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
Line 460: Line 460:
*{{revisions| Robert Lawrence (folk singer) }}
*{{revisions| Robert Lawrence (folk singer) }}
<i></i>Now have full sourcing -[[User:Davidlewis39|Davidlewis39]] ([[User talk:Davidlewis39|talk]]) 16:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
<i></i>Now have full sourcing -[[User:Davidlewis39|Davidlewis39]] ([[User talk:Davidlewis39|talk]]) 16:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

== London_Hackspace ==


*{{revisions| London_Hackspace }}
<i></i>Hi, I'm a new Wikipedia user and the article was deleted before I had a change to improve it, or even before I learned that there was a problem with it. BTW: it's a really, really discouraging new user experience to have content deleted moments after it's been created with no chance to fix problems with it, or even to learn about what the problems could be! -[[User:JasperWallace|JasperWallace]] ([[User talk:JasperWallace|talk]]) 17:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:01, 25 August 2011


Welcome. Please note that 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
Please enter the page's title to request its undeletion:

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

Userify request

Could I get copies of the following deleted articles I authored placed in my userspace, so I can copy them offsite?

Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathew. Since this is such a large request, would you mind if we simply emailed the articles to you? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great! Mathewignash (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone done this? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Anyone? I'd appreciate it. Mathewignash (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Society of High School Scholars

Wikipedia deleted our page due to lack of reliable secondary sources. Here is some links to secondary sources that we would like to Wikipedia to review for the undeletion.

-64.238.124.50 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This article was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Society of High School Scholars so, as explained at the top of this page, it wil not be restored here. You should approach user Postdlf (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion: then, if your concerns are not addressed, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Gillespie

I noticed that the reason why Noel Gillespie's article was deleted was because there wasn't evidence of notability nor an independent source here. Well, I have found an article explaining the hiring of Noel Gillespie right here. The full article's title was "Suns Promote Noel Gillespie to Assistant Coach" and the date of its release was June 29, 2010. I'd also like to note that he had eight years of experiance with the Phoenix Suns as an "advance scout" and video coordinator for the team. I don't have any knowledge of what his past article was like, but I'd like to add that link and the information I've received as a sort of hope involving the revival of his page, provided that I have some sort of knowledge involving the past attempt of creating that page. - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citywire

Citywire seems to be regarded as a reputable source - and rightly so - and is listed as a reference or source in a number of articles. Why it does not have an article of its own anymore seems slightly strange. -CetreCetoen (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concept of mixing the inefficient martial arts methods

This is a valuable article for martial arts and Wikipedia readers. If it has no sources from respectful or reliable magazines or internet sites it does not mean it needs to delete as Wikipedia created for people who wants to know fresh news from any area of people society. Also it has references and link about person and topic of this article what is a good proof of notability. I know some sites in an internet which can provide addtional information which i am going to put in Wikipedia -MarkFleydman1954 (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdallah daar

OTRS permission received in ticket 2011080410015192 for release of content at http://www.mrcglobal.org/abdallah_daar under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL by McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health representative. Please move it and the talk page notice I placed to Abdallah Daar for proper capitalization. Thanks. -– Adrignola talk 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article and moved it to Abdallah Daar. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Angelina Loo

OTRS permission received in ticket 2011081710015533 from Centrifuge Media Lab representative for release of content at http://www.bracedinbc.com/About/Dr_Loo under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Centrifuge Media Lab is linked as the website operator at the bottom of http://www.bracedinbc.com. -– Adrignola talk 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Kimberlin

I dont need the article "undeleted" as I have already recreated it. I would like an admin to email me the content from the deleted version or drop it on my talk page so I can use it to expand the article. Thanks. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC) -ZHurlihee (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EVGA Corporation

It is not an advertisement, its just facts about EVGA -65.113.29.55 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable Residents" under "Valley Stream, NY" entry for Louis Minott - Last occurred May 25, 2009 @ 01:37

no reason shown -Dave (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a reason that this entry was deleted. Dave (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. This is just a content issue and you can put that content back yourself. If you look at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Valley_Stream,_New_York&oldid=292173697 you can see text that you can use. However Louis Minott has no article and it seems that one was never made, and customary practice is not to have "notable" residents in lists with red links. The best place to talk about this is Talk:Valley Stream, New York. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleGate (networking)

Delegate is still a viable option for an easy-to-use proxy. Please bring the page back. -Adgordo (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I should note that this is copyvio from[1]. I apologize for this, but I am G12ing it. All but the list is a copy/paste. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DynamicLawyer.com

This article exhibits the only Canadian based online legal forms website to offer video guides. LegalZoom and RocketLawyer both have articles that are just as general and may be seen as advertising as well. It is important for the public to understand the growing concept of do-it-yourself legal forms. It a question of access to justice, many people cannot afford a lawyer, and may not qualify for legal-aide therefore to promote access to justice online legal form companies like DynamicLawyers.com should be allowed to create an article on wikipedia.

