Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Stonecold GX

• Stonecold GX · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Stonecold GX has produced smash hit tracks suck as Danger produced by DJ PALEFACE. -178.103.54.86 (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Henry William Adamson

• Henry William Adamson · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I am clearly the copyright owner and have the right to donate this article to wikipedia -Tombaine (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am the owner of this copyrighted material. These editors keep referring to an article I submitted to another site (I'm listed as the owner of the work on that site) and keep falsely accusing me of plagiarism. If they had enough sense and looked at the other article, they'd easily see that I wrote the thing. I'm getting tired of this nonsense. This article is about one of the first doctors in Tattnall County, Georgia, in the pre-Civil War south. I'm tired of being disrespected by "editors" who are sloppy in what they do and just go around deleting other peoples' work at whims. I am very angry about this. I insist that the article be reposted, along with the picture.

Tom Baine 904-374-9745

 Not done Please read the multiple explanations that you have received on your talk page - Moonriddengirl said this very well. Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or WP:OTRS or Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials - and note that this process does take time. Skier Dude (talk 23:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ian Hamish Fletcher

• Ian Hamish Fletcher · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I may not be famous, but I am the author of a well-respected book; see www.freetradedoesntwork.com-38.99.26.215 (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request, user SchuminWeb (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Csi whiterabbit.PNG

• File:Csi whiterabbit.PNG · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This is not my image, but is useful to article, I will fix it, et al, thank you! -Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, not what was expected, I will get it redeleted, sorry.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_sour.jpg

• Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_sour.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

There was a bot error that filed a delete request based on the file being orphaned, however it is not orphaned, and is currently in use. -John Holmes II (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the top of this page. This process has nothing to do with the pending deletion of any page but for pages that have been deleted already. By the way, the deletion request for the file was removed by the bot after an edit that de-linked the image by breaking the infobox formatting, here, was fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Floating Point Studios

Hi,

I inputted a Wiki of our game development company basied in Swansea, South Wales UK called Floating Point Studios. We are developing several innovative and original titles. The page was outright deleted. I cannot find any remains of the page through deletion review or any other tools. Here is our website: www.floatingpointstudios.co.uk

Why was the page immediately deleted?

Why are other more established game developers allowed to have huge and detailed Wiki pages?

Why was no reason given for the deletion?

Please could you look into this.

I can be contacted at <email address remove for security>

Thanks in advance! Chris Davies

 Not done The page was deleted as blatant advertising per section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, as shown at its deletion log entry here, but it also could have been deleted under CSD section A7 as an article on a company that did not indicate any importance or significance. Wikipedia (not wiki) is an encyclopedia and only has articles on notable and verifiable topics that reliable, third party sources have published about in detail. Putting aside the promotional tone of the article, and your conflict of interest in writing it, this article does not appear to meet our policies and guidelines for inclusion. I checked Google books and news Archive and there is no mention of the company. You also mentioned in the article that the company is "currently developing" two games, implying that it is "up and coming". Please understand that none of this is a comment on the merit of your company, but only that it does not meet the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Brunei under the Residential System

• Brunei under the Residential System · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

we want the article to be undeleted because its actually our group work/project. We need to have it back, because this is one of our assignment. Please undelete it back. Thank you. -119.160.132.180 (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was removed because it was original research. Wikipedia is a reference project and has no place for original research and synthesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JuJube

• User_talk:JuJube · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

User:Jujube page states "His user and talk pages are preserved as a memorial.", but his talk page links only direct to the user page. -Joe zaza (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

His talk page is preserved, as in not deleted Here is his talk page's history from which you can access it as of every date it was ever edited. This is what is meant by preservation. It would make little sense for users coming across Jujube's edits who wanted to drop him a note to not be informed that he is deceased, and thus end up leaving a message. The redirect is proper and should remain. If you don't understand how to access the talk page directly through the redirect, please see Help:Redirect#How it appears to the user.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Andre Keuck

