Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 44
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
File:How do you like Wednesday 2.jpg
This image was deleted as unused non-free media, but is now used in How do you like Wednesday?. -Zundark (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Midhurst & Easebourne F.C.
This club have for many years played at Step 6 in the National League System in England - which my majority consensus for English Football clubs makes them notable and worthy of an article - and before its deletion, had been an article for many years. Its deletion makes Midhurst & Easebourne F.C. one of only 4 clubs who play at Step 6 and above in England, not to have their own article. Two others are new to Step 6 this season and the fourth is Rustington F.C. whose article has also been deleted and I'll be appealing that one too. -Madmax2011 (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
It is fundamentally wrong to be putting forward for deletion any Step 6 side in the National League System in England as they are clearly notable. In many ways the deletion of this page is an act of vandalism and should be restored forthwith to ensure compatibility with other Step 6 clubs. (Finnish Gas 13:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC))
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.. Please review the original sourcing concerns, or the article may be nominated for deletion at WP:AFD. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Rustington F.C.
Play at Step 6 - as per reason above for Midhurst & Easebourne F.C. -Madmax2011 (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
It is fundamentally wrong to be putting forward for deletion any Step 6 side in the National League System in England as they are clearly notable. In many ways the deletion of this page is an act of vandalism and should be restored forthwith to ensure compatibility with other Step 6 clubs. (Finnish Gas 13:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC))
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.. Please review the original sourcing concerns, or the article may be nominated for deletion at WP:AFD. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Riftforge
no consensus -Krasimir (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: Wyatt Riot says the reason for deleting it was that the game was not reviewed by third parties. One reason is that it is still in beta.
More importantly, all web games suffer from a mainstream media bias. For example, Rune Scape which has a similar userbase to World of Warcraft still hasn't received a review from [GameSpot] after 10 years of operation. Wikipedia is an ONLINE encyclopedia, so it makes sense for it to provide info on topics which print encyclopedias don't.
Lastly, Wyatt is over-eager to suggest games for deletion as his talk page indicates.
Not done - As announced 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/Riftforge, 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, user Cirt (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- also note that for games, as for any article subject, it is necessary to show notability by means of references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; if the game is still in beta, this may not be possible, which means it is not yet ready for an article; and please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. JohnCD (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
NACHO Athletic Club
This is a running association founded 4 years ago in the Boston area that share the principals of the Hash House Harriers, which also have a wikipedia page. This is not for promotion of said club, but since they have been referenced in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald and in media news outlets for their participation in the Boston Marathon and other running activities, I thought it was notable to give them a wikipedia page. -Linzylinz (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2011 (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 Ponyo (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Please also see Wikipedia's guideline for inclusion of articles concerning companies. In general, there need to be multiple non-trivial reliable sources discussing your company for it to be included. --B (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Aerodef, LLC
I am trying to create a page for my business, so people can see more information about it. I am not using it as advertising, but it would be great to have it connected to the Facebook profile of the business. I did not put any phone numbers or websites in there. Please do not delete it. People are interested in learning about the biz and this would be a great way to have them learn. I see many businesses on here, and I do not see why this would be deleted if it is just general info about the business. -Aerodef4 (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2011 (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 Acroterion (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Wwfwcwecwinvasion.jpg
This image was deleted as unused non-free media, but is now used in WWF Invasion. -Zundark (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Soldiers of Allah
reasoning -114.79.18.48 (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done - As announced 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/Soldiers of Allah, 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, user Cirt (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
IPE Global
Even after providing verifiable references the page has been deleted. -Preethi31 (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done Verifiability is only a small part of the requirements for inclusion on an encylopedia. There is absolutely nothing in the article that suggests or proves any form of WP:NOTABILITY. The article was promotional in nature, and suggests that it belongs in a business directory and not an encyclopedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: recreated again anyway: deleted A7 and salted. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Mark Levy (reporter)
Marc Levy is notable journalist with AP out of Harrisburg, PA. I suspect part of the issue may be that his name was misspelled in the article. Its simple to find his tag line if you include his name along with "Associated Press" in typical web search. his recent article on AP are available here: http://ap-167.newsvine.com/ -98.247.34.65 (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done
Esta Krakower
research -184.77.70.58 (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Are you asking for the article to be restored permanently or are you just asking for a copy for research purposes? --B (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- This article was PRODed by a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked editor so I went ahead and restored it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Salt Spring dollar
I The editor that he was unable to find significant coverage of this local promotional currency in third party sources. Well he didn't look very far. We have been written about in a number of publications including A History of the Canadian Dollar by James Powell, published by the Bank of Canada (2005), and more recently in Local Money: How to Make it Happen in Your Community by Peter North, published by Transition Books (2010) as well we do appear in well known complementary currency online directories such as the one maintained by E.F Schumacher Society at http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/local_currencies/currency_groups.html#canada. Many other communities in Canada have modelled themselves on us, and most anyone in the complementary currency field in Canada should certainly know about us -24.108.188.118 (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user Onthegogo (talk), who proposed it, in case s/he wishes to nominate it at Articles for Deletion. You could improve the article by adding references to show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
low dose naltrexone
Good morning from Australia.