Thank you, -Jkhlaif (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Wikipedia is not a business listing directory. The article gave no indication of notability, which has to be shown by references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Please read the WP:FAQ/Organizations and WP:Notability (organizations and companies); then, if you think you can meet the requirements, approach user Vejvančický (talk), the deleting administrator. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse Album Destroying by Design to be reissued at Forward Regression

Old Label

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Destroying_by_Design&action=edit&redlink=1

new label

www.forwardregression.com

Collapse has been listed at:

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

The album is listed at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Destroying_by_Design&action=edit&redlink=1

with no page.

Collapse has been listed at the Great White North Records wiki page. The album Collapse-Destroying by Design is listed on the Great While North Page with no band link. This Collapse page is the band link. The album Destroying By Design has a link and no page. The albums is being reissued on Forward Regression Records, the new Collapse label. Previously released on Great White North. Jason James Mackenzie is the Guitarist for Collapse and is on Destroying By Design and also owns Forward Regression Records.

-Impaled666 (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I have combined your three requests to save space. Being mentioned on other pages is not a reason why they should have stand-alone articles. The question is whether they meet Wikipedia's notability standard explained at WP:BAND, WP:NALBUMS and WP:Notability (people). They were all deleted as a result of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collapse (band) so, as stated at the head of this page, they will not be restored here. If you think that was wrongly decided, or you have new information, you should first approach user Spartaz (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion: then, if you are not satisfied, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SarfarazNiazibokehexample.jpg

See talk page, Permission apparently sent to OTRS -Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can OTRS confirm that they have received the permission and that it is correct? JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The email exists (OTRS#ticket:2011081810014407) and does appear to be a valid release; however, image permissions are not my area, so you'd be best off double-checking whether the release is adequate with another OTRSer before restoring. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When will this be resolved? Kitabparast (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DisguisesMe

The page that I posted was Speedily Deleted recently. I would like to ask that it be republished. It is an SMTP service that my company created. The product has some similarities to mailanator.com, which is published on wikipedia and referenced under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_e-mail_address. If someone searches for Disposable Email Address, it makes sense that it would show up as a disposable email address alternative. -Kevinjosephmorin (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Microsoft Management Console.png

Deleted because of not having fair-use ratioanle. Although I am not the uploader, I had seen this image before. I believe I can supply a valid fair use rationale, if it is undeleted. -Fleet Command (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Microsoft WSUS Admin 2.png

Deleted because of not having fair-use ratioanle. Although I am not the uploader, I have seen this image before. I believe I can supply a valid fair use rationale, if it is undeleted. -Fleet Command (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Center Parcs Longleat Forest

This article represents a Center Parcs Holiday Village (Longleat Forest) and I am not sure why it was deleted in 2008 due to false advertising. If/When this page is undeleted, it will be edited with real information on Longleat and will not contain any reason for deletion. I was in no way involved in the deletion of this article - I would like it undeleted so I can work on it. Thanks -Chris6273 (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ellen Mazey

The article was deleted because of copyright issue. Permission received. See ticket:2011081910013399. -t m yan OMG 05:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

beaulieu house

This is an historic home on the cliff walk. It was designed in part, by Calvert Vaux. It is of great interest to anyone who studies the Astors: the brothers lived side by side on Fifth Avenue and on Newport before William Waldorf Astor moved to England. Beechwood is world famous-and this home has a strong connection to it. To call it non-notable is really insane. The Vanderbilt connection is in itself notable--Grace Vanderbilt's venue. I never saw the article, but it should be restored and built upon. -Peter Alsen (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Any sourced information you can add, and any references you can add to verify what the article says, will help. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Match Me

