Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Chuck Easttom: new section
Line 340: Line 340:


{{Incorrectly formated undeletion request}}
{{Incorrectly formated undeletion request}}
*{{revisions| pageName }}
*{{revisions| Chuck Easttom}}
<i></i>reasoning -[[User:Willbennett2007|Willbennett2007]] ([[User talk:Willbennett2007|talk]]) 04:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
<i></i>reasoning -[[User:Willbennett2007|Willbennett2007]] ([[User talk:Willbennett2007|talk]]) 04:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Revision as of 04:26, 15 August 2010


Note: This page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions nor to address the pending deletion of any page.
Shortcuts

Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion and under certain speedy deletion criteria, such as CSD G6. 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. This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other XfD 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 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, and you are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.

float
float
float
float
Enter the page's title to request its undeletion:

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Bitcoin

Deletion was handled improperly, many other Wikipedia articles reference Bitcoin, no discussion was allowed to take place -Knightmb (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - articles linking to Bitcoin include Crypto-anarchism, Alternative currency, Electronic money, ISO 4217, Peer-to-peer. - prat (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent vandalism? - after I posted this comment, User:Korath has systematically gone through and removed all reference. I have raised the issue on the user's talk page prat (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - this page has been deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin, and cannot be undeleted through this process, which is only for pages deleted uncontroversially. Please read what this page is for at the top. If you believe that the consensus of the discussion was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Polargeo (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. — ξxplicit 07:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we've already seen a deletion review. People are now upset with its outcome and requesting undeletion. prat (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how can you say "no discussion was allowed to take place"? The deletion debate lasted more than 16 days, and fifteen users and several IPs took part. JohnCD (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that kind of points out itself because when you go to the deleted article from another link or wikipedia article, it's just deleted and which link on that page was the discussion? I wouldn't have put in a request if it didn't look like vandalism Knightmb (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2010 (CDT)
Comment If you attempt to edit the article (see this link) you will see a pink box indicating the article has been deleted before with a link to the AfD discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks for pointing that out, after reading over it I'm still wondering why it was deleted. It's either going to be created again by someone else or the information moved to another online encyclopedia, leaving wikipedia kind of burned. I know the goal is quality articles with good sources, but the whole issue of whether the software or project itself is notable or not should not have come up as a decision making reason and as such my opinion of that is just as valid as the next person who believes it should be removed because they feel it isn't notable. I'm sure the article won't return this month I guess, but at least I stated my opinion on the matter. Knightmb (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2010 (CDT)
Comment No, notability is not a matter of opinion but of whether the subject has had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and it is Wikipedia's primary test for whether a subject should have an article. JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all of which are words that depend on an opinion, but I'm not here to argue semantics; if anyone could be kind enough to point me to a link that contains all the original article text before it was deleted, it would be greatly appreciate. It's kind of annoying that it's at the top of a google search and points to a non-existance page here, needs to be moved elsewhere. Knightmb (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2010 (CDT)
Comment - Someone pointed out Userfication to me, this might strike a good balance here and keep the content in tact for others searching for it. I'll contact the list of administrators to see what deal can be worked out. Knightmb (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2010 (CDT)