Please reinstate the page 'low dose naltrexone'.
Someone keeps changing and/or deleting the page.
Interestingly Steven N blog links keep popping up in this and related topics. Makes me wonder if he or an associate might be promoting Steve and his blog or changing and deleting this entry.
I haven't logged in, but my name is Cris Kerr of Case Health, Australia.
Sorry I haven't logged in. Not hiding, just way too many log-in requirements in this world!
I dearly hope you can help with this because the subject matter is worthy of Wiki and Wiki's time.
In anticipation of a favourable review :-) Cris
Cris Kerr Case Health, Australia Advocate for the value of Patient Testimony free ebook 'Those Who Suffer Much, Know Much' 5th 2010 edition http://www.ldnresearchtrustfiles.co.uk/docs/2010.pdf -220.237.76.147 (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I repeat the advice given when you (not logged in, but same IP) raised this ten days ago: this page is only for requesting restoration of pages which have been deleted. The article you refer to has not been deleted: what you have is a content dispute about what should go in it. The place to discuss that is the article talk page, where you should try to reach WP:Consensus with other editors. If you cannot reach consensus, use WP:Dispute resolution. See also WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. JohnCD (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Robert Raburn
Other BART directors past and present have biographical articles on Wikipedia. I somehow neglected to add a link to the BART bio page (which apparently is sufficient): http://bart.gov/about/bod/bodMembersDetail_04.aspx -CodeGeneratR (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I have reset the BLP PROD timer and you have 10 days to adequately source the article before it will be re-deleted. --B (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The Science of Soulmates
This book and website has a solid following on the net, and has been quoted and used for reference. eg: see http://www.scienceofsoulmates.com/Links for websites referencing. Article originally deleted because of perceived lack of notoriety, which now has been established over the subsequent 4 years. Sorry for the repeat, but the first submission did not record the reasoning. -1.153.248.236 (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done - As announced 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/The Science of Soulmates, 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, user Deskana (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. (Everything before this was the template. My personal comments follow.) Honestly, I am certainly open to not considering a five-year-old AFD to be especially binding, HOWEVER, nothing in the list of links you gave seems to be a reliable source. I don't see how this book meets our guidelines for inclusion of articles about books, but if you would like to open a deletion review, you are welcome to do so. --B (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
File:David Allan Coe - Underground Album.jpg
- File:David Allan Coe - Underground Album.jpg · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
This image was deleted as unused non-free media, but is now used in Underground Album. -Zundark (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done--B (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Gloria Scotti
reasoning -208.120.253.99 (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done As an wholly unsourced WP:BLP (imdb does not count) and an article about someone who does not meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia, the article clearly met the specs for speedy deletion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Egypt's Got Talents
reasoning -G.S. Soliman (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The page is NOT of a company or an organization or any kind of a profitable activity .. it's a successful reform attempt (evidently celebrated by some news media ) lead by volunteers and the article does not promote for anything.. it's just a hint on the event that aims at discovering and fostering Egyptian talents in all fields. This is not a promoting-business page it a note of reform attempt needed after years of corruption in Egypt.