Friends Match Me free dating site/facebook app should be added here. It is the only dating site where members can find out if they have mutual friends or similar Facebook Likes with other members. It is increasing rapidly in popularity and should not be removed from this list, especially as it is the only totally free app here. -Designw (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning companies. 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 companies 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) 08:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian-New Age dialogue

please restore to userspace so I can work upon concerns about piece as per "What to do about it" item 6. Thank you. -Christian-New Age Dialogue (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done to User:Christian-New Age Dialogue/Christian-New Age dialogue. Before returning it to the main encyclopedia, you should seek permission from user Joe Decker (talk), the administrator who closed the deletion discussion; if he does not agree, you can go to WP:Deletion review.
Before you put much effort into this, I urge you to read, carefully, WP:No original research and WP:NOTESSAY, and to reflect on the fact that at the deletion debate the unanimous opinion of ten Wikipedians was that this was not suitable, in terms of Wikipedia policies, for an encyclopedia, while the voices for keeping it were all single-purpose accounts using arguments like "well-written, neutral, and dealing effectively with the difficulties of dialogue", "encouraging a (possibly lively) discussion between folks interesting in both Christian and New Age dialogues", and "Wikipedia should be a forum for dialogue" which showed a lack of understanding of what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. There are many websites which would be happy to host a forum for your dialogue, but that is not what Wikipedia is here for, and I must advise you that in my opinion there is so large a gap between what you and your followers want to do and what Wikipedia is here for, that any effort you put into trying to get this posted here by rewriting it is likely to be wasted. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bio+Green Crystals

This was my first article for Wikipedia. Although I did see the PROD notice on the top of the page, I didn't know that I was supposed to respond to it. I had no idea that the article had been deleted until this morning when I went to check my contributions count and saw that over half of mine (those involved in the creation of the Bio+Green Crystals article) were gone.

I realized in the writing of the article that I had to be careful that the finished page did not sound like an advertisement. I feel I accomplished that. Bio+Green Crystals is a revolutionary product which is referenced in numerous places on the web, so much so that I felt a Wikipedia page was warranted. I am currently working on an article on the company that produces B+G C, National Bio+Green Sciences. Because of the advances they have made in "green" technology NBGS has garnered a great deal of attention in the industry. Once again - enough to warrant a page.

I feel that this page on NBGS will justify the undeletion of the B+G C article, if for no other reason than the NBGS article will link directly with it.

I thank you for taking the time to consider my reasoning, and look forward to a favorable resolution -Jmasiulewicz (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Pigsonthewing (talk), who proposed it, in case s/he wishes to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you could contribute. Despite your efforts, I'm afraid this still comes across as though written by the company's PR department: "Based upon a unique crystal particle technology, Bio+Green Crystals are hypoallergenic, doctor endorsed, and non-toxic to humans and pets" is pure ad-speak, there are "peacock terms" like "unique" (three times) and "innovative", and the references all read like press releases rather than the independent comment needed to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Director Area

Article deletion unfair supposed to be a consensus 3 people objected, how can that be a consensus of the millions of wikipedia users around the world? Links to the original sources were removed by another editor. Generla atmoshpere of petty small mindedness, "how dare you presume to write on our wikipedia" -Villaged13 (talk) 13:09, 21 August 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/Manchester Director Area, 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 Spartaz (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HispanTV

The entries for the article(HispanTV-Spanish) exist in English and Persian. -Farzadparsayi (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%87%DB%8C%D8%B3%D9%BE%D9%86_%D8%AA%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%88%DB%8C

--Farzadparsayi (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has not been deleted. If your problem is that it has been deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia, we can do nothing here, and you must take it up with them - each Wikipedia is separate and has its own standards and procedures. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Stacey_D._Lyle

I have significant information and publications I wish to share on Wikipedia. I am a professor with 63 publications I want to share which includes books, media and other items. -Aggiebulldog (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I have temporarily blocked this account for persistent spammy addition of CVs, I must protest that this is a matter of WP:COI, not autobiography; this editor was apparently tasked with creating articles about all the faculty at her (his?) campus. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he started with himself - see User talk:JohnCD#Stacey D. Lyle. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

niki raapana

There is plenty of evidence that Niki Raapana exists as a very strong presence online and is mentioned in every article cited. -72.35.101.41 (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user JamesBWatson (talk), who proposed it, in case he wishes to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. The first five references are to her ACL Books website (and #2, 4, 5 are deadlinks); #6 is something she wrote; #7 does not mention her name, and searching down all I find is a link back to one of the ACL Books deadlinks. To establish notability needs evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: I Am Equal Photo Documentary images

