(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 324:
Line 324:
Please get back to me asap, this is what i want, this is what i expect. -[[User:SalopSi|SalopSi]] ([[User talk:SalopSi|talk]]) 15:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Please get back to me asap, this is what i want, this is what i expect. -[[User:SalopSi|SalopSi]] ([[User talk:SalopSi|talk]]) 15:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
: <!-- Begin Template:UND -->[[Image:Yes check.svg|18px]] '''Done'''<!-- End Template:UND - d --> however the article did contain promotional adjectives, which I have now removed. Your next step should be to include references that show where the information came from, and also please explain what the football team has got to do with this place. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 21:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
== See Me Not ==
== See Me Not ==
Line 337:
Line 338:
*{{revisions|Fishbowl worldwide media}}
*{{revisions|Fishbowl worldwide media}}
<i></i>Article was deleted for being "not significant." The page includes 10+ links to reliable entertainment industry sources demonstrating notability of the company. Also, searching Wikipedia itself shows numerous references to the company. -[[Special:Contributions/67.224.100.100|67.224.100.100]] ([[User talk:67.224.100.100|talk]]) 21:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
<i></i>Article was deleted for being "not significant." The page includes 10+ links to reliable entertainment industry sources demonstrating notability of the company. Also, searching Wikipedia itself shows numerous references to the company. -[[Special:Contributions/67.224.100.100|67.224.100.100]] ([[User talk:67.224.100.100|talk]]) 21:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:*<!-- Begin Template:UND -->[[Image:X mark.svg|18px]] '''Not done'''<!-- End Template:UND - nd --> I suggest that someone writes it from scratch again, as it was riddled with promotion. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 21:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:49, 28 June 2012
Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions nor to address the pending deletion of any page.
Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process.
This page is only for requesting undeletion of articles or files which have already been deleted. If the article you are concerned about is still visible, but has a warning message (template) at the top, please do not post here, but follow the instructions on the template or on your talk page.
Note that requests for undeletion is not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.
floatfloatPlease enter the page's title to request its undeletion:
To contest deletions that have have already been discussed (in particular, at Articles for deletion), or that are likely to be controversial, please make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review instead.
This one was a POV promotion of selected webs site by a banned user. I suggest you start from scratch, as it does sound like a useful topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the entry was just a stub (so far), he is notable having designed a number of Icelandic lighthouses, including the Knarraros lighthouse. If in fact he does not qualify for an article, then we should un-wikify his name in Knarraros lighthouse.
Thanks
--Ira -Ira Goldstein (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking a bit before I deleted this one. It was mostly a genealogy. But if you can come up with independent references for the design then that could justify it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of pages, such as the lighthouses at Gardskagi and Hólmsbergsviti which talk about his work as a lighthouse designer. I also took a photo of the tourist sign at Knarros Knarraros lighthouse sign, but am not sure how to use that as a reference. --Ira Goldstein (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Lutton is a well known and esteemed individual. He is a prolific theatre and opera director in Australia with an extremely high profile and many notable directing credits to his name. He is represented by HLA Management Pty a theatrical agency in Sydney Australia, who are the company requesting that this article not be deleted. His Agent can be contacted on (Redacted) should this matter wish to be discussed or any information verified. -Hla123 (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Bazley, who is pictured in the image, and who owns the copyright has now been kind enough to email Wikipedia using one of the Wikipedia templates to release the image under a creative commons license. Unfortunatel;y it took a few days to arrange this, in which time the image was deleted due to lack of licensing information. -Dave.m.houghton (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For this sort of thing we usually will await for the OTRS volunteer to confirm the email. Otherwise if you have an OTRS number we can proceed from there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD reason from 2007 was A fairly clear-cut example of a piece of software that doesn't pass WP:N. No secondary sources are given per WP:RS. I have retreived a number of sources which I believe establish notability. The software is under continuing development. --- Trevj (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to give us the exact title of the page you mean, including the same capitalisation, or else the username of the account that created it. JohnCD (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reason for the delete (quoted: "No indications of notability. Non-notable software. Unreferenced.") was incorrect. PlantUML is refrenced in at least 2 places ( List_of_Unified_Modeling_Language_tools and Graphviz) and does have some notable features (which I would be happy to spell out). I have found this software to be very useful and to fill a niche which is otherwise only filled in a limited fashion by a few online pay services. As a GPL alternative to those services, it seems to me that it deserves a bit of explanation. -Shdwjk (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page was apparently deleted according to the noteworthy criterion in 2010. However, Metaxas is a noted author whose book on Bonhoeffer was the #4 NYT nonfiction bestseller on Sept. 25, 2011. He is