Please reconsider the deletion of this page.. thank you G.S. Soliman (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (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 Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The Poetess
The Poetess is a legit person and veteran rapper and radio personality. This is a viable resource for fans and media to get information on her. -Ogpoetess (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user Michig (talk), who proposed it, in case he wishes to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. What the article needs is references to confirm what it says and establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
eliane reyes
I have placed the required references -Jmeden7 (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. Please see Proposed deletion of biographies of living people for the instructions for responding to a proposed deletion of a biography of a living person. I have removed the prod blp template, but because it was not deleted this is not the right page to ask for this! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Team Exile 5
Team Exile 5 is an esports comminity. I dont understand why this page has been proposled for deletion. Please help us understand why the page has been deleted? Sam. -Kung Fu Master (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- The article was deleted for "No explanation of the subject's significance". The basic criteria here is that independent writings exist on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
IPE Global, again
The article is about a legitimate organization that has been undertaking various projects in the development sector of Health,Education,Rural development ,urban development across the globe, thereby making difference in the development globally.The said organization has also worked with international clients and donors like UNICEF,Asian Development Bank, World Bank in development sector projects to change the existing situation and bring about a difference. -Preethi31 (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done - it may be a legitimate and worthy organization, but Wikipedia is not a business listing directory, and IPE Global has not been shown to meet the notability requirement. See also my reply at User talk:JohnCD#IPE Global. JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
File:International School Peninsula-logo.gif
This image was deleted as unused non-free media, but is now used in International School of the Peninsula. -Zundark (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done and fur added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Nate Fowler
Nate Fowler is an award winning songwriter. Winning a Gospel Music Association award for song of 2010 for the whole association. He will also be signing a record deal very soon. Along with multiple TV and Film placements for his music. -Natefowlermusic (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done IMHO the article was spam and you have a serious conflict of interest. If we are to have an article on the subject it will need to be written by somebody other then you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Patrick Henry League
I would like to see what information was originally included in the article. Link to this deleted wikipedia entry found at http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Patrick%20Henry%20League. As far as I can tell was originally deleted by a single individual's request uncontested. -66.72.215.225 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Toby Freedman MD
reasoning -Dtjensen (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Toby Freedman is my best friend of 50 years. His wife, Carol, and daughter, Andrea, have provided the material I placed on Wikipedia on Sunday, July 10, 2011 for everyone to enjoy about the life and times of Toby, who was a giant in history. Dale jensen
- Not done The article has not yet been deleted. There is currently a discussion about this article here which is where you should make policy-based arguments. I would be careful to note that as you're close to the subject, WP:COI is a major issue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Institute for Safe Medication Practices
The article was nominated for Speedy Deletion for not saying why the organization was notable, a position I disagree with since the organization has been referenced on a number of Wikipedia pages. It was then deleted before I had a chance to respond. Since the page history and talk page are also gone, do not know how to find out who deleted it so that I could discuss the matter with that person. Please restore it in my user space, so that I can provide more information as requested and then repost it. -Cherlin (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done I have looked at the article in question, and it indeed does not suggest any form of notability - and notability is not inherited by being mentioned on Wikipedia. The article also had zero 3rd party reliable sources, and tried to rely on its own website for that purpose. You may contact User:Phantomsteve who deleted it under WP:CSD#A7 for further questions, however, please ensure you have read WP:5P and WP:DELETE before doing so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Božo Skoko
No reasoning given. -Zrinski hr (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC) I apologize, i didn't read the proposed deletion message. Božo Skoko is a leading croatian professor of public relations & political communication at the University of Zagreb and published many articles and some books on PR in Croatia. I will set two independent sources to his work & biography. Biography: http://medjunarodne-studije-hums.hr/en/who-is-who-i-cis/boo-skoko Books: http://www.novelti.com.hr/en/books/ http://www.matis.hr/eng/vijesti_ostalo.php?id=2044&next=OK&year=2011&today=3&month=1&lang=en http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=35999&lang=en --Zrinski hr (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Question: How do you respond to the references showing he's a research assistant, and not a professor? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
He was research asistant until 2009, since then he is a assistant professor (docent) at the of Political Science in Zagreb (Website: http://www.fpzg.unizg.hr/ Biography in croatian: http://www.fpzg.unizg.hr/oFakultetu/stranicePredavaca/skoko_bozo.htm)- the english page is no longer current). See also biography on his homepage in english: http://www.bozoskoko.com/en/biography/ or his works on the Croatian scientific bibliography CROSBI http://bib.irb.hr/lista-radova?autor=262602
Please read my proposal of the new article of "Božo Skoko" which I edit on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zrinski_hr --Zrinski hr (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Jonathan Burgess american embalmer/funeral director
reasoning -Mississippikid (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The reference for verification is "International Conference of Funeral Servic Examining Board".