• Andre Keuck · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Because I watched Zero day which was quite a major film, and I was impressed with the improvisational acting of Andre Keuck and Cal Robertson, so I went to read about them, Cal Robertsons page was there but Andre Keucks had been removed, and I wanted to read about such a talent, it's not really helpful to have talented actors who are in good films not listed on a page such as this. It was originally deleted because there was apparently: "no indication that it met the criteria for inclusion" well I don't know what genius has come to that conclusion, when he is the starring role in a film you have listed and his co star also has a page, seems a bit odd don't you think -86.133.229.22 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think. People start articles on all kinds of worthy topics but what they write is: I LOVE HIM! or (insert all capital letters defamatory insult); they infringe on a person or company's copyright by copying and pasting text from an external source, they gush praise but assert no facts (much less cite to reliable sources for the material they add as is required for both notability and verification purposes and is especially required for articles on living persons); they post nonsense and they write one uninformative sentence and that's all; and more. We delete thousands of articles a day for these reasons. This particular article was about a living person but contained no sources. It was literally three sentences in total and it had no sources in violation of the BLP policy, and it failed to indicate why this actor was important in any way. So it may be that he's a worthy subject for a good article that comports with our policies but this wasn't it. You are free to create an account and write a proper article, but this one will not be undeleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Arts and Science Undergraduate Society

• Arts and Science Undergraduate Society · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This page was wrongfully deleted as a prank, probably motivated by inter-faculty rivalry within Queen's University. While it is true that the AMS is the over arching government at Queen's - every faculty under it has their own autonomous, respective government. View http://asus.yolasite.com/ to see their official site. -69.159.70.2 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The deletion was not due to a belief that they don't exist; but rather due to a conclusion that they are not notable enough to merit an article in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nikita Zhitov

• Nikita Zhitov · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

not sure why article was deleted, I posted information about myself with external links and references -Nikita Zhitov (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• The article was deleted (As your userpage may also be) because it was a venue for self-promotion, not an encyclopedia article. Please read our guidance on editing subjects close to you. Protonk (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Because like your userpage, it's a blatant self-advertisement for a non-noticeable businessman. Read WP:AUTO and WP:COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Zambia at the 2010 Commonwealth Games

• Zambia at the 2010 Commonwealth Games · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Deleted because it was an expired prod. I intend to expand the article. -Banana (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

TNSF

• TNSF · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

TNSF is a Non-Governmental Organisation for promoting Science and Literacy. It has contributed many social projects along with the Department of Science and Technology. It is host of coming 18th National Children Science Congress, conducted every year by DST, at chennai. Telling about an active voluntary organization willnot be an advertisement, I hope. So, i request to undelete the article which was deleted before completion. -Spsarathy72 (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to promote your noble cause. If the organization is not notable, the article will be deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve White (Sailor)

• Steve White (Sailor) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

OTRS 2010092710004544 raised with an offer to release text copyright - I would like to see the page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. -Fæ (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very spammy advertisement/"biography" of an obscure businessman/sailor, and was created by an account whose name (White Ocean Racing) is the name of his business! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to userfy? As for rejecting the OTRS release (presumably on the basis that it would be a G11 failure), I'll be guided by your judgement as I have not seen the article myself. Fæ (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Very much a G11, with language like, "Despite the funding challenges which threatened to prevent him from even reaching the start line, Steve White has now firmly established himself as one of the world’s elite... placing him in the company of legends.... His results are no surprise to those who know this quiet man of sailing, but Steve’s story is by no means finished.... All this has been achieved without a major sponsor. Just imagine what could be possible with one.........with the support of his family and friends". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll reject the OTRS request on the basis that undeletion is refused on G11 grounds rather than just copyright. I will suggest they could draft a new non-advertisement version, where a copyright release notice may be applied if they still need it, and they can then submit to RFF before attempting to re-issue. Fæ (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Beaufot Scale

• Beaufort Scale · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

reasoning -92.0.211.145 (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

i accudentailly deleted the scale and it will not come back please put it back right

Fixed; all you need to do is use the "undo" function. Acroterion _(talk) 13:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Gennum Corp.

Gennum · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Gennum Corp. |notification was not received prior to deletion of page

on July 13, 2006 "Robocoder" moved Gennum to Gennum Corp. on May 10, 2010 "Miracle Pen" moved Gennum Corp. to Gennum and "Gennum Corp. page was redirected on August 3, 2010 (12:41) "JamesBWatson" deleted Gennum due to "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion" on August 3, 2010 (19:18) "RHaworth" deleted Gennum Corp due to "G8:redirect to a deleted or non existent page")

This page was a corporate history and profile of the Gennum Corporation an international company and it was also linked to the "Douglas Barber" page a profile of the founder of Gennum. No notification was made to us prior to deletion. Wikipedia allows for corporations to display pages, several of our clients have pages on Wikipedia such as; Sony, Panasonic and Harris Corporation.

