Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 66

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 → Archive 70

ISTQB Foundation Level

The article provides clear information about the ISTQB foundation level, no marketing information was provided, but only concrete information about the topic. Similar information is available in ISTQB official material. This information is relevant for the users and they should have the opportunity to read about the specific topic in an article and not only read about a generic article on ISTQB levels. -Lmgamaral (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done This is another of several near-advertisments, based on ISTQB material, that have been deleted or will soon be deleted, with what useful information is contained in an article like International Software Testing Qualifications Board Certified Tester moved into the main article on the International Software Testing Qualifications Board itself. Wikipedia is not a manual for those looking to take these tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike Dalton (wrestler)

prod -Nakurio (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I want Mike Dalton (wrestler) to be undeletet because i think he is notable, he has won the FCW Heavyweight Championship. He is one of the upcoming stars for WWE. Which sets him in the spotlight. I wash´t the original writer of the article but i want to have all wwe personnel in wiki, as they are people of major interest. And the deleted article might help me to safe some time, I can add reliable sources if that was the major problem. If it is worth it to review it and edit it. thanks for checking this request --Nakurio (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Done It was indeed deleted for being left without sources (blpprod). As you seem to know how to add some, I've restored and reset timer. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the article i work on it how many time i got till the timer fades?--Nakurio (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My Family's Got Guts

Article about notable show was deleted by User:Fastily as G6 without discussion. The show should have an article on Wikipedia. -RJaguar3 | u | t 17:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done This was just a redirect to My Family's Got GUTS. It was deleted so that My Family's Got GUTS could be moved to this name. GB fan 18:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused. Was the article supposed to have been moved to the "Guts" title? If so, why did that not happen? I restored the redirect because it makes sense to have if the main title is GUTS. Otherwise it should be moved with a redirect to the "Guts" title. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I could be wrong but i believe thats what was supposed to happen. I remember from the past that Fastily had a thing about the person who requested it moving the article. Don't know why..Edinburgh Wanderer 17:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
If all that's on the redirect page is the redirect itself, then anyone should be able to move another article over it without tools anyway. As long as redirects are simple (no long history, and no significant content "hidden" beneath the redirect) then they should be perfectly fine to have around regardless of where the page should be. Normal editing ought to be able to handle this.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
If the redirect is there a non admin cant move it to that page. I get this warning if i try it. The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. So the deletion would of been needed.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kissinger N. Sibanda

A serious problem of personality clashes between deletion editors and creator of page. Deleted without addressing merits of page. Page is agreeable with wikipedia policy; personality is notable------ "first black writer....first African to write science fiction epic, also sources were checked. Investigate deleting editor for reprimand. Even if original creator is punished, re-edit page per wikipedia policy. --Intoheaven (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal clashes between deletion editors and original creator of page. Deleting editor did not address any of the issues for supporting a page on Ken Sibanda; "first black writer or first African " to write science fiction book. The subject is notable given South African history as per discussion; punish creator of page --- not subject.--Intoheaven (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done We neither punish editors nor subjects here. The original creator was blocked form editing due to abusing multiple accounts. That is against the rules and the only thing that helps is abiding to them and not create any other accounts....On the subject there were two deletion discussions, that you seem to be aware of, so it can't be undeleted here. Best to wait for an uninvolved regular editor to pick up at a later time. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
And deletion review is thataway.... not that anyone will have much success at DRV with this article, but that's beside the point.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Undelete:

I disagree: multiple accounts is not grounds to punish both the article and the creator -- thats just a convinient excuse. Again, there is definately something going on here; the good news is that God will eventually shed a light onto this. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.154.110 (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried to disentangle its article from creator giving you the hint to step back for now. Which is also why I didn't initially mention deletion review as as you can't show up there whilst on the face of it evading your block. No I've added both the IP and the account to above linked investigation. For Mziboy, he now better waits out his block. For Ken Sibanda, the good news is that there will surely be eventually an article if he's notable, maybe after that film project takes off. Good luck to you as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