- Not done Yes, you have tried multiple times to create this article under 2 separate names. Wikipedia is not a business directory. A show of holding a licence does not make for a third party reliable source. The person (as per the articles you wrote) does not meet any form of notability, and there is no proof of any claims of such anyway. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Brass-A-Holics
reasoning -
My article was deleted because of alleged copyright infringement. There was no copyright infringement; I wrote the biography found on the website (www.brass-a-holics.com) I have full permission to use the information for the Wikipedia page from the Brass-A-Holics; I created the pages for them as apart of my social media duties. Please reinstate my page. I do not know who deleted it, nor do I know how to reach that individual. Please reinstate my page.
Kari Baltimore Brass-A-Holics (Redacted) KBaltimore01 (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done The article was deleted because of notability. Of course, copyright would still be an issues because you would therefore be giving Wikipedia full rights over the text. You would need to submit a request under WP:OTRS. That said, the notability is clearly not established, which is key. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
George Borowski
The article concerning George Borowski was deleted around the 18th May 2011 for the reasons that George Borowski apparently claimed to be 'Guitar George' from the Dire Straits song, Sultans of Swing. This is untrue, as George Borowski has never claimed to be 'The Guitar George', but the page was of interest to a lot of people who like to keep updated as to the ongoing debate. George Borowski is a great Manchester legend, and if the only reason for the deletion of his page was the unsubstansiated claim of him to be 'Guitar George', then just remove that small part of the article, instead of terminating the entire thing. George Borowski's life and legacy does not just revolve around the myth of 'Guitar George'. He has worked with many famed artists and bands, as well as being a successful singer/songwriter in his own right, and his information deserves to be readily available for the people who wish to read it. -92.12.224.53 (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done - As announced 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/George Borowski, 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, user Cirt (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Noreen Khan-Mayberry
Dr. Noreen Khan-Mayberry is the first female to serve as a NASA space toxicologist. There are only 7 space toxicologists in the world and Dr. Khan-Mayberry is also the only minority to work as a NASA employed federal toxicologist. There are very few female scientists of note in spaceflight and Dr. Khan-Mayberry has made history by introducing the speciality of Space Toxicology to the greater Toxicology scientific field. Dr. Khan-Mayberry was asked to author the first book chapter on the speciality of Space Toxicology in an international peer-reviewed toxicology textbook. She has more accolades and her page is adheres to wiki guidelines unlike the majority of pages listed under the category NASA Personnel. Her page should be restored. -Planetaryspace (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done I'm sorry but this was deleted as a result of an AFD so you will need to discuss this with the closing admin. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
David S. Rose
The page was a legitimate, fully-sourced, verifiable, biographical page about a notable living person, which had been in place for some time. I am not aware of any discussion on the article's talk page about the deletion other than the proposer's. The subject is a notable person, at least in his industry (honorary doctorate from Stevens, associate founder of Singularity University, profiled or quoted in BusinessWeek, Crains, RedHerring, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc.) I believe the article provided 3rd party reliable sourced references for every fact stated, was written in NPOV and was linked to from several other pages in Wikipedia. -Yorker (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- (I'm giving the submitter a chance to edit the above and make valid arguments without unproven accusations before actionning this piece of WP:PUFFERY) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, Barsoom1988's sole edit was to create the page as a redirect to David Stuart Rose after the David S. Rose article had been deleted. – Athaenara ✉ 07:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies if the undeletion request seemed out of line. This is the first time I've engaged in this process. I've edited the original request, although I'm a bit hampered in quoting precise references because I can't reference the original article and thus have to do the best I can from memory.Yorker (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Michael Konopasek
reasoning -68.227.126.79 (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done - As announced 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/Michael Konopasek, 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, user Courcelles (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Johnny Stecchino.jpg
This image was deleted as unused non-free media, but is now used in Johnny Stecchino. -Zundark (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Orhan Cem Çetin
Notable Turkish photographer; referenced in anthologies and books on history of photography in Turkey; among the pioneers of conceptual photography in Turkey; exhibitied and known internationally -Queen zenobia (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done. The article's only references were to Çetin's website and his blog. A Wikipedia article would need to establish notability by references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - see also WP:CREATIVE. If you think you can do that, reply below here, and I will userfy the article - move it into your user space - where you can work on it. JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely. Please do that so that I can improve the article. Many thanks. Queen zenobia (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done -userfied to User:Queen zenobia/Orhan Cem Çetin. JohnCD (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Don O'Neill, fashion designer
