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
Tikiwont (talk | contribs)
31,783 edits
→‎Brendan Gallagher: the history is just a copyvio and a redirect
→‎DECT Forum: new section
Line 289: Line 289:
<i></i>This article was deleted and now has been recreated, but all of its edit history is missing. It should have its past edit history restored also. -[[User:Fages|Fages]] ([[User talk:Fages|talk]]) 13:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
<i></i>This article was deleted and now has been recreated, but all of its edit history is missing. It should have its past edit history restored also. -[[User:Fages|Fages]] ([[User talk:Fages|talk]]) 13:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
:<!-- Begin Template:UND -->[[Image:X mark.svg|18px]] '''Not done'''<!-- End Template:UND - nd --> This has been deleted once as copyright violation and another time as mere redirect per [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_24#Brendan_Gallagher]] neither of which should be restored nor does the creation seem to rely on some previous history.--[[User:Tikiwont|Tikiwont]] ([[User talk:Tikiwont|talk]]) 14:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
:<!-- Begin Template:UND -->[[Image:X mark.svg|18px]] '''Not done'''<!-- End Template:UND - nd --> This has been deleted once as copyright violation and another time as mere redirect per [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_24#Brendan_Gallagher]] neither of which should be restored nor does the creation seem to rely on some previous history.--[[User:Tikiwont|Tikiwont]] ([[User talk:Tikiwont|talk]]) 14:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

== DECT Forum ==


*{{revisions| DECT Forum }}
<i></i> The article was not intended to be a advertising text. The association described in this article is a well reputed entity that e.g. takes care that people can use cordless telephones in most countries of the wordl. The association therefore negotiates with regulators, govenrment worldwide for frequency allocation. This is the main goal of the association which is a non-profit organization. I am happy to edit the article since it was my first one, but I belive thath the topic is worth to exist at Wikipedia. -[[User:RolSchmidt|RolSchmidt]] ([[User talk:RolSchmidt|talk]]) 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:09, 3 April 2011


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, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as CSD G6), 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 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 or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If 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

Mega Genius

The bureaucrat/administrator/editor, King Turtle, suggested that I submit my proposed article to replace the deleted article and my analysis of the article to the “Requests for un-deletion.” The revised article and analysis follows below.

Could you please re-evaluate the proposed article to recreate it over the deleted article? If you disagree with the recreation please explain your view point for each article requirement in better detail and the specific sentence or words that violate a neutral point of view so that I can understand your viewpoint. If there are additional questions please provide me with a sufficient amount of time to respond as a live a very busy life, thank you.68.62.178.98 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to develop a new article. If you are going to post an article, you will need to register an account, if you don't have one already. Please do that, then post here what your account name is. If you have an account already, log in and post a message here. Then we can move your draft into your user space where you can get comments on it and develop it.
I wrote the above before checking the history. You are evidently the indefinitely-blocked user Deadalus821 (talk), and so I take back my advice to create an account, which would be block evasion. I do not see how we can proceed if you cannot persuade someone to unblock you, but I will consult Kingturtle to see if he has any suggestion. JohnCD (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At a first glance, most of your references, particularly the first one you cite under "Analysis for inclusion of the Article", derive from press releases. That prnewswire one, for instance, ends "SOURCE The Mega Genius(R) Company". You need independent sources, both for notability and to verify claims like "Jim Diamond has the highest level of intelligence measurable on the Wechsler." The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy "requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source." The company's own press releases are not a reliable source for verification of its claims. JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have read through the history and done my own checks, I have to agree with everyone who has advised you before: there is not enough here to be the basis of a Wikipedia article. It is now about the company rather than the man, but the problem is the same: lack of independent cover. The company exists, it make spectacular claims about its principal's intelligence, he is a member of various organizations, it sells lectures, it publishes the annual "Stupidest Statements" lists and it puts out press releases; but all the cover derives from those press releases. There is not the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required to establish notability in Wikipedia's terms. I'm sorry, but in my opinion there is not an article here, and my only suggestion is that you should accept that. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The news companies are independent from the Mega Genius® Company, but I understand what you’re getting at.
The requirement to use independent sources is to ensure the article topic is written from a neutral point of view and does not contain original research simply to assure that the information is reliable, but merely being independent does not guarantee that a source is reliable for a given purpose.
While all information that is communicated evidently comes from an original source, if independent sources are using self published material the question we should ask; are the independent sources reputable enough to warrant that the information is reliable?
If the news companies put a disclaimer stating that they are not responsible for the press releases content, I would agree with that we cannot use them. Since they have not, they have demonstrated that they are responsible for the communicating the content and have indicated that it was worthy of notice, which has been done through multiple news sites over multiple years.
No news company has to communicate press releases or the entirety of the press releases content as they have reputations to uphold. News companies do have reputations for fact checking with their own editorial independence, which they can choose to communicate information through their own ability to judge the reliability of the information, which is important to this matter.
The individual does hold a membership in Hall Of The Ancients, a high-IQ society of some 30 members, which has an admission requirement of intelligence in the 99.99 percentile and an IQ of 160 or greater. http://halloftheancients.weebly.com/ancients.html (see member ID # 29). This provides additional verification of the Jim Diamonds’ intellectual ability if his level of intelligence was ever questionable.
To state it in one sentence, it is the news companies’ judgment of what they consider to be a reliable source for verification not personal opinion.
To conclude the news companies are 1) Independent from the source 2) They considered the self-published information note worthy by communicating it. 3) There are no content disclaimers on the press releases. 4) The question we need to conclude; are these news companies reputable enough to ensure that the self-published information they are communicating is reliable? I think so.
http://www.bnet.com http://www.prnewswire.com http://www.australianwomenonline.com http://www.starpulse.com http://www.clubfemina.com http://newsblaze.com http://www.breitbart.com http://yubanet.com http://www.mlive.com/ http://www.nydailynews.com
I see no concrete reason why Wikipedia cannot have an article on the Mega Genius® Company, if there is please communicate otherwise. I am also fine with removing the statement from the article; "Jim Diamond has the highest level of intelligence measurable on the Wechsler, the most modern and accurate intelligence test of the twenty-first century."68.62.178.98 (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meredith maran blue.jpeg

OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011030310018075 Adrignola (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated by the subject that the subject's friend took it with her camera. I based the confirmation on the following on the OTRS wiki (paraphrased): In the strictest sense, photos from family members or friends don't legally belong to a subject, but they are accepted as a convenience. Similarly, photos taken by strangers on one's own camera don't necessarily legally belong to a subject either (the key is, who makes the creative choices, not whose equipment it is), but those are accepted as well. - From a default response in the photosubmissions system [1]. I cannot view the picture, however, so if it appears to be a professional picture, then this would not apply. Adrignola (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just viewed the deletion comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Meredith_maran_blue.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1 . A personal attack is wholly inappropriate for an administrator at Wikipedia: "ignore the incompetent person from OTRS". I've provided my reasoning above. Thanks to a photo submission in a later ticket that was merged into the above one, File:Meredith Maran.jpg has now been uploaded to Commons. Adrignola (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ishita Bhaduri is an Indian poet and writer of contemporary India. -Harinja (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2011 (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/Ishita Bhaduri, 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 Wizardman (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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

program in question is not non-notable as stated -120.142.67.5 (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the deletion log as of 6 November 2008, "Article is on the verge of spam and is about a non-notable local cable access program."

Whether the "non-notable" claim was valid in 2008, I cannot say, but the claim is certainly no longer valid. Though the program started as a local cable access program, it now has a global audience. It is watched and debated internationally, due to weekly live streams via ustream, podcast, and youtube. Check my IP, I am in Korea and I watch this show regularly. Any viewing of the show itself will show that those who call into the live show are doing so from all over the United States and often times from overseas.

I highly doubt that any "non-notable" cable access program would result in over a quarter of a million hits on Google.

The show has become an indelible part of the ongoing global dialogue regarding belief. It would be strange for Wikipedia to continue to deny it a page. Please reverse this decision and undelete.

Independent of the merits of the program, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and has no applicability to articles deleted after any deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atheist Experience, it cannot be undeleted through this process. As you believe that the consensus found at the discussion was in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user MBisanz (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.
If you have an account, I could userfy the draft, since someone has to go through the Ghits and extract reliable sources that back-up above claims. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tikiyaki Orchestra

significats not properly stated -Yavaz (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Corre (2011)

I think that the corre deserve an article. It has been nearly three months since the group has been created. The group has done notable achievements. They have won Tag Team Championship twice. They are having a seperate fan page and profile. They have been a continuous member of SmackDown since their debut. It means that WWE itself wants to prompote the group. Also, corre member Wade Barret is the current Intercontinental Champion. I think that these achievements are enough. -Mr.ankit97 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2011 (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/The Corre (professional wrestling), 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 Ironholds (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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America