AEDesign

I don't believe there was enough discussion except by the nominator when this article was deleted. There were enough references to show that this company was a notable one. I can add more references if that will be helpful. But I would need the content to be restored so I can do that. -Nrx2010 (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2012 (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/AEDesign, 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. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A. V. T. Shankardass

reasoning -117.198.138.35 (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see the following references: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/mission-impossible-4-ghost-protocol-mi-4-mission-impossible/1/164476.html http://m.economictimes.com/PDAET/articleshow/5117663.cms http://www.indiajournal.com/?p=20471 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LB10Df01.html

  • 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/A. V. T. Shankardass, 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. Although, with an AFD of this age, you might be better off creating an article from scratch as a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini

reasoning -Kunalgadahire (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why you have deleted my page Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini. The web page which contains our content had steal the content from our officila website www.rmponweb.org. We own the full rights to this content.

Kissinger N. Sibanda

reasoning -75.150.154.110 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Undelete


What is the relationship between the deleting editor and the creator of this page. Seems personal at this point, don't agree that this is unnotable.

Not done This is already being discussed above. The next step in the process is deletion review. GB fan 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

SensoMotoric Instruments GmbH

I already have collected all of the needed links -Senso m (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

CK Jakhmola

http://www.theacms.in/detail.php?deptId=91&empId=260&action=emp -Hiltrack (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about people. 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 people 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Monchy Y Nathalia

Monchy Y Nathalia is the continuation of the band called Monchy Y Alexandra; therefore we copied the same general information and replaced the information that needed change e.g. name of the band and name of the record label. We are looking forward to working with you to restore Monchy Y Nathalia, because as of now when you go to Monchy Y Nathalia Wiki, you can only access Monchy Y Alexandra that that could cause irreparable harm to the new group. All of the information provided is verifiable. Please advice. -Terramusic (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2012 (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....add the massive WP:COI and the fact that an absence of a Wikipedia article cannot fathomably do any harm to anyone. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory of bands (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Backloggery

Request to userfy. The article was deleted under A7 and I'd like to fix it up. --alfredofreak- 05:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done and can be found at User:Alfredofreak/The Backloggery Skier Dude (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Seoul 1988 Olympics logo.svg

Someone removed the non-free rational, the file was then put to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 18#File:Seoul 1988 Olympics logo.svg and deleted. The file shouldn't have been deleted, the non-free rational should have been restored. -Svgalbertian (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Given the Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seoul 1988 Summer Olympics logo.svg discussion, it appears that the local should be restored with the appropriate license & FuR. Skier Dude (talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G._Bakthavathsalam

could not respond in time to the Speedy Deletion notice -Kgashok (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done I'm not going to quote the whole fulsome thing, here are some samples: a renowned surgeon, philanthropist, orator, leading industrialist... dedicated teacher, successful professional, entrepreneur and a strong believer in social work with sterling qualities, which he maintains throughout his career. A man of principles and strong convictions, he believes in doing one's duty with honesty and hard work. "Super care with a personal touch"... beyond his amazing technical skills, he is most admired for his sensitive touch" ... and so on, and so on. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Rinehart

reasoning -Lilmozo 5 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I just want to ask this girl to prom! I'll delete it soon myself!

 Not done This article was deleted under both the speedy criteria of A7 and A3. It will not be restored, and, just FYI, only a Admin can delete pages. Skier Dude (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

postal order

reasoning -Volley36 (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am a Civil-Law Notary and added a section on presentment of Postal Orders, as the US Government is currently forwarding a fraud against money order issuers per it's publication at https://www.usps.com/shop/money-orders.htm which says both domestic and international postal orders are negotiable outside the US and it's possessions, which is a fraud.

My presentment section addressed this current defect in North American (US and Canada Postal Orders) Postal Orders, as there are caveats on presentment that apply to both US citizens unaware of this intentional fraud by USPS and Canadians who are used to their Postal Orders being accepted in the states IF made payable in USD.

I agree placement could be an issue, but to put such information only under US is unfair to the Canadians that are impacted by the fraud (I discovered this fraud by being a victim of it). The website is clear and unambiguously fraudulent as to presentment, and misleads consumer/issuers.

I would welcome better or more high-profile placement regarding the fraud inherent in US Postal Orders - my only question is where better to place it. It covers at least North America, and given the issue, I imagine it is a topic that can be enlarged to include other geographic areas (nations) as well.