it says there aren't any references in the article, but I have included a couple -Theia1412 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done. Yes, you added references, but the article was deleted because it was blatantly promotional, full of PR-speak and "peacock terms": "elegant and sophisticated eveningwear... fabled... immense talents... enormously successful... rave reviews... " etc. Any article would need to be completely rewritten, with no promotional tone, just neutral facts referenced to reliable sources, and would need to establish notability by showing references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, as O'Neill's employer is Theia, your username shows a conflict of interest which means you should not be writing about him. JohnCD (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Alcatel-Lucent 5620 Service Aware Manager
I do not believe that this article is written as an advertisement. It is written in a factual manner and refrains from description that tries to influence the reader. I was trying to improve the article to use external links less just before it was deleted. By removing external links to the Alcatel-Lucent website, I thought I could make the article more neutral. Similarly, I would like to extend this request to include related article Alcatel-Lucent 5650 Control Plane Assurance Manager for the same reasons as stated. -Kevinlandry (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done. I agree that these are not unduly promotional, but they read like part of the Alcatel product catalogue rather than encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not a list of every product that exists. In order to have an article, a software product (or anything else) needs to show notability by references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The test is, have people unconnected with the subject thought it important and significant enough to write substantial comment about? Many products do not pass that test, which does not meant they are not worthy and useful products, just that they are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I would then like to request the these articles by userfied so that I can update them (in draft) with references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Kevinlandry (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Kevinlandry/Alcatel-Lucent 5620 Service Aware Manager .--SPhilbrickT 15:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In addition, I would like to request the userfication of article: Alcatel-Lucent 5650 Control Plane Assurance Manager Kevinlandry (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Kevinlandry/Alcatel-Lucent 5650 Control Plane Assurance Manager .--SPhilbrickT 15:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to request that an editor reviews my updates to the article: User:Kevinlandry/Alcatel-Lucent 5620 Service Aware Manager to see if it complies with the neutral point of view policy (there by avoiding speedy deletion through WP:CSD G11). There are also more credible third-party sources that I could add, but I was wondering how many are enough to allow the article to show notability? Kevinlandry (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Knight Communication Limited UK
this page will provide information about the company that is important to its customers -Knight Co (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done I'm sorry but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Also, per your username it's obvious that you have a serious conflict of interest. If we are to have an article on this subject then it will need to be written by somebody other then you or anybody connected with your company. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Rural Youth Europe
OTRS permission received for all content from http://www.ruralyoutheurope.com in ticket 2011072110009589. I have verified the origin of the message as well as the stated licenses, as you would expect. -– Adrignola talk 14:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done --SPhilbrickT 15:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. – Adrignola talk 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
TourCert
OTRS permission received in ticket 2011072110010461 for content within this PDF on the tourcert.org website. -– Adrignola talk 15:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done--SPhilbrickT 15:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. – Adrignola talk 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Nigel Egg
Sufficiently notable IMO, but needs update. Was a PROD delete for not notable -Ted Gadd (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Ohconfucius (talk), who proposed it, in case s/he wishes to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. See WP:Notability in general and WP:MUSICBIO in particular for what the article needs. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Mirsharai Tragedy
reasoning -Tushar Hayat (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. Please see WP:PROD for the instructions for responding to a proposed deletion. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
WorldPublicOpinion.org
this org is a project by the U of Maryland that has been cited repeatedly for its worlwide polls, please place this page in my user space -Stapler80 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Stapler80/WorldPublicOpinion.org. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact Athaenara (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space. Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and the relevant notability guidelines - articles that are not in compliance will be deleted. I am particularly concerned by the promotional tone; Wikipedia is not a venue to tell readers how good a website or organization is. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Terrance Graven