For those interested, the article has been userfied at User:Message From Xenu/Bitcoin by the deleting admin. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - By my judgement as a computing professional working both within finance and cryptography, and as a long-time Wikipedia user and administrator, this is good content, on a notable subject, linked to elsewhere both on the wider internet and within Wikipedia. It should never have been deleted. prat (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as you full well know it just went through DRV where the deletion was endorsed despite your threat to resign as an admin if it didn't get restored. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct, though that has little or no relevance. Requests for undeletion is based upon articles thought to be wrongly deleted through due process. This is one such article. prat (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The header to this page says "Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion and under certain speedy deletion criteria, such as CSD G6." - nothing like your interpretation of it. In fact the nice coloured box with bolded text says "Note: This page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions nor to address the pending deletion of any page." - how you can manage to miss that I can't imagine. The original admin rejected it as having been deleted through AFD and pointed to DRV as the correct place for further review. Definitely time to stop beating this dead horse. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your 'dead horse' opinion is irrelevant, please stay on topic. Back to the facts: this is the fourth time this article's relevance has been discussed. Initially someone deleted it, apparently with minimal discussion. undeleted it, completely certain that was a mistake. It was then re-requested for deletion, on grounds of notability, which multiple people believe we established to an adequate extent. Deletion occurred regardless. Next, it was deletion reviewed. Here and now, undeletion has been requested. For the record, I am not 'a singleton admin' wanting the status changed, I am merely one of many vocal opponents to the deletion of this article. The record shows many others in support of keeping, at least the following users: Theymos, Dizm, DataWraith, Robert Horning, American Antics, Knightmb and Message From Xenu. I do not know these people, they are independently supporting keeping this article. Removing good content simply prohibits incremental improvement and stifles progress. The article never should have been deleted, and it needs to be restored ASAP. prat (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's totally relevant as is WP:IDHT at some point your continued attempts to ignore community consensus and request a nth bite of the cherry until the outcome matches your desire becomes disruptive. Again read the headings at the top of the page, read the admin who originally closed this opinion. This is the wrong venue no matter how many times you claim it isn't. WP:DRV was and that endorsed the outcome. The horse isn't going to spring back to life. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than making personal attacks, perhaps consider both a real user account and actually responding to points raised rather than simply pointing at procedures. prat (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity

Deletion of "Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity" from Wikipedia- an unwanted, unfortunate exercise.

It has been brought to our notice that "Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity" has recently been deleted. Grounds of deletion: "nonsense" for appearing i.r.bhattacharjee alone in the reference= is not understood.

" Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822[1] – January 6, 1884) was an Augustinian priest and scientist, who gained posthumous fame as the figurehead of the new science of genetics for his study of the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of these traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him. The significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century. The independent rediscovery of these laws formed the foundation of the modern science of genetics.[2] Ref Wikipedia.

Similarly I.R.Bhattacharjee is the figurehead of the new science of "Self Gravitation Bio" with study on "Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity". When "Biohysical Society", USA has referred it as new subject of expertise in biophysics, referring it as "non sense" is quite unfortunate. It is to be remembered that Mendel was alone in the scientific world for more than 40 years. Now how many scientists in the present world is following Mendel's law? Possibly more than 99%. So it is not fair to state that I.R.Bhattacharjee is alone in the field and hence science should be deleted.

Tomorrow, the same Mandel's history in the development of science would likely to be repeated as regard "Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity". None yet could nullify the conjectiures on "Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity", as it is based on facts, truth. Any one is free to challenge/ contradict the content/ logic/ arguments.Unless it is made, arbitrary deletion (as personal reflection etc.) is unjustified. So please allow the article to resurface and allow open debate, if desires so. The author is ready to answer all and each such querries. -I.R.Bhattacharjee (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barb Higgins

The page "Barb Higgins" was uncontroversially deleted on July 31 for the reason (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content). Further reasoning given was "Mayoral candidates and local news anchors are not automatically notable just because they exist." I would like to ask that this page be undeleted, as it was speedily deleted without discussion. The page failed to adequately state the case for notability, however I believe this requirement is throughly met: Ms. Higgins is currently a candidate for mayor of Calgary, the largest city in the province, and according to two recent polls she is the frontrunner (http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/Calgarians+putting+their+support+behind+upcoming+Civic+Election/3337533/story.html). As the Mayoral election approaches (about 80 days away) voters will be looking to Wikipedia for information on the candidates, and many of the others have active pages. If she wins, which appears likely, it would make sense for there to be a developed article on her. -Lola60311 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lola60311 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 closed the discussion, user Bearcat (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.
Note - I have taken Lola through the steps and helped her to recreate the page to Wikipedia standards for inclusion based on Higgins journalist career as opposed to her new political career, this request can now be archived or removed- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 15:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GunCrazy2DVDCover.jpg

This is not my image, however it is useful for the article and I will fix the licensing so it is not copyvio -Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thank you for the cleanup before I could get back to it.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Tarver

Member of very popular band, very notable as guitarist. Also professional screenwriter with IMDB page. Absurd to delete. -76.8.72.250 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user Rednevog (talk · contribs), who proposed it, in case s/he wishes to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. It will help if you can add references to reliable sources to help establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best tourist destinations of pakistan