File deleted for improper license by Zzyzx11 but I hold that this page should not be speedy deleted because... Fair Use: Image is from the publicly accessible project photo gallery (http://photo.iamequalproject.org) and a free version can not be created due to logo and photographic trademarks held by Jason Beckett, Matt Spencer, and the I AM EQUAL Foundation. Images from the gallery have been freely used in newspapers, blogs, social media, and TV news reports across the US. -Steinway1701 (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)— Steinway1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • When I attempt to re-upload the files I get a message telling me that the file has already be marked for deletion. The option to ignore the warning takes me to a a server error page. I'd like to reload them using the Fair Use reasoning used above. Suggestions would be appreciated. Should I just use a completely different name on the upload? Steinway1701 (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)— Steinway1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • If these are non-free photographs, then I'm afraid you are trying to use far too many of them. I am currently not quite convinced even the subject of the article is notable enough for an article in the first place, but even if it is, there is no reason to have more than one image for illustration, and you'd need to spell out a more explicit rationale about why you need even as much as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will note from the original article that the I Am Equal Photo Documentary is a unique art project from photographer Matt Spencer. Each image is unique and can not be duplicated. References to celebrities, corporations, and groups that have participated is noteworthy in itself and thus justify supportive materials (such as images). When Chelsea Handler participates, shares a personal story with the project, posts about it on her Facebook page, and on the front page of her website, that would lead me to believe it's important to her as a celebrity. Adding her image to her article to backup the information about her participation seems only natural. I hold the same is true for any of the noteworthy project participants. If they are important enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia, and have made a personal effort to get involved in this art project, then it stands to reason that supporting their involvement with additions to their articles and the photo itself is completely in alignment with the purpose of the site. (I.E. If an individual is noted to have stood on the deck of the Titanic AND there is a picture to prove it, it only stands to reason that the supporting image would be included with the reference.) These images are specifically supportive of the fact that these individuals did chose to participate in the I Am Equal photo documentary and that information being included in the articles about the individuals is completely legitimate. Thus, I feel the images should be allowed and Fut.Perf. should return all references to the project back to the article from whence they were removed. Steinway1701 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)— Steinway1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

File:AmericanEagleFlight5456.jpg

the aviation criteria were clearly stated. this is the only image found of the crashed aircraft. this is a standard and accepted usage of the wiki aviation project -Flyinglawyer83 (talk) 08:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charybdis (IRCd)

Please userfy the page to my userspace so I can work on it at a later time. -Kudu ~I/O~ 13:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done to User:KuduIO/Charybdis (IRCd). as this was deleted after WP:Articles for deletion/Charybdis (IRCd), you should not move it back without agreement from Cirt (talk), the closing admin. If he does not agree, you should go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Hartmann

The article was accurate and it was being verified, please reinstate so we can verify the page -216.113.168.136 (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Shepherd

played two games for Morton last season, who are fully professional -Salty1984 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. January (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:All She Can Movie Poster.jpg

I would like to add the correct copyright information that is now available to me. It was not available to me when I created the file. -Kapokpictures (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This file was deleted because there was not sufficient copyright information for the photo. I am still trying to familiarize myself with the correct wiki protocol. Thanks!

This looks to be a non free image, how do you want to use it and why? Also it is too big for non free images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roland 1x22.jpg

Non-free fair use screenshot of Roland (The X-Files), an episode of The X-Files, which was deleted uncontroversially after the previous article was upmerged due to not asserting notability. I'm requesting undeletion as the article has been re-created with more thorough coverage of the subject. -Rymatz (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done January (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RubelLife19561001a.png

This image was originally nominated for speedy deletion as failing the Fair Use criteria. I provided a detailed rebuttal but got no response, either from the person proposing deletion or from anybody else. I then did further research and discovered that the image was not under copyright -- pre-1964 U.S. copyright never renewed. So, with hindsight, it should never have been proposed for deletion in the first place. It does not appear that anyone even read either of my responses, and that the image was just summarily deleted without discussion or explanation. I respectfully request that it be undeleted, or that a valid reason for deleting a public domain image be provided. Thank you. ServiceAT (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC) -ServiceAT (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Corporation