OTRS permission received from website owner in ticket 2011071710009382 for content at http://terrancegraven.com/bio.html and http://terrancegraven.com/statement.html under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 and GFDL licenses. I am listed at m:OTRS/personnel. – Adrignola talk 13:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- This was deleted as a copyright infringement. We now have permission. If this is not to be restored for some reason, please let me know so that I and the customer are not kept waiting. 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I do entertain some doubts about the notability, based on the deleted article's showing and lack of referencing given; also about "so that I and the customer are not kept waiting.". However, the notability showing and the referencing can be added before the article gets into mainspace (provided someone userfies it), I hope. I'm not saying 'don't restore' - just giving my stance. Peridon (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you object, Peridon, I think the best thing would be to restore this, tag it "notability" and "COI", and probably send it to AfD unless a search shows chance of improvement. It's a problem when unsuitable promotional stuff is deleted for copyvio and then permission is given. I usually add to the copyvio warning a note to say that stuff copied from websites is seldom suitable, and please read YFA, N, BIO, SOAP... I think I shall propose adding something on those lines to the standard copyvio warning. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fine by me. I agree about the copyvio notice - I've seen a few cases where people put stuff through the licensing procedure and found it immediately deleted again as pure spam. Peridon (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Restored. I'll check for sources and AfD in a day or two if I don't find them. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fine by me. I agree about the copyvio notice - I've seen a few cases where people put stuff through the licensing procedure and found it immediately deleted again as pure spam. Peridon (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you object, Peridon, I think the best thing would be to restore this, tag it "notability" and "COI", and probably send it to AfD unless a search shows chance of improvement. It's a problem when unsuitable promotional stuff is deleted for copyvio and then permission is given. I usually add to the copyvio warning a note to say that stuff copied from websites is seldom suitable, and please read YFA, N, BIO, SOAP... I think I shall propose adding something on those lines to the standard copyvio warning. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I do entertain some doubts about the notability, based on the deleted article's showing and lack of referencing given; also about "so that I and the customer are not kept waiting.". However, the notability showing and the referencing can be added before the article gets into mainspace (provided someone userfies it), I hope. I'm not saying 'don't restore' - just giving my stance. Peridon (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Gary R. Englert
Deletion of this page warrants further discussion as little if any took place following the initial proposed deletion and surely not enough for any claim that a consensus was reached. In fact of the few legitimate comments made, two were from accomplished Wikipedia editors taking oppposite positions concerning notoriety. Pending a response to an inquiry made to DGG (the deleting editor) and further review, I respectfully request that the page be restored. -Mooney1084v (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done. As this page was deleted after a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Gary R. Englert it cannot be restored here. You have approached the administrator who closed that discussion, DGG (talk), which is the right first step; then, if you are not satisfied, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Gary R. Englert
discussion prior to deletion was minimal with no clear consensus reached. Editor DGG's decision was based on ambiguous criteria and clearly differed from that expressed by editor Hawkeye7 (who participated in the discussion) who is of equal if not greater stature. -Mooney1084v (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done. As this page was deleted after a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Gary R. Englert it cannot be restored here. You have approached the administrator who closed that discussion, DGG (talk), which is the right first step; then, if you are not satisfied, you can go to WP:Deletion review. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
A. Ghastlee Ghoul
I have info and resources for the page -99.56.168.159 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will inform user Neutrality (talk), who proposed it, in case s/he wishes to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Chip Yates
Significant figure in motorcycle racing, has been featured on the cover of Popular Science, Performance Bikes, and several other magazines. Currently has the fastest electric motorcycle in the world, and several other achievements of note. Article was originally deleted based on lack of google hits and the argument that Chip Yates is not a significant public figure. "Chip Yates" currently returns over 3 million google hits, many of which are coverage from major publications of his achievements in the electric motorcycle industry. -G00berson (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done - As announced 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/Chip Yates, 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, user MBisanz (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Return Of Billy Jack
Not long ago I created a page called THE RETURN OF BILLY JACK. Nobody challenged it, or wanted it deleted, or had a bad word about it. But I deleted it myself. I now regret this, as I think it is important. Can it be put back on? Please let me know. Thank you. Abbythecat (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Set It Off 08.jpg
This image was deleted as unused non-free media, but is now used in Set It Off (Kardinal Offishall song). -Zundark (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done. JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
TripleA
TripleA · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions] reasoning -Veqryn (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
In the space a single half day, there were about 10 instances of "Contest this proposed deletion", and not a single one 'for' the deletion. The admin who performed the speedy deletion did not bother to read the talk page which contained all of the user's asking to keep this page, and their reasoning why. Perhaps he/she only looked at the talk page from 2 years ago, and not the talk page from this year. A lot has changed in this time, and it is completely unfair that the admin did not even address our comments at all!