Dear wikipedia, I am really new to wikipedia so i don't know the rules of website. I made a page named, User:San andrew/Best tourist destinations of pakistan which is about pakistan's beautiful places but i didn't like the title and i was unable to change it so i made a new page named, Best tourist destinations of pakistan, i copied all the information from my previous page. I made this page because of the title, I kindly request you to not delete this page. -San andrew (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Not doneWe don't allow articles like this in Wikipedia. The deleted article was clearly promotional in nature; indeed, such articles are routinely deleted here because they tend by nature to be promotional, full of opinion(s) and generally impossible of verification. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gao_Xiaosong

added reference -Wilson Hu 09:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have added a reference to a reliable source, all you need to do is remove the BLP-PROD template. You do not need to post here - this page is only for requests about articles which have already been deleted - see instructions at head of page. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng_Lei

referenced -Wilson Hu 09:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See comment above. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Briffa

Hi, This page was deleted because there was no source for the biography. I found a good source regarding the Biography of Alfred Briffa which is on this web site http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/Alfred+Briffa/43072.html. Do you mind if this page will be undeleted please? -Indrinu (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done That reference was already in the article. It was not deleted for lack of references, but under speedy deletion criterion A7 because it did not indicate why he was important or significant. I think it could maybe be improved to pass A7, but if it is to be kept it needs to pass the higher bar of notability, which requires showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See also WP:CREATIVE. If you think you can find more which might meet that standard, I will put the article into the WP:Article Incubator where you can work on it. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

enhancing Police Accountability through Forensic Science

It is really horrible to find that article that I have posted Titled Enhancing Police Accountability through Forensic Science has been deleted and categorised under copy right infringement . That as a lawyer , as a man of criminal justice administration , I say that this act is ultra virus and bad in nlaw , as I am the original writer of this article , which I posted in drgautamghosh.com. That it is fact that the creator of my blog , a company is having my user ID and password , and could have played mischief , which is being probed , but such an act , is really diagracing . At present I am going to the Munk Centre , University of Toronto , so I cannot , sway more , but I would request you to see , verify , analyze the facts in issue and re-instate my name . Even if it takes time , I will wait , but at the same length , I want that you please e-mail me the article , which is purportedly posted in my blog , which necessitated such drastic action , on 5th August 2010. Nevertheless , I stand by my act and I am happy with my contribution in the field of Police Administration . Thank You Dr Ghosh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.196.55 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2010

  • Please give either your username or the exact title of the article; I cannot find any deleted article with that title, though I have tried several variations of capitalisation.
  • If material has already been published elsewhere, we cannot accept it just on the basis of an assertion of authorship: for one thing, we have no way to know that you are who you say. If you want to release material you have written to Wikipedia, it is essential to follow the steps explained in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • Before doing that and submitting it again, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your original work. Wikipedia:Your first article has useful advice, too.
JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clipeado

No reasoning given. -Jose Levy (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page is a copyright violation. — ξxplicit 19:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla (software)

There are now enough 3rd-party sources to support the article, the recent 2.0 release puts it on-par with other forum software listed on Wikipedia both in popularity and developer involvement. -76.195.68.49 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Image Network

Why after years of being on WikiPedia did you delete Women's Image Network? I simply uploaded our logo and wham, our page was gone. This is a longtime charity serving the community...can you pls advise? Why on EARTH was this information deleted? You can find dozens of WIKI pages with our awards mentioned. "Women's Image Network" -76.91.31.239 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iris_Software

Claimed was non-notable. It is the largest privately owned software business in the UK with 60,000 customers. -110.33.104.47 (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page has been deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iris Software, and cannot be undeleted through this process, which is only for pages deleted uncontroversially. Please read what this page is for at the top. If you believe that the consensus of the discussion was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Cirt (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. DMacks (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miro Major

Miro Major is a NZ representitive in the Futsal Whites - New Zealand National Futsal Team. This can be viewed on www.nzfootball.co.nz -Reneekaran (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VTD-XML

VTD-XML is an open source software -Jzhang2007 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VTD-XML is an open source XML software that can benefit a lot of users. It is not spam.

Hi, I am author of vtd-xml.... I have been away for a month, but when I come back, the vtd-xml wiki page gets deleted. VTD-XML is an open source software that can be accessed at http://vtd-xml.sf.net, it is not a spam or product promotion.