referred to in 17 Wikipedia articles. He gained a new audience as the speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year (the only such speaker to not have a Wikipedia page). I am actually not a fan and came to Wikipedia looking for a NPOV on him. -Hugetim (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. It was in fact only deleted last month. I will notify user Mfhiller (talk), who proposed it, and who may decide to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you could contribute. Any references to comment about him in reliable sources that you can add will help. JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done? The article was deleted on the basis of numerous complaints. The major complaint (as supported by talk) actually was that this article contains almost nothing but advertising for someone who does not express a majority view (e.g., completely unsupported, unscholarly views about Bonhoeffer). Thanks for paying attention. Will take this forward. Mfhiller (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]
Article was speedily deleted because the contents where similar to those on another website. However the article is not in violation anymore since a copyright disclaimer was published on the page it came from. -Calfaro (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but if the article is to be kept it needs more references - the two it has seem to be based on the same press release, and that is not enough to establish WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The biography of the artist Trevor Steel (performer, writer, producer, label owner) was reviewed by Mr. Steel for accuracy and is veriafiable in the All Music Guide as well as other resources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alias2u2 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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/4.2.2.2, 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.. And, um, you've never had a userpage (talk→BWilkins←track) 23:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it says at the top of the page "This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere". I am asking for you to userfy the deleted article. I'm not asking you to do anything with my userpage. As you note, I've never had a userpage. 173.65.59.187 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DoneSince you do not have a user page this is the content:
'''4.2.2.2''' is the [[IP address]] of a [[DNS]] server owned by the company [[Level 3 Communications]].
Network users primarily use this address to check their connectivity to the internet by [[Ping|pinging]] this address.
Because the address of this DNS server is easy to remember, its use is spreading rapidly among IT and ICT professionals who quickly want to check the connectivity of a device.<ref>For an example, see [http://www.webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=1278 this handout] from the [[Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation]]</ref>
It is also popular with [[Information technology]] and [[Internet service provider|ISP]] help desk personnel, who find the IP address simple to tell people over the phone. It is often more convenient for them to instruct someone to ping 4.2.2.2 rather than the ISP's own DNS server in order to test connectivity.
The Bobin.A [[computer virus|Windows virus]] pings this address to detect an active Internet connection on an infected machine.<ref>http://www.pandasoftware.com/com/virus_info/encyclopedia/overview.aspx?lst=det&idvirus=81557</ref>
4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.6 are all valid Level 3 DNS servers.
Not done - you can see the text at http://www.mainehistory.org/about_opportunities.shtml#docent, but for copyright reasons we cannot accept it, even in a user page, without a formal copyright release. That would not be worth doing, (a) because of the promotional tone ("friendships that will last a lifetime!") and (b) because just copying the text would not provide the references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which are needed to establish WP:Notability for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a notice-board for announcements. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was hastily deleted without consideration of the company having just been launched and can only provide just a little history or notability. Also seeking suggestions and assistance from administrators to edit the page and keep it up. -Qualitypedia (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If the company has only "just been launched and can only provide just a little history or notability" that is exactly why it doesn't qualify for an article - Wikipedia is not here to help launch the "up and coming". JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page was deleted under CSD G4, content previously deleted after an XfD which has been recreated. I created the page again and it was tagged for deletion almost straight away. I was not the person who created it the first time, and undoubtedly it was different content. It was referenced and is notable, as it fits in with all the other newsreaders which have articles and their own category. People should look at content before they delete instead of just if it was XfDd before. Rcsprinter(Gimme a message) 15:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC) -Rcsprinter(chatter)15:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. The reason for deletion at the AfD was lack of reliable sources to show notability. Your new article's references are Bigfishmedia (his company)'s website, his own website, and a news item which lists him among several other people who joined a protest. That is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Newsreaders are not automatically notable. You should talk to Graeme Bartlett (talk), the deleting admin; then, if you are not satisfied, you can take it to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.. I will notify user NatGertler (talk), who proposed it, and may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you could contribute. You should add to the article any references you have to establish WP:Notability, preferably not all from the same source and not behind paywalls. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has potential legal precedent. See my comments below too.