 Not done This article has not been deleted. This is a content dispute, which should be discussed at Talk:Postal Order. Skier Dude (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I-Shou International School

I would like to try to fix the problems -Camhall61 (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Originally deleted because the editor felt the article was advertising, also questioned copyright on our school logo.

Sorry for the late answer. I see you've meanwhile started a nice stub which is the better approach than restoring something with copyright issues. Best. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Felix Lupa

Request to userfy. The article was deleted under A7 and I'd like to fix it up. Avihu (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Avihu/Felix Lupa Skier Dude (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Avihu (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Indian Airlines IC 840

reasoning: I was on of the passenger involved in the crash. This page is the only one I found available on the web where to have the confirmation that the crash happened. The article is accurate, the dynamic of the crash quite true (I would add we slide for nearly 2km upside-down). So I don't know why someone would like to delete this article. Please keep it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.74.86 (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess you refer to Indian Airlines Flight 840 which is currently at a deletion discussion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Airlines Flight 840. You mention yourself part of the problem, namely that there seem to be little sources available. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Steiner House

This page was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 as not being notable, and also for having no sources, when in fact, the article describes a major work of Adolf Loos, a notable architect, and did have sources (albeit improperly formatted sources). I was in the process of cleaning up the article and properly formatting the sources when it was deleted. I request undeletion so that the original contributor may be properly attributed. -WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I have moved the page from your sandbox into the article space while history merging. Thanks for your work on this, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

MDRC article page was deleted. Requesting undeletion.

MDRC is a 40 year old non-profit organization supported by foundations that studies ati-poverty programs.(www.mdrc.org) The deleted article was general information about MDRC's history and work. The reason given for the deletion was "unambiguous advertising". Given that we do not sell anything or seek donations from the public this seems completely erroneous. Perhaps the page was defaced before deletion? I can't tell since the page and it's history are gone. Peer organizations such as The Urban Institute, and the Brookings Institution have articles similar to the one deleted about MDRC. There are also articles about programs we have studied (Opportunity NYC) and one of our past presidents (Judith Gueron). I think the deletion was erroneous and should be reversed. -Bmnpetrie (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

First off: your wording you've got a serious conflict of interest here. Second: the article we deleted was full of self-praise like "seen as a source of objective, unbiased evidence", "has frequently helped to shape legislation, program design, and operational practices across the country" and "conduct valuable research in every state and major city in America"! This kind of fulsome language belongs in a fundraising brochure, not in an encyclopedia article. Self-promotion is self-promotion, regardless of whether you are a non-profit or not. (I assume you have paid executives, etc. whose salaries must be met?) Wikipedia does not exist to help you publicize your organization, however noble your intentions. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Intershop Communications

objection to "lack of notability" -TvF (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


(Originally, I addressed the following to user:fastily (who deleted the page), but was advised that he/she is currently inactive and that I should take the request here)

Hi,

I was reading in the German wikipedia, switched to the English one and saw that the article I wanted to read was deleted. As I had previously not been familiar with the deletion process, I looked it up. The page was deleted for "No indication of notability". I would object on two arguments:

1)

