User talk:F2002yann

Image:DSC02228.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DSC02228.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 17:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small note

Just letting you know that commenting on the talk page of a deleted article (ie, Overclock.net) is not the proper way to request that the article be undeleted. To request that the deletion be reviewed, deletion review is a much better option; there, your request will be seen by more people. Just thought you'd like to know. Have a good day. --Kyra_~(talk) 05:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are watching my talk page, but here is a copy of the reply I left there:

The steps for listing an article for deletion review can be found here. I think you were trying to edit the main deletion review page, which is why the text within the source was telling you not to edit it; here is the direct link to the edit page for today's log, where you can add the text. Just be sure to put the text underneath the HTML comment, which is after the "-->". If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire. Kyra_~(talk) 06:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overclock.net

I speedily closed the second DRV you've lodged on this article due to a lack of information. If you want to have the deletion of this article reviewed, you have to present the evidence of notability when you start the DRV. Saying that the site has been mentioned somewhere without providing a link is not enough, and forum posts on the site itself don't work regardless of what's on them. You have to provide the sources themselves, and they have to contain more than just mentions of the site (the site has to be the actual subject) - see WP:RS. Please wait a couple weeks before starting another review unless you can present information that shows notability per WP:WEB, which was the concern in the AFD. --Core desat 08:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea to collect information about the site as to why it should be kept on one of your userpages, then you could point it out to one of us (use my talk page if you like). If it looks good enough I'd even list for you on deletion review as soon as I get back! But yeah, get those sources first of all. Mathmo ^Talk 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you want a long explanation, please read my long comment in the AFD about what we look for. Follow at least some of the hyperlinked words in it. In one word: "sources". In a phrase, "sources that are 1) independent, 2) reliable, 3) published, and 4) offer non trivial content about the topic of the article." If you have further questions, ask on my talk page and I'll try to answer. GRBerry 20:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]