Can someone please restore it?

  • Hi. It looks like it was deleted as blatant advertisement. I contacted the deleting admin and they should be along to either undelete it or explain why they don't want to undelete it shortly. If they don't want to delete it, you can appeal their decision at deletion review. If it comes to that, I can help you with the particulars. I will note that I don't think the article was spam, but the decision to delete it is not something I can overturn lightly. If you bear with us we will try to help you out. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll restore the page on the condition that you actively work on bringing the article up to standard. Would you be willing to do that? -FASTILY (TALK) 02:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am willing to do what you asked... [[User::jzhang2007
And  Done per above. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Romsky Jr.

Deleted for A7, please e-mail a copy of deleted page to romsk22@gmail.com, Thank You -184.61.70.4 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence C Hulley

educational, was important living figure -Oneill05 oneill (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dethcentrik

Believe Terrorizer Magazine is a plenty reliable source. Dethcentrik is track 14 on the Fear Candy 84 sampler with issue 200 -MetallerMex666 (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Prator

All information on Page "Mark Prator" was accurate and timely. This Person has had a storied and varied career. User "Ron Ritzman" is unknown to Mark Prator, and undeletion of page is requested at this time.

Reason for original deletion is unacceptable and not based on facts in any way.

As Mark Prator is mainly a hired musician, producer, engineer - that is the source of his known status in this industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.210.178 (talk • contribs)

cameron casey

Please re-enter my listing for Cameron Casey

No. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Casey. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powder Coating Industry in Pakistan

Re-work with citations -Usmanadeel 2000 (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health diagnostic laboratory

I marked the page with hangon expecting to be able to discuss the speedy deletion tag. Please put the page back so a discussion can be had. -Ctwise (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reads like a blatant avertising, no concept of how it meets any general notability guidelines, and therefore apparently not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. When you put a hangon tag, it is YOUR requirement to then edit the related talkpage to give the patrolling administrator proof that it does neet the notability requirements/is not promotional. If you have read WP:CSD, you'll know that it does not involve additional discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

officetiger

reasoning -InDpendentThnkR (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC) There was nothing objective to the page and gave a good history of a now defunct, yet important company in relation to the creation of outsourcing to India in the United States. It may be debated by some that this webpage may hurt the credibility of certain individuals with the negative stigma towards outsourcing, but it revolutionized commerce and exchange with India and whether or not for the best impacted ideals in the United States.[reply]

Daph Nobody

This writer and actor is very active and representative of contemporary film and literature in Belgium, he deserves to be mentioned on wikipedia, the same way guys like Jean-Noël Gobron and Giles Daoust are. Belgium has very few champions, on a national scale as well as abroad, and Daph Nobody is one of them, notably through his international works, in France and in the United States, recently with BLOOD BAR (novel) and A BROKEN LIFE (film). I don't understand why this article was deleted, it is almost discriminative for the young generation of Belgian authors. The article was deleted for a so-called lack of references, making the information unverifiable. But many (external and internal) links were added to the page, to support its relevance. Please could you reintegrate this page in wikepedia once and for all? Thank you. -109.128.73.175 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Burk

According to the archive this is the reason it was deleted:

"The result was delete. David Eppstein raises an excellent point. Sean William @ 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)"

"# Delete per WP:BIO1E. Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC"


At the time of the event, it may not have been particularly unusual, but as it was discovered, her killer was a recent Iraqi War Veteran that had returned home, which immediately brought up speculation that PTSD could have been behind the killing. Not to mention, Westboro Baptist Church involved themselves with her funeral since she was of Jewish faith. And she was abducted ON CAMPUS, which prompted heightened security AND prompted Auburn to change security policies... that alone provides LONG-TERM notability.