On top of this, the speedy deletion tag specifically instructs the user to either "contest this proposed deletion" or to remove the tag IF they plan to work on or improve the page. When we deleted this tag, so that we could work on the page, it was immediately re-added by someone then the page was immediately deleted by the admin moments later.
I think it would be more fair to have the admins/users debate the deletion, or at least address our comments, before deleting without even a single word!
- Not done The article went through two separate articles for deletion discussion, both of which saw community discussion leading to deletion. As such, any recreation can lead to an immediate speedy deletion. If someone wants to create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, and bring it up to a point where it completely meets all requirements, and fixes all of the problems noted in the AFD discussions, that would be far more wise. Instead, any recreations will be met with the same fate. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
And yet, when we bring it up to those requirements, and recreate the page, it will just get deleted again since the admins don't bother to read the article or the reasons why it should stay? The only reason it was deleted was for not being 'notable', and yet the people who were complaining that it was not notable were looking in the wrong places. Example: they expected a video game to have scholarly articles about it. Example2: They expected it to be on MobyGames.com, and yet Moby Games only cover video games that are distributed on CDs/DVDs at stores, and not video games that are distributed online because they are Open Source. There is a huge bias against open-source games here, because we use different distribution channels than other video games. Game Table Online is basically the same as TripleA, it is not on moby games, it can't be found in stores, and there are no scholarly articles about it, and yet it's page has not been deleted.
Can you go to the [List of Open Source Games] and tell me that all of these are more notable than TripleA? Attack!, VDrift, Torus_Trooper??, etc. We have thousands more downloads than many of these games.
You guys are not being consistent at all. Just because you have not heard of TripleA doesn't mean it is not notable.
- WP:Notability is not a question of whether we have heard of it, but of whether there are references to show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Many of the 3,500,000 articles are substandard, and for that reason What about article X? is not accepted as an argument - each article is considered on its own merits. This one was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TripleA and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TripleA (computer game). If you want it back, make a userspace draft - see Help:Userspace draft for how to do that - and then approach user Cirt (talk), the admin who closed the later discussion, to see whether he agrees that you have overcome the problems that caused deletion. If he is not convinced, you can go to WP:Deletion review. If you would like your recent article undeleted as the basis of your draft, ask below here and someone will do that for you. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, please move the last revision i had made to the article to my user space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veqryn (talk • contribs) 07:14, 23 July 2011
- Done to User:Veqryn/TripleA. Although this version has a long string of references, they are the same as those in the version deleted here, where they were found inadequate because they are just list entries, technical references to Sourceforge, etc. What is needed is evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources: the notability test is, have people independent of the subject thought it important enough to write significant comment about? JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Inma no Ranbu
it needs its own page just as the author's other listed works have their own pages; there is no information about it in any other place -155.198.14.204 (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Malkinann (talk), who proposed it, in case s/he wishes to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. The article needs references; if "there is no information about it in any other place", that suggests it may not meet Wikipedia's notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
World Technology Evaluation Center
OTRS permission received for content at http://www.wtec.org/wtec_wikipedia.html in this article in ticket 2011072210011958, provided by the CEO, under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL. -– Adrignola talk 15:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done by the deleting admin, Ronhjones (talk). JohnCD (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
daniel lack
Dear Sir/Madam,
I believe the wiki I have just set up regarding my late father, Daniel Lack, was rejected for "conflict interest" reasons.
