikilawyering, other than for comic effect; Zanimum just doesn't know the meaning of the word 'slander'. Seriously, Zanimum deleted "Upfront Rewards", apparently because he felt it was libelous. However, he deleted a large amount of sourced, verifiable content as well, and I also dispute that it was libelous (I would opine that speedy deletion, which seems to be what occured, is appropriate in actual cases of libel.)  If someone could restore, and/or make available to me the deleted version (this?), so we can come to some amicable agreement as to what is appropriate for the article, (and slander :) ) that would be appreciated.  In addition, opinions as to what in the deleted article might have been considered libelous, given the verifiable sources, would be appreciated as well.  There were efforts to balance the article - inclusion of positive and negative statements; admittedly, it could be less disparaging, and I'll work more on that.  I would like to work toward restoring sourced claims while respecting NPOV and avoiding libelous statements.  Efforts to resolve the issue have failed - Zanimum has been unresponsive to posts to the page and Talk:Upfront_Rewards.  Prior to the deletion, I had done research to find further sources to back up other claims I added and would like to add, and was the only editor to make any effort to reconcile views (IIRC).  I'm happy to hash this all out on the :talk page prior to edits of the article. Elvey 04:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As requested, I have reviewed the deleted content. While it probably did not qualify for any of the narrow speedy-deletion criteria, I decline to undelete it.  I concur with Zanimum's core assessment that the deleted content was inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  If an article on this topic is appropriate, it will be better to start the article from scratch.  Rossami (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not really what I (intended to) request but thanks for your time. The content of the deleted article is what I asked for. I do have a valid email address registered, for.
 * Would an admin please make it available?
 * Hello? Would someone email it to me?
 * Email it to whom? Please sign your posts with ~ . Stifle (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's obviously Elvey, three lines up.  &middot; rodii &middot;  11:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. Still looking for help in this regard. I'd also like the history; to research IPs and such of editors.  Rossami, be so civil as not to delete this, thanks.  Stifle, are you going to send it? --Elvey 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Upfront Rewards refers. 4:1 delete, plus nom, with  above the sole Keep vote. I'm not sure if Elvey wants the version as deleted or his original hatchet job, but it's hard to think why anyone would want either. Just zis Guy you know? 19:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.