a) "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Intershop (then called NetConsult) in 1994 created arguably the first e-commerce software available (see Online shopping) and continued to be one of the leading software developers for this early time of the market (cf. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NetConsult's+INTERSHOP+Online+Virtual+Storefront+Software+to+be...-a018936058)
b) "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Independent coverage (over the last 13 years) does exist: http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/handel-dienstleister/new-economy-veteran-intershop-strebt-nach-neuer-groesse/3477040.html, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/aktien/new-economy-intershop-ein-verblassender-schatten-der-vergangenheit-141633.html, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/new-economy-der-entzauberte-mythos-115512.html, ... and many more
Intershop has also been notorious for its New Economy bubble - being one of the prime examples for it in Germany (company value rose to 11 billion USD in 2000 only to fall to penny stock levels in very short time, see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuer_Markt ). So it even is interesting from a historical point of view (even used in schools: http://www.schulportal-thueringen.de/web/guest/media/detail?tspi=1195). see also http://www.insead.edu/v1/projects/cgep/Research/Industrystudies/Computer/Intershop.pdf, http://dimetic.dime-eu.org/dimetic_files/Buenstorf%20Fornahl%20JEE%20Intershop.pdf, http://books.google.de/books?id=nbSNQFjAgTkC&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=intershop+%22new+economy%22&source=bl&ots=dICjmRO0po&sig=vhKmsOkZsTevDMrHL7Wvsjp9-Qc&hl=de&sa=X&ei=JcN0T5OSFYiPswbplsDSDQ&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCDgo#v=onepage&q=intershop%20%22new%20economy%22&f=false, http://books.google.de/books?id=nbSNQFjAgTkC&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=intershop+%22new+economy%22&source=bl&ots=dICjmRO0po&sig=vhKmsOkZsTevDMrHL7Wvsjp9-Qc&hl=de&sa=X&ei=JcN0T5OSFYiPswbplsDSDQ&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCDgo#v=onepage&q=intershop%20%22new%20economy%22&f=false
2) Other, very similar, pages for companies with much less significance still exist. For example, see Demandware, a company from the same segment, with about the same revenue, and with the same founder. Compared to the German article on Intershop (to which the English one was probably very similar before deletion), it has even less depth. And most of the sources are in fact quoting articles from the local paper rephrasing press-releases by the company or its customers.
I think this should be enough reason for undeletion.

I suppose the article itself lacks quality (the German one does), but that is another matter.


Regards, TvF

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Mean as custard (talk), who proposed it, in case he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you could contribute. As you will see, the deleted article had only a single reference, and that one seems to be dead, but the requirement for notability is to show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", see also WP:CORP and WP:42. You are welcome to expand the article and add references. Regarding your point 3, we know that many of our 3,900,000 articles are sub-standard, and so What about that other article? is not an argument that is accepted - each article is considered on its own merits. JohnCD (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

CADO Systems Technical Information

This page documented the architecture of an obsolete but popular computer system and programming environment (language, OS, and hardware) from the 1970's and 1980's. Suitability is by precedent: other systems, less obscure, are documented fully in wikipedia (C programming language, UNIX, and Sun for example). Popularity (or lack thereof) of a an article covering a tangible, physical artifact (that actually sold hundreds of millions of units) should not be cause for deletion. -Clintp (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

D3web

The original article was deleted due to a lack of notability. I think this is not right, even the notability may not be shown in the citation yet. I would like to add some sources to the article for this. The d3web software is widely used in defense, healthcare and machinery area. Being an OEM backend component, many people are not aware of this software. This does not make the software less relevant. -82.113.106.93 (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. There may still be a deletion discussion as has happened to the German version, so please add the sources you're aware of. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup

Previous revisions were deleted under AFD. However, current version is more well-written and well-referenced. This is "History undeletion" request. -George Ho (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done After some vandalism a premature speculative creation was deleted several times per consensus in 2006. The latest version has been expanded over a redirect. I'm neither seeing a necessity to restore the old one for attribution nor a benefit for improving the current article. On a general note we have to deal with premature stuff all the time and it'll be counterproductive to restore it without specific reason after other editors create the article in due time. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Brian Redban

I need to know a brief bio of Brian Redban for a project on the use of blogging and social media as a tool for self promotion in the professional world -88.87.178.208 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  •  Not done Please view the archives for the hundred or so similar requests for this individual (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A-Mobile

I missed the original PROD & would like to add sources to prove notability -sephia karta | dimmi 22:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. GB fan 22:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

More BBC logos, mostly region ones

File:BBC Sport.svg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
File:BBC NorthEastAndCumbria.png · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
File:BBC West.png · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
File:BBCYorkshireLincolnshire.png · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
File:BBC Midlands.png · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
File:BBC east.png · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
File:BBC London logo.png · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
File:BBC EastMidlands.png · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
File:BBC South.png · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
File:BBCSouthEast.png · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Per WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 30, these BBC logos are possibly non-free in the UK. --George Ho (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

drama theory

this article is based upon a number of encyclopaedia entries I have written in the past few years on this topic and so can be said to be authoritative (I can provide references if necessary). I am one of the originators of this field of work. The article included links to game theory and other aspects of 'soft OR' which are important. A new article has appeared under the heading of 'confrontation analysis' ostensibly covering the same ground but the two subjects are in fact distinct. -Dramaturgid (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