Please note that the information on this site was all verified by an independent journalist and was printed in several newspapers two years ago. The facts are all verifiable and have been provided on the Internet. They are not contested by anyone. The link to "Daniel Lack" is in fact already on Wikipedia (under "World Jewish Congress").
Please could I ask you to undelete this article accordingly, or let me know whom I may send acticles to that confirm the contents of my proposed posting?
Thanking you in advance,
Jeremy Lack jlack@lawtech.ch - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremylack (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 July 2011
- Not done. This seemed to be an obituary notice rather than an encyclopedia article, and did not cite any references to establish notability. You have been given some advice on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Matchboxlogo.png
Was deleted by Orphaned image deletion bot after being gratuitously removed from Matchbox (brand), which led to an inferior-quality version of the logo being later placed in that article. -— Smjg (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done I'll leave it to you to put it on the article, etc. Skier Dude (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Aldo (musician)
This is a valid article about a unique artist from Australia that was supposedly being looked after by the Australian Wikimedia Foundation and should not have been deleted so readily. Why was this page arbitrarily deleted despite it being administered by the Australian Wikimedia foundation It is a factual page about a real artist unique in the genre he represents and very unique to Australia If the deletor had any issues why not raise them with the foundation or request they be edited to suit his/her feelings - 203.206.49.1 (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done. This article was not "arbitrarily deleted" - it was deleted after a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Aldo (musician) so, as stated at the top of this page, it will not be restored here. If you believe that the discussion was wrongly decided, or you have more information, you should first approach user Fetchcomms (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion; then, if your concerns are not addressed, you can go to WP:Deletion review.
- When you say "administered by the Australian Wikimedia Foundation" I guess you refer to the note on the talk page that it was within the scope of WikiProject Australia. That only means that it was flagged so that users interested in Australian articles would know of it, and in particular while the week's deletion debate was in progress it was on a list of Australia-related deletion discussions, so that interested users would know of the discussion and could comment there. JohnCD (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yogakshema sabha
more content to be added -Yogakshemasabha (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done - a deleted page with this name does not appear to exist. And you have not had any other edits to Wikipedia apart from here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's currently a redirect to Nambudiri but a previous version was deleted back in Nov 2009 as a copyright violation (CSD G12) so once again Not done. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's currently a redirect to Nambudiri but a previous version was deleted back in Nov 2009 as a copyright violation (CSD G12) so once again
Nicholas Young (actor)
He is an actor in the cult SciFi show The Tomorrow People and in other series and movies. This page is linked to from multiple articles. Looks like the article was deleted because of notability, but he should fall in the cult status explanation on the notability page. -Hiram (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done Though deleted by WP:PROD the article was an unsourced BLP. However, you or any other editor is welcome to write a new sourced article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I get the original page back to use as a starting point, or at least see what it was prior to deletion? Hiram (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I moved it to the incubator. Once sourced it can be moved back into article space. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I noticed. In comparing it to similar articles for other actors in the same series (i.e. Philip Gilbert), I don't see what it's lacking other than the fact that it's VERY light. :) Can you elaborate on what you feel it needs reference-wise prior to being moved back into article space? Thank you. Hiram (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
United States journalism scandals
- United_States_journalism_scandals · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 | afd3 ) · [revisions]
Sure, this page has a high potential for abuse/misuse. I'm not denying it. Maybe it carries one of the highest! I'm sure whatever reason went into deleting this page had at least some amount of merit to it, but from what I've seen popular opinion would've had this page stay open! It's important that american's have access to wikipedia information regarding their leaders/government/past mistakes made public/ect. Factual information that is backed by multiple valid references is priceless in a time where so much digital information circulates without substantial backing; even the old stuff is good. Please provide for us wikipedia [or at least inform the internet what was so controversial and repost the factual information somewhere]! I will be contacting the admin who finished this deletion for clarification at some later date. -71.72.55.39 (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not done. This article was deleted after a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (3rd nomination) so, as stated at the top of this page, it will not be undeleted here. If you consider that the discussion was wrongly closed, or you have new information, you should first approach user Spartaz (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion; then, if your concerns are not addressed, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)