Just because it doesn't convince someone that it was unusual, doesn't alone give reason to delete. -74.178.128.252 (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DULHA

This is a profile of a village that exists in India -Amanjha1 (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved to Dulha, in accordance with the rules of capitalization in English. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Com

This template was deleted on the basis "we don't need links to commons" and "just type it out". I would like to point out that making things easier - eg not having to type out long links - is a major reason for templates to exist - after all, if we wanted we could all just type out the entire code for an infobox in every article, but we don't, because it would be long, laborious, and likely to create mistakes. Now, if we delete things like {{com}}, then we should delete other, similar templates, such as {{c}}, {{u}}, {{tl}} - all of which would be very simple to type out if we could be bothered. But the point is they make things easier, and they're useful. That is what {{com}} was - it was a nice simple way to link back to pages on Commons. And really, how was it hurting en.wp by existing? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC) --mattbuck (Talk) 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CatilineTragedy.jpg

Scan of a book published in 1692: may have been mislabeled as fair-use (this seems from the log and from here to be the deletion reason), but very obviously passes multiple PD tests with flying colors, e.g. Template:PD-art, Template:PD-old. -Wareh (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak squeak

the claim that the weak squeak is not a notable bidding convention in contract bridge is simply incorrect. It is very widely used, non-intuitive, and the basic model a lot of other conventions are based on. Not only that but the use of the rapid deletion process seems inappropriate as it is not obviously a candidate for speedy deletion and a chance for discussion should be allowed. -Trewornan (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify Stormbay (talk · contribs), who PRODded it, in case he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. You need to add references to verify what the article says, and to establish notabiity by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Autosports

we own the content for United Autosports -Bgoodman0310 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I was not informed that my page was going to be deleted. I did send SouthernNights a note about the deletion, but his page indicated that he does not check his Wikipedia Admin information very often, and I'm very concerned that our page will not be reinstated in a timely manner. Drive Digital Media represents United Autosports' web site and Flickr account, and we have full rights to all of the content in these areas. I believe what SouthernNights was saying is that there was copyright infringement on the text involved. I need to be clear that the Wikipedia page and the web site must reflect each other closely, as we need to be sure our material is exact. Could you please reinstate our United Autosports page as soon as possible? I am very anxious to hear back from you. Thank you,

Bgoodman0310 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In a word: no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an advertising venue. The primary issue is that while you may own the copyright on your page, I'm certain you do not understand the license you are agreeing to release this content under. In order for us to accept text (or any other content), it must effectively be released into the public domain. All downstream users must have the right to recreate, modify and redistribute your content for any purposes whatsoever. The second issue is that if your goal is to have a wikipedia page match a corporate page, you almost certainly shouldn't be creating a wikipedia page. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far 2 skilled FC

The reason it was deleted was due to 'article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject', but the page was deleted before i had even wrote the information about the groups, hence the significance. -J.O'Grady 21:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - the club is based at the "Playstation Stadium (Capacity: 278)" and plays in the "L-Gate Fantasy League" and "Soysource League". Sorry, but to have a Wikipedia article a club, or anything else, has to be notable, whic means showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See also Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Crameri

prod deleted article, he has now played a senior game, 13 Aug 2010 [1] -duffbeerforme (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gundu Hirisave Rama Rao

It has necessary references -Narayanasharma (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Thomas-Webster

The page was deleted I believe in error. It is not advertising it merely lists the progress and achievements of Nick Thomas-Webster. It is a genuine reflection of his history through life. It may be that an attempt to delete was made out of jealously by a member of the public. No notice of intended deletion was made or advised. Would you please review your decision and advise. Many thanks in anticipation -92.16.240.100 (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Food Safety

This should be fairly uncontroversial, but the problem is that the deleting admin seems to be no longer active. (See User_talk:Luna_Santin#Center_for_Food_Safety) I have no experience with this process, so somebody please help. -Dyuku (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Easttom

WARNING: you did not submit your request correctly!

You need to replace the "PageName" parameter of the template with the name of the page that you would like restored, spelled correctly, with proper case. Please click the "[edit]" link to the right, and replace the contents of this section with:

{{subst:refund|The name of the requested page|your reasoning for asking to undelete it}}

reasoning -Willbennett2007 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article on this topic about a year ago. I had nothing to do with that article or its subsequent deletion. This year I wrote my own article on the same topic AFTER discussing it with some of the original deleters. My article was extremely well sourced. Well today someone deleted it with NO discussion, not even mentioning to me their intent.

This is outrageous. I did a good article. Two other wikipedians helped clean it up. Then simply because someone else had previously done an article on the same topic that was NOT as well sourced, mine gets deleted instantly with not even a message to me or a chance for me to respond? This is completely outrageous.Willbennett2007 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=378990225"