As unusual as it is to request undeletion for an AFD that was G6'd, I would like this to be userfied to me for archival purposes after the April Fools shenanigans for 2012. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC) -Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  •  Not donethere is no need to keep the contents of a joke afd (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

File:FriendsLogo.jpg

This image was deleted as "non-free". However, per commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright status of "The Simpsons" logos (Or commons:Special:Search/Copyright status of "The Simpsons" logos prefix:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/04 if archived), this image in ineligible for copyrights in the United States. I wonder if this can be transferred to Wikimedia Commons without prejudice. If not, maybe this local copy can be undeleted and then kept as a "local copy". -George Ho (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I must have chosen the wrong logo. --George Ho (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Straight pride

Please userfy. Article was deleted here [1] and a new version created last year. I would like to compare the deleted and current versions. -– Lionel (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wild-Touch

I just don't understand why Orangemike deleted this article while there were some sources (including serious/notorious French sources) and the article clearly explained how it was notorious enough to have a WP article (including the fact that this organization has been created as a consequence of the worldwide success of March of the Penguins). He also seems to have ignored the existence of the French interwiki, where it's far more developped and referenced. Moreover, a speedy deletion doesn't appear to be the right procedure for such a case. Please restore and launch a DR. Thanks. --TwoWingsCorp (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC) -TwoWingsCorp (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Done How about I just restore this and forget about a DR. If people want to delete it again they can use AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly what I meant when I suggested a DR. AfD would be a proper procedure if still contested (not speedy deletion as applied before). Thanks for that. --TwoWingsCorp (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi-Q_(band)

I have just add a new artist album from 2012 and a new, updated official photo! -Floringrozea (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

calin georgescu

I would like to restore this article. I did not create this page, but I was the main contributor. It has been deleted on 11 March 2012 and the reason was: Expired PROD, concern was: Promotional biography of a non-notable individual. After the restoration of the article I will fix the reason for deletion taking into consideration all Wikipedia requirements. -Dezvoltaredurabila (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Biruitorul (talk), who proposed it, in case he wishes to consider nominating it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you could contribute. JohnCD (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Logos of BBC active joint and international networks

File:BBC America.svg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] - Restored
File:BBC Canada logo.svg · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions] - Restored
File:BBC Entertainment Logo.svg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] - No local version
File:BBC Persian.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] - Restored
File:BBC World News red.svg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] - No local version
File:UKTV.svg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] - Deleted per Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 8#File:UKTV.svg

Per WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 30, all BBC logos are possibly non-free. Even if "BBC America" logo is ineligible in the US, BBC logos are still intellectual property of the BBC in the United Kingdom. --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Done As detailed above. Please check tags etc. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If UKTV logo could not be restored, then shall I take that to DRV? --George Ho (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
That would be the right venue, but it also depends on what you think of the FFD and where you see the benefit to do so now. I'd read the FFD pragmatically: "There is currently not seen an urgent need to have a local copy of this particular text logo." If you go to DRV you can't simply point to the closure of the previous one as that was without prejudice to a FFD. So you need a stronger rationale where you may find arguments inside the old one. But you will be asking more people to spent more time on this question now, whilst undeletion would of course be uncontroversial in case the file actually gets deleted at commons.
In short I'd consider a DRV for restoration of a file that is not under immediate threat at commons as a waste of everybody's time. But the same would apply if someone files a FFD to delete the just restored local copies which don't do any harm. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this can help: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos. --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Now that it has been closed it may help, previously it would have been premature to open up other discussions, which was my point. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

R. Peter Ubtrent

I am a Science Fiction author with 8 books in print. Why was my entry deleted? -SANDIABLONDE38 (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. To have a Wikipedia article, it is not enough to have published books: the admission criteria are explained at WP:AUTHOR. The article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Peter Ubtrent so, as stated at the head of this page, it will not be undeleted here. You should first approach user Cirt (talk), who closed the deletion discussion; then, if your concerns are not addressed, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I will also point out that Ubtrent's books are self-published through a vanity press, so "8 books in print" is a somewhat meaningless boast. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