Please notify me as soon as possible why the page was deleted without proper notification and rights of appeal by James B Watson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gennum corp (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 September 2010

•  Not done The page was summarily deleted through the speedy deletion process because an editor and an admin felt it represented blatant promotion of the corporation, not an encyclopedia article. If you would like to appeal the decision, please see deletion review. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment requester Gennum corp (talk · contribs) spam-username-blocked. I will add to the block notice on their talk page some further explanation and links. JohnCD (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• 1. "Wikipedia allows for corporations to display pages" - FALSE. We have very strict rules to prevent advertisements and conflict-of-interest edits in Wikipedia.
• 2. "several of our clients have pages on Wikipedia " FALSE. Nobody "has" articles in Wikipedia. There may or may not be articles about companies; but those articles by definition are subject to edits and to our standards about neutrality, verifiability and notability.
• 3. That "we" in your edit, like your username, is a bad sign that you don't realize we have an absolute prohibition on accounts used by more than one human being, be it a club, a corporation, a quartet or whatever.
• 4. James did what adminstrators are supposed to do: deleted an obvious advertisement by a prohibited editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• A subsidiary is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gennum's Snowbush IP Group. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad Trip Records

• Bad Trip Records · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

Deleted due to: Expired PROD, concern was: "no evidence that this company is notablie": -- "Bad Trip Records" is notable as the DIY label on which the Angry Samoans released the albums "Inside My Brain" and "Back from Samoa". All are unquestionably WP:N per print WP:RS--"The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll: The Definitive History of the Most Important Artists and Their Music" (1992); Bad Trip Records is also referred to in many other sources both in print and on the web, e.g., http://www.discogs.com/label/Bad+Trip+Records+%282%29 and http://rateyourmusic.com/label/bad_trip_records/. Bad Trip Records is not only notable historically, but is a going concern. Note that the article for Bad Trip was created independently--not by Bad Trip, the band, or associates--and also that this label was the first to use the name. -bonze blayk (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user Oo7565 (talk · contribs), who proposed it for deletion, in case they wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. The article needs to establish notability by adding some references to show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - at present there is only their own website. JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Dreamscapes Project

• The Dreamscapes Project · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Deleted as an uncontested PROD with a reason of no reliable sources, asking for restoration at the request of the band, their own press page [[1]] suggests that multiple mainstream sources are available -Kmusser (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Courcelles 19:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Imp (television series)

• The Imp (television series) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

The article had significant coverage. The article was deleted with the reason that it's not on IMDB. IMDB does not determine notability. -Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Courcelles 21:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Brothers Fine Art Restoration

• Oliver Brothers Fine Art Restoration · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

history -Mbboston (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern,

I have created this article, to document 160 years of the history of Oliver Brothers. Oliver Brothers is a significant organization in the history of American art restoration. This article article is written in factual terms. This is not advertisement or spam, but historical factual data with references to archives in the Smithsonian Institute and the New York Historical Society. Could you please advice on reasons for labeling this company history spam? I would be very happy to improve this article by adding photos and additional documentation. Please advice.

• This isn't really the place to answer questions like that, but my first suggestion would be to look at some reliable, independent sourcing on the subject and attempt to build the article from those sources alone. Articles written about businesses or organizations which focus heavily on the details of the proprietors or their incorporation may be viewed as more of an advertisement for that organization than a neutral encyclopedia article. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Voodoochilli.net

• Voodoochilli.net · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

I kindly wanted to ask that you review the decision to delete this page. 4 years ago when it was deleted the main reason was it was not notable, the most often cited criteria is alexa ranking Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Voodoochilli.net

"Non-notable website. Its Alexa ranking is 1,605,401. The article says that it has a volunteer staff of "a web developer, an art editor and several administrators". Google has 590 hits, most of which look self-generated. None of the criteria in WP:WEB seem to be met." I think at the time this assessment was fair but the site has grown significantly in popularity since then. I personally don't think Alexa is accurate except for the really large sites, however since 2006 the site has gained in rank by approximately 1 million places with a global rank of 635K [2] Which is far higher than many other sites listed in similar categories [3]. Google now returns 25,000 hits instead of 590 and the site has been featured in many books, magazines and newspapers see [4][5][6][7]. Additionally a page has been constructed outlining the sites history [8].