Dear Sir or Madame: You have deleted the proposed page for The Chicago Corporation initially because it was a "subject of little importance", then it was because it was "purely promotion" and now because it was "spam". I respectfully disagree with all of your reasons. The Chicago Corporation is an investment banking firm; a fully licensed and registered member of FINRA and SIPC, which are the regulatory and insurance authorities for securities firms; a firm that traces its roots back to 1965; and a firm that looks like many other investment banking firms on Wikipedia including Lincoln International, Robert W. Baird & Co., William Blair & Co., Lazard. If you look at our website, www.thechicagocorp.com, you can see that we have over 35 professionals associated with our firm and that we have done business with many household names as clients. We are not looking for any special treatment, just equal treatment to what you routinely give all of our competitors. I am sure that you receive submissions that are not legitimate ones. This is a legitimate article. We are a real firm. We deserve fair treatment. Please contact me if you have any questions. Fred Floberg. (Redacted). Thank you. -Thechicagocorporation (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuli Peltonen

It was deleted because of no referred sources. There are plenty of them available (try to google the name for example. Here is good one: http://elokuu-ensemble.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=27. -Bowsbows (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. For future reference, note that articles about living people are deleted after ten days if no reference has been supplied. This needs expanding to show that he meets WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mike_Miller_Photograph_by_Tatjana_Loh.jpg

Information on the photograph was edited to include the following: Photograph by Tatjana Loh, owned by Mike Miller and used as promotional material, permission granted by Mike Miller for use and redistribution at will. This picture has been used as cover art on a CD "Save the Moon," for concert advertising, and has been previously published. The images have been reduced in size and resolution. This image falls in the category of non-free promotional use. Referred sources: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/mikemiller.htm Diegosf (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC) -Diegosf (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referred sources added Diegosf (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image has not yet been deleted, but if it is intended for Mike Miller (guitarist), it won't meet non-free content criteria. One of the requirements is that the image should not be replaceable with a free image, and images of living people are usually assumed replaceable as a new image could be taken of the person at any time (please see WP:Non-free content#Unacceptable use). We could accept this image only if the copyright holder is willing to release it under a free licence such as CC BY-SA 3.0; if they are, WP:Donating copyrighted materials explains how to go about confirming this. January (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Equal (photo documentary)

So, there are too many admins with their hands in the pot on this article. Last discussion I had was that this article was being moved somewhere I could work on it to address the concerns of G11 raised by other admins. That was less than an hour ago...and now the page is completely gone without notice. This whole wikipedia process is crazy. So many different admins with opinions and procedures and most of them seem to be working independently. I would appreciate it if I could continue to work on this article (being it's my first attempt to produce a wikipedia contribution) and then add it back to the site when it's ready. Steinway1701 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC) -Steinway1701 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't restore the article unilaterally, even though it isn't exactly "blatant advertising". However the tone of the article is completely inappropriate for a general interest encyclopedia. I can move a copy of the article into your userspace if you like. There you can work on it so that it can meet our core content policies of neutrality and verifiability. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, but (as a newbie) I'm not totally clear what moving it to my "user space" means. I can research it and figure it out. Deleting the page outright seems extreme, but since there are so many admins involved in just about every aspect of my article, I don't even know where to begin a conversation for answers, guidance, or reasons for their actions. At this point, the only option I can see is to move it to an area where I can figure out how to please ALL the admins at the same time. At this rate, it seems like that's going to take a lot of work. I appreciate your willingness Protonk to give me a hand in getting this where it can be work shopped for the site. Thanks Steinway1701 (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok. I'm sorry for not elaborating. Your userspace is a page where you can work on drafts without worry that someone is going to delete a work in progress. For example User:Protonk/BTM is not really at a point where it could be an article but I can work on it at my leisure because it is not in the "encyclopedia" space. I agree that the deletion was hasty, however I don't think it was so egregious that I am empowered to immediately overturn it. If you want to contest the deletion you can make a post at deletion review--a process where a user can ask for consensus to overturn deletion. By contrast this page is for requests that can be performed unilaterally. I understand this is probably confusing, but if you want I can help you through the process. But before you make that decision take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article for some reasons as to why your submission may have received the attention it did. Protonk (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article and all past revisions are now at User:Steinway1701/I Am Equal (photo documentary). You can work on the article there. The issue is less "pleasing all the admins" and more toning down the prose to ensure Wikipedia presents a neutral picture of the subject and finding reliable sources to ensure it meets our guidelines for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Protonk for getting that moved over. I'll work to get the article up to Wikipedia standards. I have more than 40 news articles I pulled to build this page and I'm happy to go back and work on my referencing model. I was under the false impression that I should only use an article once (or twice) as a citation, but now I know better. The reality is, the news coverage is all very much the same because the project is pretty easy to grasp. I felt that repeating the same information in 6 citations was strange, so I deleted them, but I'll be sure to put them back now. Steinway1701 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other big issue was the over-enthusiastic addition of this project to articles on famous people, just because they had their picture taken. We have a rule about adding undue emphasis to an article; and face it, having your picture taken is not exactly a major portion of the life even of a Chelsea Handler, much less a more significant human being. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get what you're saying Orange Mike and would agree, except that (at least in the case of Chelsea Handler) some of these individuals have gone out of their way on their websites and social networks to emphasize their involvement with the project (which is how I got introduced to it in the first place). It would seem that if it's important enough for a celebrity to get involved, use their photo as a catalyst for conversations about their charity work, post it on their social network, and have the image printed and placed in their office, it would constitute at least a mention in their article (or at least that was my reasoning behind adding the references in the first place. That and responding the the admin that added the ORPHAN template to the page implying that I needed to create those references. I don't think I would have gone down that road if not for that Orphan template on the page.). Steinway1701 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:UNDUE: just because Notable X blogs or tweets about a topic, does not mean that it constitutes a significant event in their lifetime career; and WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS: just because Notable Y interacts with Subject Z, does not lend notability to Subject Z. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AiMatch