609th Air Communications Squadron

Please undelete and move to my userspace at User:Pmsyyz/609th Air Communications Squadron so that I can work on show notability/expanding/sourcing it. Thank you. -Pmsyyz (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Sourcing is not the issue. Community consensus is that support units at that level are not eligible for separate articles, regardless of supposed notability (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I haven't found the full history of the squadron, but if I can establish notability, it doesn't matter that its current mission isn't notable. For example, the 50th Education Squadron might have a non-notable mission now, but it is notable for its mission during WW I and II. --Pmsyyz (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Done It is really just a stub. Please contact JForget if you feel you can arrive at establishing notability but don't hesitate to tag it with {{db-userreq}} if not.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't remember how long it was when it was deleted. --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

NewSQL

In the six months or so since this article was deleted, the NewSQL topic has gained significant momentum in the database world. NewSQL has been the topic of numerous independent blog posts and trade articles subsequent to the original research article published by noteworthy technology analyst firm The 451 Group. Please refer to the following independent articles on the NewSQL topic:

http://blogs.the451group.com/information_management/2011/04/06/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-newsql/ http://blogs.the451group.com/information_management/2011/04/15/nosql-newsql-and-beyond/ http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2011/04/the-newsql-movement.php http://www.nosqldatabases.com/main/2011/4/7/hybrid-rdbms-systems-now-coined-newsql-databases.html http://www.unbreakablecloud.com/wordpress/2011/05/22/newsql-databases-cloud-are-made-for-each-other/ http://www.bloorresearch.com/analysis/11734/nosql-newsql.html http://www.springsource.org/node/3484 http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/46932/1954 http://www.quora.com/If-NewSQL-systems-work-as-advertised-then-why-should-anyone-use-a-NoSQL-DB http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/04/newsql http://gigaom.com/cloud/is-stonebraker-right-why-sql-isnt-the-choice-du-jour-for-many-apps/ http://highscalability.com/blog/2011/4/16/the-newsql-market-breakdown.html http://web-app.usc.edu/soc/syllabus/20121/30383.pdf http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/238728/newsql_could_combine_the_best_of_sql_and_nosql.html

It is also noteworthy that classes in NewSQL are now being taught in Universities such as Brown and USC. NewSQL has clearly moved from the realm of a neologism and is rapidly emerging as an important topic in the database software realm. The NewSQL community includes some of the world's leading database authorities, including Dr. Michael Stonebraker and James Starkey, and it includes representation from noteworthy software vendors such as Microsoft and VMWare. NewSQL is as relevant to the database world as NoSQL, a topic that enjoys appropriate coverage on Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for considering my request to restore this article on Wikipedia. -Fholahan (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the links or the merits of the request, but be aware that your request reads like press copy in and of itself. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 23:51, 3 April 2012 (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/NewSQL, 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 TParis (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. Before doing so it is a good idea write a draft. I could restore the previous one to your space for a start. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_of_Solidarity_Support_Organizations

reasoning -69.143.122.124 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 09:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Is in dire need of a rework and establishing notability not related to Solidarity (Polish trade union), though. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Traffic signs RUS 062.png

reasoning -Kazuya35 (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Surely you jest! No page's ever existed under that title (or any reasonable permutation of it) in any reasonable namespace! Are you sure that the page's title, capitalisation and all, is correct? Are you sure you're on the right project? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done What Jeremy said, also no sign on your talk page or deleted contribs here--Tikiwont (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hog (band)

Requesting userfication for possible restoration; the band charted a hit single. -Chubbles (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Chubbles/Hog (band) . Not much there, though. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

03 february 2012 vaartha newspaper undeletion

reasoning -49.204.157.103 (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done Per above. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Steve Oliver

Steve Oliver is a very notable smooth jazz guitarist. Article was speedily deleted. -ANDROS1337TALK 15:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/A7

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G11

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G12

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G4

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/U5

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G10

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G5 Note that Wikipedia's notability policy requires that a subject's article be sourced to multiple reliable sources that discuss him in depth, and/or that he releases a charting single. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I note that I had once restored a previous version with more assertion of ipmportance but also more hype. At this point you can either contact Malik Shabazz who deleted it or we userfy it for improvement. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Washington Church of Christ