As founder of the site I admit that I am unable to write a non biased encyclopaedic description of the site and merits, however I do believe it meets all of the WP:WEB criteria and I do believe the site is notable for the following additional reasons, and would ask that someone kindly start the page:

• It has nearly 11,000 members, more than listed on many featured on the list of social networking sites
• It is a niche site and has importance within the online art community
• It was one of the first free online portfolio websites to offer free uploading of images without critical or artistic judgement
• It has over 40,000 art pages and approximately 20,000 art pieces [9][10]
• It's image of the month competition [11]
• Books, magazines and websites that have mentioned it [12] -Voodoochilli (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Some comments. First, although old, the deletion debate was pretty unanimous, so I don't want to unilaterally overturn it here. That said, both the site and our article standards have changed in the intervening four years. I see from your username that you may be associated with (or just be a fan of) the site. My first suggestion is that you apply for a username change or start a new account as we have pretty strict rules regarding organizational or promotional usernames. My second bit of advice is to point you toward our guidance on appropriate sourcing and inclusion. If you feel this site has enough reliable sourcing for an independent editor to build a neutral article, then start collecting those sources and make a draft article in your userspace or in the article creation wizard. If and when you think you have found enough sources, I (or any other active admin) can help you appeal the deletion at deletion review. Seems like a lot of process, but we don't want to give you bad advice or undermine the decision of those editors in the original deletion debate. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. This is my new account harbutt Thank you for the time you have taken to explain this to me.

Dragon's Kingdom

• Dragon's Kingdom · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

OTRS 2010092610007678 raised with an offer to release copyright on http://www.dkrpg.com - The page was deleted as G12, I would like to see the page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. -Fæ (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Undeleted and sent to AfD. Sounds bureaucratic, but it is easiest to let these things get hashed out in a discussion. Thanks for the note. What template do I put on the talk page to show that there is a ticket in for this page? Protonk (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Done - I've added a notice to the talk page as the OTRS volunteer involved. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandemans New Europe