Could someone restore the archives? Since the article is undeleted and all. -LiteralKa (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was also

Cheers! LiteralKa (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RouterTech

The article was nominated for speedy deletion, which was inappropriate, and was deleted without the knowledge of the author. -Chewbaca75 (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No, it was not speedy-deleted, it was deleted after a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RouterTech. You should have been notified of that discussion, and I apologise that you were not. If you believe that discussion was wrongly decided, or you have new information, your first step should be to contact user King of Hearts (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion; then, if you are not satisfied, you can go to WP:Deletion review, which you should do by following the instructions at that page. The speedy-deletion notice on your talk page refers to what seems to be a failed attempt to start a deletion review; if you need help to do that, ask on my talk page, but talk to King of Hearts first. 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)JohnCD (talk)
Note: article restored and relisted at AfD by closing admin. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sgilogo.png

Link to this image was removed from Silicon Graphics article, and it was thus auto-deleted as unused non-free media; would like to use it elsewhere in the same article. -NapoliRoma (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anestis Antoniadis

I don't ask the page to be restored, but I would like to know what has been put on the page before it was deleted. -77.202.163.110 (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It said he was a French statistician; then a second edit added him to some (overlapping) categories. That's it. That was all. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

habib_essid

the article iss about the prime minister of tunisia and one of wikipedia admin have delteted it for unknown reason -41.225.127.166 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veena Sood 2010.jpg

Per OTRS ID 2011032110010753. Image was a work for hire by Veena Sood's photographer Ross Den Otter. -Adrignola (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pokeware

This article was recently deleted because of the following abbreviations: A7, G12, and G11. The problem with the previous content is the content writer for the organization did not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines when writing the article. Pokeware has written new copy that does adhere to Wikipedia standards, and will not portray itself as a means for advertisement on this website. -71.89.24.105 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:St_Judes.jpg

wrong Commons transfer. please undelete temporarily (I will check back here tomorrow and place the nowCommons template when done) or do a correct Commons transfer (e.g. using Commons Helper). Thank you. -Saibo (Δ) 02:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation Leonardo Marques

reasoning: It is important to scientific investigation specifically in gynecology, obstretics and assited reproduction -IMbcn (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally deleted by Nyetty on the grounds that my article has no importance. If you carefully read the short article it clearly states that this foundation was set up for scientific investigation in assited reproduction for couples with infertility problems and the social proliferation of sexual reproduction. I do not know why it has been deleted as in Spain it is one of the leading foundations for this cause. Please get back to me

 Not done If it is one of the leading foundations for this cause then it should not be difficult to find sources to indicate the fact. However, the article did not do so, and Google gives no non-Wikipedia hits at all for either "Foundation Leonardo Marquès" or "Foundation Leonardo Marques". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Shy

I received an e-mail answer today from the "Permissions" <permissions@wikimedia.org> help desk of Wikipedia and I was advised based on having cleared up the copyright issue that was in question, that I could either write a new Article, or ask for undeletion of my previous Article that was deleted. Therefore I would like to ask you to please undelete the previously written Article. I thank you very much in advance. Best regards. Tina Walker -TWA777 (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Choi

Do not delete Choi. He is my favourite singer, and being on iTunes certify him as a true artiste. He might be unsigned, but he's a true talent. Just listen to him. He should be treated like every other important singer. -203.116.251.232 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifications to written Chinese in Hong Kong

Would like to have a copy in my userspace (I may be able to source it). - Kayau Voting IS evil 15:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PlasmaChem images

OTRS permission confirmed; ticket 2011033110003742 -Adrignola (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


OTRS permission confirmed; ticket 2011033110003742 -Adrignola (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both YesY Done--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian R. Price

the concern was unclear notability. Brian Price is one of the foremost exponents and promoters of Historial European Martial Arts, or Western Martial Arts, in the US today. There is not much yet on those here, but if entries related to them get summarily deleted because a mod never heard of the person then it will be difficult to build up that area. In any case, at least the editor in question could have flagged it and allowed a reasonable time for contributors to address the concern by adding more info or references. -24.6.240.12 (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The article was tagged for deletion for 8 days before it was deleted and the author was informed: I wonder how long would have been enough? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Hysteria (band)