I am new to Wikipedia and this was my first page. I appreciate I may have posted it without adding every possible piece of text. There is a considerable account to be told about the history of the church, its building, the involvement with the local community including the asylum seekers and refugees among whom lives were literally saved. This page augments the information carried in two existing pages produced by other people. It seems to me that the page already had more information and notability than a comparable page, say that of the Leeds Atheist Society and so I am puzzled as to why such an influential local organisation is seen as not notable. Does it need further text added before being returned to live status? -AHoseason (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

AHoseason (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/A7

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G11

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G12

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G4

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/U5

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G10

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G5 Please note that the existence of Article X can't be used in any way to justify the existence of your article, and that all pages must pass our notability policy on their own merits. That said, while the page can't be restored to it's former location, an admin will likely be more than happy, assuming the text is not a copyright infringement, to restore it to a subpage of your userspace (Say, User:AHoseason/Washington Church of Christ) so that you can continue working on it without fear of it being deleted. Would this work for you? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds better than nothing. I am wary that, having spent 20 hours work just to find the page arbitrarily destroyed, that I am cautious about investing further valuable time when "anyone" can take a decision to remove it again without any discussion with me. AHoseason (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:AHoseason/Washington Church of Christ. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact GB fan (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. While I appreciate the effort made to tell the churchs story, the deletion was not arbitrary, though, as there seems to be little resonance outside, the main criterion here.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheers

There were several participants in the AFD, and all voted for delete. Nevertheless, one of them suggested a task force. I wonder if this request is uncontroversial. -George Ho (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: The page was deleted as a result of a deletion debate. Admins will not undelete pages that were deleted with discussion here; go to WP:Deletion review or contact the administrator that closed the deletion debate instead. As a general rule, the only time an XfD consensus is overturned here is if the XfD had virtually no participation. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done - MfD was clear. There is no prejudice against setting up a task force at WikiProject Television but there is nothing inside the deleted project that would help you in doing so, apart form maybe the name of the sole particptant, Lady Rose nor would you need a DRV for setting it up.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

David Cox (footballer)

player meets WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a fully pro league the Scottish Premier League in season 2007/08. Source [2]. Should there be any reason this cant be restored would an admin userfy this for me. Thanks in advance. -Edinburgh Wanderer 17:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. GB fan 17:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael Stevens (producer-writer-director)

This new article about a very notable BLP subject was tagged for speedy deletion by user: Andrew Kurish [[3]]

Approximately 2 minutes later it was then deleted by user Jimfbleak. [[4]]

The editor who first tagged the article has subsequently very graciously acknowledged on my Talk page that the deletion certainly should not have happened that speedily.

" the article should not have been deleated that quickly under the BLPPROD tag that I placed on it"

And -as readers will see - it should not actually have happened at all.

The reason that the editor who tagged it gave for tagging the article was:

"all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article".

As a very seasoned Wikipedia editor I couldn't agree more.

The reason that the admin who deleted it gave for deleting the article was:

"Unambiguous advertising or promotion: unsourced biography of a living person"

If that WERE the case - I couldn't agree more.

AHEM

It isn't the case.

With all due respect to the two editors - the article cited no less than 18 references to major respected sources such as the Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, the New York Daily News, the official websites of the Kennedy Center, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (confirming the multiple Emmy awards) and HBO. The subject of the article is also clearly notable by all Wikipedia standards for BLP. Exactly as the subject's father and grandfather are notable and are covered by Wikipedia articles. The father's notability is for many of the same Emmy awards that contribute to the notability of the subject of this new article.

The Edit Summary I provided when I posted the article made clear that i would soon be adding more information and additional references (over and beyond the 18 mjor references already cited). In other words the article - which was already far more substantial than many Stub articles of BLP subjects - was just in its infancy. Albeit a substantially cited and referenced infancy. Infanticide is not appropriate in this instance. There are a vast number of BLP articles on Wikipedia that have ZERO cited references - let alone 18 respected reliable references.