• Sandemans New Europe · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

An A7 claim was made, though the artilce noted that the subject at hand had fundamentally altered tourism in Europe, obviously negating an A7. Further, I think it might be the case that the article was deleted by a good but otherwise biased deleting administrator (see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lankiveil ). Though this particular individual is on the list of those that maintain copies of deletions I have as of yet found not even a reference in Lankiveils contributions (whereas many other deletions are featured. Specifically, the date/time claimed for the deletion of the page under discussion is not found in Lankiveils contributions (see, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandemans_New_Europe&action=edit&redlink=1 ). I suspect foul play given that the time that this article was deleted corrosponds to two days after the release of negative information regarding Sandemans New Europe's hiring practices and payment practices across many nations in Europe in which they operate.. -Talonxpool (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done If being "tips only walking tours" is an attempt to establish notability, then it does not do a good job. The article as deleted was pure fluff, full of WP:PROMO, and the link regarding possible unethical practices supported nothing in the article itself. Claims of impropriety by the admin is a laughable addition to this, and probably does not help when your request is supposed to be related to the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A few things you should know Talonxpool. You won't find deletions in any admins contributions because all deleted edits are deleted and thus do not appear in anyone's contributions, be they sysop or regular users (admins and user with higher permissions can see deleted contributions by specifically visiting a "deleted contributions" link). But it's nice that you built this black and white software issue into a teetering foundation for accusing another user of foul play. You might also note that most admins don't delete pages they come across on their own. Rather, other users tag articles with speedy deletion tags asserting that a page should be deleted under specifically defined criteria, and admins will look at a batch of articles tagged and decide whether the speedy deletion criteria, as tagged, applies, whether another applies, or to decline. Here, this in fact happened. The admin was not the tagger; he just agreed with the tag placed by someone else. This makes your foul play nonsense even more risible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who was that tagger? Did anyone check, was it Per or someone else who had been playing with the article. Talonxpool (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to add that hasn't been said by those above (thanks!), other than to say that the article was a clearcut A7 when I saw it, and I treated it accordingly. I'm generally speaking willing to provide copies of A7 articles and the like to good faith contributors to try and build a better article with, but not to those who make groundless accusations of bad faith and bias. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Though my expertise on wikipedia amounts to line changes, citation, and some amount of translation, I do know that the cornerstone of good editing is being aware of an articles history and those that have edited it in the past. The Article Sandemans New Europe was originally created by an employee of Sandemans named Per, when others attempted to factualize the page and make it wikipedia-material, per and presumably others would sabotage the effort. A simple look at the articles history could have yielded this to be the case. The article was, in my opinion, under constant sabotage. Ultimately you aided in the sabotage, unwittingly or not, by deleting the page, which many users had been attempting to alter in concordance with the companies legal problems. On these grounds, and on the grounds that this company is a multinational entity that has irreversably impacted the tourism industry in Europe and Isreal, I would like to request again that it be undeleted. I will make the article a priority as long as the article is locked. I also apologize for accusing Lankeviel for being one of the unethical and disreputable staff that work in Sandemans PR department. Currently if one looks up Sandemans on google, the first page yields only the companies own propaganda and websites about itself, before this the Wiki article was in the top ten and provided more balanced information (depending on how heavily Sandemans staff had been editing the article). Talonxpool (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat: having gone through the history (thank you very much), there is nothing notable nor salvageable in the article. If your intent is to soapbox about the company, there are plenty of websites for that. This is an encyclopedia of knowledge - not a "Walmart sucks" website. The inverse of WP:PROMO is that you also do not get the opportunity to trash a company because of percieved wrongs. The company is non-notable. The article showed no proven notability at any point in its history. Move along. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the notability of an article isn't established based on opinion but rather press and citation. Sandemans is certainly notable in that almost every single tour guiding company of note in Europe offers their own 'free tour', because they cannot compete otherwise. They are the single largest tour guiding company in Europe and have single handedly changed the face of tourism of which there are many articles on this topic in mainstream newsmedia. As for soapboxing, my only point was that the article was not always one sided often times it was quite objective, however, having read the history and discussion, you would have easily noted, that Sandemans employ Per Hogdkins was deleting and censoring material which he found, "unfair" to use his own words. Let it also be noted that you have put words into my mouth, regarding my intentions, you have built a strawman purposely or not and your argumentation concerning myself and soapboxing is, therefore, fallacious. I never said anything about trashing a company, but lets not get into some side argument so you can deflect from the point. I do not wish to soapbox I simply wish Wikipedia to have good articles about notable things and that companys do not take over or delete such articles to further there own interests. The article is clearly notable in that Sandemans altered the face of tourism in Europe, to claim otherwise clearly shows your lack of expertise in this area. Please just put the article back up, locked preferably, be reasonable. Talonxpool (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Having searched Google News Archive, it does appear to me, at least on a quick glance, that it may be possible to produce a a proper article on Sandemans. What you need to understand is that the article that you seek to have undeleted wasn't that proper article. There is nothing preventing anyone from going ahead and creating a new proper article. No undeletion is needed for that task. Also note that the "repost" criterion for speedy deletion is not applicable to articles deleted without discussion, i.e., deleted through the CSD. So if someone posts an new article on Sandemans, a non-promotional article, citing to reliable sources, not a copyvio, not an attack, etc., that article may be kept. That is the route to be followed here, if any.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's really all I wanted to hear, it would be nice to use the other article as a template, that's really the only reason I wanted to undelete it. The other article had serious problems mostly due to Sandemans staff actively editing it (of which I have direct knowledge), hopefully this can be prevented a second time around.

Sent By Ravens

• Sent By Ravens · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This title is protected. There is an article at Sent by Ravens for this subject (and this article substantiates notability); I would like to request that the former be unprotected and redirected to the latter. -Chubbles (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Chubbles (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Redirected. No comment on the notability of the target article. Protonk (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that this is an article on the same band the salt was designed to prevent being recreated. Sent to AFD. Courcelles 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish you'd checked the article's talk page; it was kept at AfD a couple of weeks ago. Things change, some bands get more popular over time, and permanently salting things is occasionally more troublesome than helpful. I think this is one of those times. I hope you change your mind about this. Chubbles (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done First, the redirected-to article is currently at AFD. Second, WP:RFPP is the place to request changes to protection levels. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

He just wanted the redirect recreated, which I already did. Protonk (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyber Track