I have contacted the contributor who redirected Onion (dog) article with no response. A majority of the contributors objected to the article's removal, but the redirect was done any way. Below is the redirect link and my comments on the redirect page. If I have filed this complaint incorrectly, please be patient as I am new to Wikipedia. I've done some edits here, but I mainly participate in the WP copy edit drives. Thank you. Quill and Pen (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have strongly disagreed with the NFD concerning Onion the Dog, and I still do, as this case is a legal one. If the Lexus Project wins their case that could be heard at the Nevada Supreme Court, then Onion the Dog will set legal precedent throughout the United States. Other government agencies will have to review their policy concerning vicious dogs. Also, the article reflects a changing view of pet ownership. This what made Onion the Dog unique and noteworthy as the big picture was not the dog attack itself, but the ramifications following the event. Quill and Pen (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done. Before the redirect was put in place, this article was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onion the dog so, as stated at the top of this page, it will not be undeleted here. If you consider that the discussion was wrongly decided, or you have new information, you should first approach user Bwilkins (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion; then, if your concerns are not addressed, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add sourcing to the article to make it appropriate for wikipedia. However, I no longer have the content of the article, so if possible I would like to edit the it in my own sandbox before restoring it. Is it possible to send me the content? Thanks for the help -Trafficattic (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done It only took a few moments of looking to see that being deleted as an advertisement/highly promotional is quite the correct reason. For example, "...you can watch them on TV or at their web site..."? Doesn't get more promotional than that = ✉→BWilkins←✎21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please UNdelete ERGO wikipedia page. It was deleted by speedy deletion. Did not have opportunity to revisit the page until now, to make edits to the ERGO page (U.S. non-profit organization), only to find it was deleted. Will re-edit page so it is 'acceptable" to the community. Thanks. -SilverLiner (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Any articles 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. Non-profits by themselves may be noble, but with assertion of notability, they may not meet the requirements for Wikipedia. I would suggest creating a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT, and then checking with the deleting admin before proceeding (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very little discussion was undertaken on this page - there seems to have been an arbitrary judgement by an administrator that it is "not notable" -Hammersfan (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There's more bytes of text here than most other AFD's...and of course, never good to not WP:AGF and insult the deleting admin whose role is to weight the policy-based argumements (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine - then restore it to my userspace until such time as more information becomes readily available, after which the page can then be restored to the main site. And where is this supposed "insult"? Hammersfan, 27/06/12, 23:38 BST
this was being used in the article, and had proper licensing information when uploaded. If there was no licensing information, it was removed due to vandalism-we are very careful about such images -Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a game that kids have been playing at Hume Lake Christian Camps for decades. The kids in our church youth group play this game often. Kids from church youth groups all over California play this game and it is a prestigious title to hold at Hume Lake Christian Camps. -12.139.172.178 (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page was deleted because it supposedly represented advertisement for a product. However, this page is no more an advertisement of a product than many other descriptions of software products found on wikipedia. The page describes a free and open source tool for data discovery for which a free LiveDVD is available. It was created to be referenced in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIS_Live_DVD which also describes other similar tools, many of which have a similar description page. Please kindly reconsider the deletion. -Mhogeweg (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to request reasons as to why my short page on Es Canar was deleted?
It does not promote a company, product, group, service or person as it is none of those.
It may not have been full and descript, but it was short and to the point, and better than some of the articles on here that you have failed to action the removal of.
Done however the article did contain promotional adjectives, which I have now removed. Your next step should be to include references that show where the information came from, and also please explain what the football team has got to do with this place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung deleted the page because of A9 (Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance). But I created the article about the artist Saroos. -Cvlwr (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Kudpung did say "If the Saroos article is kept at AfD you can ask any admin to restore your See Me Not article - politely of course, or just recreate it after ensuring that all claims in it are correctly referenced" so unless there are some glaring problems in the article that could require userfication, I think that it can and should be restored. RyanVeseyReview me!19:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article was deleted for being "not significant." The page includes 10+ links to reliable entertainment industry sources demonstrating notability of the company. Also, searching Wikipedia itself shows numerous references to the company. -67.224.100.100 (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done well actually content of article emailed, as it is too promotional to appear here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: Admins do not undelete articles based on the request of the subject or people associated with him - Wikipedia is not free advertising. In any case, A7s will not be overturned here. In order to be included in Wikipedia, a subject MUST be proven notable, by way of having multiple reliable sources discussing him. This is not negotiable in the slightest. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 07:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you It's the same piece of software, so I can now import my content. -- Trevj (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done, for me the page has not yet been created, so forget it's deletion :) Dipankan (Have a chat?) 09:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