Given all the above, I respectfully request that the article should be immediately reinstated. Thank you Davidpatrick (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


I have just been made aware that the speedy and utterly erroneous deletion was under the grounds of G11. The article does NOT fit that definition at all. If it did - a vast number of BLP articles would have to speedily deleted.

The rules governing Speedy Deletion include (pertinent emphasis added)

Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.
Anyone can request speedy deletion by adding one of the speedy deletion templates. Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way. A page is only eligible for speedy deletion if all of its revisions are also eligible. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets, and should consider notifying the page creator and any major contributors.

Thank you Davidpatrick (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Done; please format your citations from inline; that is probably what threw the earlier admin off. This is not an endorsement of the article, which might still be deleted due to prod or afd. NB:This was added after an edit conflict, I have not read your addition. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I note that your action is not an endorsement of the article per se. I see your suggestion about formatting" citations from inline". I'm more accustomed to the style of citation that I used than the protocol of in-line references. I had understood (perhaps wrongly) that both formats are acceptable. Is that no longer the case now? Davidpatrick (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Cheers cast 1982 bw.jpg

I request undeletion of this image for the article "Give Me a Ring Sometime". Shall it be used for the infobox or the Casting section? -George Ho (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

    • Done Please use this non free image with a rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

ACM computer science body of knowledge

reasoning -Brianbjparker (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


This article was deleted before I could make a backup copy due to concerns that the list of subjects given was under copyright by ACM, which I considered to be an over-reaction-- similar articles such as ACM Computing Classification System similarly list ACM subject classifications. In any case, I have since confirmed with ACM copyright clearance that this usage in wikipedia is ok and have emailed this email correspondence to permissions-en at wikimedia.org. Brianbjparker (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

For this we wait for the OTRS volunteer to check the correspondence and then request restore. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC

I need that page again. --- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding crashes on the hard shoulder

reasoning -Bparslow (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


This section on road safety, was the result of established research in 1986, when 3 AA (UK) personnel were killed on the hard shoulder, while helping a motorist. The suggestions were adopted by the AA and police forces. They were also adopted by the many people who have attended my courses. The results have also been published [1]. It is difficult to report negative results, but it safe to assume that it has saved hundreds of lives.

It is surely a valuable contribution to road safety, which should not be deleted.

1. ^ Parslow, B & Wyvill, G Seeing in 3-D, Course 42, SIGGRAPH 2001, Los Angeles

Turning across traffic

reasoning -Bparslow (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


In this article, my advice on how to avoid being killed have been deleted. It has given the opportunity to give all the ways in which, authorities can change the road layout to avoid crashes, but has removed the most important advice to driver about to turn across traffic. The problem was expounded in an article in what is now called The Guardian, and this advice appears in the papers of SIGGRAPH 2001 [1}

Surely it is not the policy of Wikipedia, to delete advice that can save lives.

1. ^ Parslow, B & Wyvill, G Seeing in 3-D, Course 42, SIGGRAPH 2001, Los Angeles

Vitamix

Article was deleted without discussion. It had been a useful article for several years. It included details of a notable lawsuit (sued by Blendtec for tens of millions of dollars for copyright infringement.) The company produces by far the most popular and well-known high-performance blender/juicer units. I have no connection to the company (I don't even admire them now due to their copyright infringment), but I spent a lot of time on the article at one point (on the lawsuit) and I feel it should not have been deleted, and that the company more than meets WP guidelines for notability. The article was still a stub -- if someone wanted it to be expanded, it should have been tagged, not deleted. The deletion amounts to censorhip in my mind because it removes details about the copyright lawsuit which Vitamix famously lost. EDIT: I notice now via Google's cache that the article had a PROD tag which I did not see because I hadn't checked my WatchList for quite a while. I do agree, looking at that last version, that the intro to the article sounds like an ad and that stuff needs to be weeded out and redone. But the Legal Disputes section of the article is important, accurate, well-referenced, and encyclopedic. I think that alone, even beyond the company's decided notability, merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC) -Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done It was spammy beyond belief; and your "important, accurate, well-referenced, and encyclopedic" lawsuit section, was sourced solely to a website called www.blendtecvitamixlawsuit.com ! That does not constitute the requisite third-party coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_66&oldid=1083424041"