• Cyber Track · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

misunderstood -Fgycv (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If i say "found" a way to revise the old copy ( which i emailed to myself!)and make it more approtriate, could you un delede it and Let me fix it? EDIT: I didnt properly read the music thingy article, but i understand now, and what should i put to revise it? and is you see the word was instead of way, I do that by accident allot! Fgycv (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request. If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.
• If you want to create a 'new' article, you should do so be building one from reliable sources and show how the subjects meets our guidance for inclusion. My suggestion is to build one in your userspace, then go to DRV and ask if the new one is sufficiently different from the old one to avoid being speedied as an A7 again. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Venom vicious

• Venom vicious · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I want to work on the article in my user space please. I feel that once I have notable information I will be able to write the article in the main space. Right now, I just need to replace the main article with my user article instead. -Afro55 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is any action necessary? There's a version in your userspace right now, User:Afro55/Venom vicious, that I moved back there 25 minutes before this request was made. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was this page deleted? Andy Brown (musician), Canadian Folk Rock Group

• Andy Brown (musician) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Says that the page was deleted due to copyright infringement? The link it provides links to a festival that Andy played at in July. There is no way this infringes upon copyrights because Andy owns all of the copyrights, especially his photos, and bio, which were the only two things listed on the site in question! Please undelete. -Laura.noseworthy (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Andy Brown owning the copyright to the material on this page ; [13] is not sufficient for our unrestricted use of that content. We must have permission not only to use, but to allow re-use (including commercial re-use), modification and unrestricted distribution. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for a broad explanation. If you want, you can secure permission to release the content by following this guide. On top of that, there was a concern that the subject did not meet our guidelines for inclusion. Both would have to be satisfied. Protonk (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Jason James Basketball

• Jason James Basketball · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The article was set up to inform people about who Jason James is and accomplishments. Jason James is still helping keds and adult in different parts of the world and is being sought after. The article is not for personal promotion but is also for parents to to have knowledge to whom their children is associated with. I do hope you will understand the reason of this posting. -64.42.217.69 (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request. If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Protonk (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

List of carsharing operators

• List of carsharing operators · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I've been researching car-sharing companies for an ongoing school project, and this site was extremely crucial to my research. It's the only place where I can find a list of car-sharing companies all in one place. Apparently the page was deleted due to the minimal amount of wikilinks, however I don't think that was a major problem for me. I just needed the names of the companies so I can Google them for more information. Can this page please be restored? Thank you! -208.185.196.6 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

- Wikipedia is not MySpace; if you need to keep notes online, use any of the various free webspace providers out there. The list was deleted because there were no useful links or sources, and it was being abused as a spamlink farm. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Tyler Clementi

• Tyler Clementi · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

relates to a teachable moment about LGBT bullying and information relating to it should be left up on Wikipedia and possibly linked to the LGBT portal. Please lock the page to fend off future deletions. -12.177.104.148 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please undelete the page as it relates to a very important current event. 12.177.104.148 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done, this article was deleted per WP:BLP1E.  If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Nakon (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

insatanity

• Insatanity · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

There was no reason to delete this page. References were been adding as requested, like about the write up in the book. Allmusic has not received the release or artist information necessary to add the artist or album into the database yet. There is other sites that list thier discography. The deletion of this page was in misused of administrator privileges. the User:Ron Ritzman deleting my usertalk page as well without a reason -Ruinsofman (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not done - As announced prominently at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and has no applicability to articles deleted after any deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insatanity, it cannot be undeleted through this process. Nevertheless, if you believe that the consensus found at the discussion was in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Pig bladder

• Pig bladder · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Undelete so that the article can be expanded. I asked the deleting admin to undelete it two weeks ago; the admin has not responded. -69.3.72.249 (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Done There was indeed no reusable content ("The bladder belonging to said pig.") As this seems to be used in medicine now and you're very active as IP, I've restored it anyways, so we spare a trip to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Please expand. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Most helpful, thank you. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin

• Bitcoin · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

reasoning -217.128.147.242 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done As announced at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially. This article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin with the draft already at User:Message From Xenu/Bitcoin which is currently being reviewed: please refer to this discussion and its outcome.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

From the number of single-purpose accounts popping up to agitate about this article, it is clear that there is a campaign going on. Let me repeat here the advice given in the current deletion review: several discussions have determined that Bitcoin is not (yet) notable by Wikipedia's standards. Making more requests will not change that. You would do better to spend your energy on writing articles about Bitcoin and getting them published in some reliable industry journals (i.e. those with enough editorial control to be accepted here as reliable sources). When you have achieved that, you can cite them as references and there will be no problem here. Your mistake is to try to use Wikipedia as the start of your promotion campaign - that's not what it's for. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