The original article was deleted on 8/5/2011 as spam. I would like to edit my company page to be more informational and remove and edit any promotional verbiage and tone -Dhouston119 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Machine Company

reasoning -Copeland.James.H (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This company built 11 millions small engines before it went out of business. It is not an active company. Some of these engines are still in use.

I do not know all of the details of this company.

Not done If the company meet WP:CORP you are free to create an article anew. The article that was created here, though, was not the proper content we need for an enccylopedic article. It's content does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning companies. 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 companies 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Of Judah

It is indeed a music album by Paul Wilbur Please note the references given in it for further cross verification -59.99.251.45 (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. We don't even have an article about Paul Wilbur; far less are we going to have an article about an obscure album by a non-notable musician. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. David J. Goldberg 2011

Page was deleted for "unambiguous advertising or promotion"; however, format, content and links all resemble as the approved WIKI page of Dr. OZ. Kindly reconsider and assist in restoring the page. In good faith, I simply was attempting to upload page to preview (as searching for guidelines). Please advise what would need to be revised to ensure content fits appropriately with your guidelines.

Best. Marianna -75.151.135.29 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The difference is that Dr Oz is slightly notable. Promoting a non-notable entity is not accepted. If you create an account, I will be able to provide you with more detailed information, but start with the 5 pillars of Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloc Party - The Prayer.ogg

This was orphaned due to a stupid error on my part. It should be restored to the article, as it meets fair use guidelines and has critical commentary in the text. Sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reasoning -Shawmjennings (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider undeleting this photo based on the following new photo description:

File information
Description

Colonel Payne Jennings, Jr., USA

Source

United States Air Force

Date

1950

Author

Unknown

Permission
(Reusing this file)

Not Needed

Other versions None

Transparency Monitor

OTRS permission from tmonitor.co domain received for CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL release of content at http://www.tmonitor.co/ in ticket 2011082410013503. -– Adrignola talk 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itchyworms2011.JPG

we're ready with ownership/copyright information -Chinosingson (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Rovetch

I didn't see the original article but it seems to have been deleted because someone couldn't find out much about him. In fact an internet search will reveal a lot including his books on Amazon, his biography at his publishers site etc etc. He has written two very amusing books on his travels (The Creaky Traveler series), which have been positively reviewed in various places, and has had a very interesting and distinguished career. It just seems very odd to me that there should not be any article on him, however brief, on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.148.168 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SarfarazNiazibokehexample.jpg

Release by owner was supplied to Wikipedia and accepted; see OTRS ticket 2011081910011426 -Kitabparast (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lawrence (folk singer)

Now have full sourcing -Davidlewis39 (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London_Hackspace

Hi, I'm a new Wikipedia user and the article was deleted before I had a change to improve it, or even before I learned that there was a problem with it. BTW: it's a really, really discouraging new user experience to have content deleted moments after it's been created with no chance to fix problems with it, or even to learn about what the problems could be! -JasperWallace (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=446681739"