The band is quite notable in France, and they released seven albums. See fr:Mass Hysteria. -Od1n (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done Neither the deleted article nor the French article gives any sources to show notability, and to simply state that the band is notable without giving evidence is not enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Girl (David Choi song)

reasoning -TorresAndChicharito (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be deleted? It is a real song, and it was NOT only released on YouTube (iTunes, Album: By My Side) and it is notable. Wikipedia, Qwyrxian is not resourceful. ONLY YOUTUBE? NOT THAT POPULAR? Check out our iPods, iPhones, handphones, Androids, computers! David Choi IS notable, IS good, IS famous, IS on Wikipedia (and will forever be), has HIS songs on Wikipedia (and will forever be) and IS #7 most subscribed musician on YouTube. YOUTUBE. It's hard to achieve this, so please recognise this song, him, and HIM! Wikipedia, I trust you and if you let someone as unresourceful as Qwyrxian delete articles like that just because she's good, you will lose a lot of WikiReaders like me.

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Girl (David Choi song), that is where a decision will be made, and you have already commented there, so there is nothing to do here. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eulogy Recordings

Was restored on May 31, 2010 without previous edit history. Request that previous history also be restored. -Onthegogo (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done History restored. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flakjacket band

reasoning -Flakjacketrock (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why has this been deleted? it is unfair and its the facts about a band for referance for the industry if thats the way you guys judge a input and just delete a referance page without first investigating the facts then count us out .....we will no longer use the wiki referance and anything we do from here about us on will be enforced with copyright laws of australia.....give a a break will you this is so ridiculas

  • Deleting admin's comment. Article was speedy deleted A7, no assertion of significance/importance. Message was left on user's talk page asking if there were reliable sources on the band, but they did not reply to that message. —C.Fred (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - As stated above by the administrator who implemented the deletion request, user C.Fred (talk · contribs). , 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 follow-up on his suggestion. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Courtney

It was deleted because questions were raised about its notability. I have no problem with this, but it was deleted before I even had a chance to flesh it out. It was deleted after only a few hours. The article was definitely in an embryonic state. But I think I should at least be given a couple of days to finish it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully yours Robert Bernstein -Robertbrnstn (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiblitz

comparable to Profoto article -Multiblitz (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of this article and promoted the brand maybe a little too much. Nevertheless, the article about one of our competitors Profoto shows strong similarities, if not less content. I would appreciate if the source code of the article would be made available to make it possible for me to amend it into a proper form. The brand and company Multiblitz is well worth of an Wiki-article.

Done Userfied by deleting admin. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MuPDF

I really think, that article about this excellent IMHO software will be very useful for many users -212.192.251.10 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since the article was deleted, Dolf has since become notible. Dr. Patrick Chaplin was the first person ever to earn a PHD in darts and is the world leader in dart history. It was awarded by Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge – the title of his dissertation being: ‘DARTS IN ENGLAND 1900-1939 – A SOCIAL HISTORY’. He noted Dolf in his newsletter http://www.patrickchaplin.com/News%20Letters/Issue%2013%20April%202011/Dr.%20Darts%20Newsletter%20-%20Issue%2013%20DKONLINE.pdf on page 13. The references for Cricket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_(darts)) and Dartball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartball) appear don't appear to be as strong as this reference yet are considered notable. Cross referencing the notability guide lines, this reference to Dolf is meets the following:

The source is Reliable Source is a Secondary Source The source is independent of the subject It was mentioned by a reputable media/expert source

Please indicate the specific reasons to why you consider Dolf as not notable. 

-Jasonbook99 (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion G4. If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request, user C.Fred (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.
The issue has already been properly sent to deletion review; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 3#Dolf. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

brittany pearson

she has quite the fan following in her town and online and with the appropriate information could really have a page of value to your company. bring brittany back! free pearson! -Bmae120 (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Gallagher

This article was deleted and now has been recreated, but all of its edit history is missing. It should have its past edit history restored also. -Fages (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This has been deleted once as copyright violation and another time as mere redirect per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_24#Brendan_Gallagher neither of which should be restored nor does the creation seem to rely on some previous history.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DECT Forum

The article was not intended to be a advertising text. The association described in this article is a well reputed entity that e.g. takes care that people can use cordless telephones in most countries of the wordl. The association therefore negotiates with regulators, govenrment worldwide for frequency allocation. This is the main goal of the association which is a non-profit organization. I am happy to edit the article since it was my first one, but I belive thath the topic is worth to exist at Wikipedia. -RolSchmidt (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=422159941"