List of songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics

• List of songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Since this was AfD'ed, could this be userfied to my user space? I'd like to take a stab at building a well-sourced version of this with suitable inclusion criteria. I'd also like to request the following two similar pages be userfied to my user space for the same reason. -28bytes (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

see above -28bytes (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• List of non-instrumental songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

see above -28bytes (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

All  Done. In view of their turbulent history - one had actually been salted - you should probably take any rebuilt article through DRV before posting it to the mainspace again. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John. I will do that. 28bytes (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Branka

• Peter Branka · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The page of Peter Branka, a contemporary composer from Vienna, was deleted for too little content. We want to put more content now. Also, Mr. Branka has released a new CD called "Mystery Piano", which is a new music genre of experimental kind-of music. So it is warranted to have an article on wikipedia about the artist. -178.113.5.248 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning music. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning musicians or music groups will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Nevertheless, the article isn't protected but keep in mind our guidelines on conflict of interest and role accounts.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Josh_Helm

• Josh_Helm · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

deleted in error -24.16.85.24 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request, user NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Noise_Box

• Noise_Box · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

deleted in error -24.16.85.24 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Furniture Village

• Furniture Village · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Notable nationwide retailer, text (still up at [14]) doesn't seem like blatant advertising/spam at all, as per CSD criterion -Sumbuddi (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Under normal circumstances, I would refer you to the deleting admin or DRV, but since Fastily retired a few weeks ago and I don't believe this meets G11, I've restored it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

List of books about risk

• List of books about risk · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Reasons for deletion are not transparent and have not been successfully explained for a non-wiki expert -77.27.114.122 (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you ask the deleting admin what they meant? There are literally thousands of books about risk of some type - this is what we call an unmanageable (or unmaintainable) list due to the sheer size/volume. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there are. This same argument would not allow to start any list, however all understand the wikipedia is based on incremental knowledge, allowing for increasing the number of references listed. Following the argumentation by Bwilkins you may start to delete the +150 different entries of lists of books in the wikipedia, including some very short listed. Please check.

Spurs show

• Spurs show · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

It's a groundbreaking radio show and needs to be recognised as such -86.177.181.164 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted more than 2 years ago - if you believe it passes notability and you have reliable sources to prove it, go ahead and re-create it from scratch. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Imagineering Academy

• Imagineering Academy · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Hello! I have a bunch of sources that show this to be significant, so I can write a new article. At the same time, I'd like to see the deleted revisions so I can explain to the author what they did wrong -80.101.191.11 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, skip this, we're creating a new article. :-) (revisions on pastebin showed it originally sucked ;-) ) --80.101.191.11 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want the old revisions just email me (my username at gmail) and I can provide them. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Omikron 2

• Omikron 2 · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The Following statement as to why the page was deleted is false. "Expired PROD, concern was: pure unreferenced speculation. no evidence that Omikron 2 exists or is being made." Having not seen the page myself, I cannot say that it was unreferenced, however there is evedence that the game is or at least was in production at some point as found at the following URL, a blogspot page that if not currently at one time was maintained by the developer. http://omikrongame.blogspot.com/2006/01/omikron-2-karma.html -173.78.149.224 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• But blogspot entries are not considered references (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Done I have restored this as a contested PROD. However, as the sourcing provided is pretty minimal, I have left the current article as a redirect. Please look for reliable sources before undoing the redirect, otherwise the article may be sent to articles for deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Easy Serving Espresso Pod

• Easy Serving Espresso Pod · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Expired PROD, concern was: Not notable per WP:GNG; lacking citations for most of the content since December 2009 -a5b (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments about WP:GNG.

Notability (Books): [15], etc. total found: 56 results

Notability (Scholar): 14 results

Articles: bloomberg (2007), NYT (1998), NYT (2007), NYT (2004), Salon.com (2000), Tea & Coffee Trade Journal (jul 2003) (Nov 2003).

Please restore to allow rewriting. `a5b (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Gobran

• Maggie Gobran · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Mama Maggie was nominated to Noble Peace Prize.

I can send the letters of nomination if you are interested in.

There are international diplomats visited Stephen’s
Children Ministry and they said: “It is Movement of Peace”.
I can send their names if you like it. 

The well-trained workers of Stephen’s children

became models to be followed in other nonprofit organizations and
churches in Egypt.reasoning  -41.178.140.69 (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed formatting. Has anyone written about this person in newspapers or journals Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people have been nominated; it means nothing. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dev (singer)

• Dev (singer) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I have a reliable source to add to this article, http://amp.radio.com/2010/09/01/devs-booty-bounce-myspace-music-video/ (cbs affiliate), and would like to preserve the history of the article rather than starting from scratch. Thank you. -ErikHaugen (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Also http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100723/A_LIFE/7230302/-1/a_life. ErikHaugen (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Done -- œ^™ 09:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Imagineering Academy

• Imagineering Academy · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The article was speedied under G11 (spam). Though I don't particularly care about the subject as University departments aren't really notable, it is a prominent stand-alone entity within a University. If anything, it was not unambiguous spam. There were half decent references, more were proposed in Dutch that needed attention and translation. Prod was declined and I think this article should go through AfD rather than speedy if at all. The main contributor was strong COI, but several editors checked his edits. (Note this was requested for undeletion before, but the editor recreated the article) -—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done This noticeboard is only for uncontroversial undeletions, particularly PRODs.  If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user JzG (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.

The initial article's creator, one with a severe COI and NPOV problem, would not leave it alone. The thing that tagged it as blatantly promotional for me was the very first line, "community of scholars and practitioners". A university department is not described that way unless you are seeking to advertise rather than to inform. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

EXtremeDB

• EXtremeDB · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

I am surprised this article has been deleted. I have read it before and I need to see again. Please undelete the article, due to having useful information in it and developers like me need to have access to it. I count on you to consider my request and publish the article -TheLadyBug1999 (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done As the article was deleted via a community deletion discussion, it cannot be undeleted here. Please address the issues on the discussion at deletion review. Note: as one of the discussion comments stated it was the "best software ad on Wikipedia", and we don't allow ads. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Spurs show

• Spurs show · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

reasoning -138.253.159.114 (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty well renowned podcast, it often gets name-checked on some of the biggest podcasts in the UK. The host of the show is a famous comedian, and as such i believe it should have its own wiki page. --Jamiem

•  Not done See the previous identical entries on this same page. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Murphy Brown episodes

• List of Murphy Brown episodes · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I wish for this certain article named "List of Murphy Brown episodes" to be undeleted because it would not be fair that this particular article of what was, in its time, a magnificent show does not have a episode list. I see all the other articles on television prorams and they all include an episode list. It would be deemed very unfair if television fanatics could not be able to see which season their most liked episode is in. Please take this into consideration, as I have absolutely no intent to deface this article in any form and I will respect the bounds of copyright law. -Kouta lives (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any article named this (trying various versions of the name). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Jammer (rapper)

• Jammer (rapper) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

PRODded twice, which is disallowed by PROD rules. See deletion history. -Chubbles (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done Last deletion was 2-1/2 years ago. The article was PROD'd and deleted; it was then Speedied and deleted; a new version was then PROD'd and deleted. A poor article was continuously recreated over 2 months, contrary to policy. It has been salted - it you think you can create a valid article draft that meets requirements, please do so in your own userspace. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the fact that I think the deleting admin was acting rashly (didn't check for first PROD, salted after only 3 deletions which isn't that many, salting indefinitely rather than for a determined length of time), a lot can happen in two years. In that time, he's become "One of grime’s most active and respected producer/MCs", (Allmusic's words, not mine), and released a full-length album that has gotten plenty of independent media coverage. It's no trouble to establish his notability, as these reviews should show, and as such I'd appreciate it if you could extend me the benefit of the doubt so I don't have to come back. Chubbles (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to leave a quick note on the deleting admin's talk page. It appears s/he's recently active. That might be the quickest path to an easy resolution. If they don't respond in a timely manner I'd be willing to unprotect and undelete the article. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's only edited a few times in the last four weeks, and the last several notes on his talk page are all PROD requests...I think my chances there might be slim. If the deleted article is terrible, I can start from scratch; I really just need the protection lifted. Should I got to RFPP instead? Chubbles (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I just emailed you the text of the article. Jmlk17 (talk · contribs) (the admin who last protected and deleted the article) looks to be active. You can leave them a note if you like. You can go to RFPP if you want, but I just think this is easier. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)