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
Wunderbuch (talk | contribs)
100 edits
Wunderbuch (talk | contribs)
100 edits
Line 266: Line 266:


*{{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Fallen_Angel_(novel)&action=edit&redlink=1}}
*{{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Fallen_Angel_(novel)&action=edit&redlink=1}}
<i></i>This page was deleted while it was work in progress and I would like to request that it's content be userfied. Thank you ([[User:Yvancg|Yvancg]] ([[User talk:Yvancg|talk]]) 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC))
<i></i>This page was deleted while it was work in progress and I would like to request that it's content be userfied. I still need to add references and fine tune the text of the article, which I didn't have time to do as it has been deleted while I was actually working on it. If you can track the history of that page, you will notice that it was discussed in the chat with an admin, that I got feedback on it, did some changes and had some more to do. Thank you ([[User:Yvancg|Yvancg]] ([[User talk:Yvancg|talk]]) 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

Revision as of 08:07, 11 September 2012


Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions nor to address the pending deletion of any page.
Shortcuts

Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process.

This page is only for requesting undeletion of articles or files which have already been deleted. If the article you are concerned about is still visible, but has a warning message (template) at the top, please do not post here, but follow the instructions on the template or on your talk page.

Note that requests for undeletion is not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.

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

MMOBomb

A ScrewAttack partner site, one of the most highly-ranked MMO sites, and the most-subscribed YouTube channel of all MMO sites. -64.138.237.101 (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning websites. 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. Mere view numbers don't fulfil that condition. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mazda B-Series (North America)

Article was redirected to Ford Ranger (North america). While it's true that the B-Series line was merged with the Ranger, before 1993 the B-Series was a completely different vehicle who's only similarity with the Ranger was that they were both compact trucks. The article that is intended to replace the article for the B-Series does not include any information on pre-1993 Mazda trucks and does not detail differences in the post-1993 Mazda branded varient of the Ranger model. Without the Wikipedia article, there is no detailed history of the North American B-Series -68.171.231.80 (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do here as no deletion was involved; the previous article was still there in the history beneath the redirect, and has now been restored by an IP. If this is disputed, it should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. JohnCD (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red5 Media Server

Notable -Mondainx (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently someone considers Red5 as "Not Notable"? How is this the case since the server itself was a huge milestone in the reverse engineering of Flash Media Server and is the basis for Wowza and many other servers that followed it? The FREE open source project has been around for over 6 years and is still active and innovating. The server project is also well know throughout the world and amongst Adobe itself. Adobe also hosts a video tutorial about it on its site: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/360flex-conference/building-red5-applications-by-chris-allen/ If the article was simply deleted due to "self promotion" then why would this article still be allowed to exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowza_Media_Server

 Not done. This article was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red5 so, as stated at the top of this page, it will not be undeleted here. WP:Notability, in Wikipedia's sense, is not a matter of opinion but of showing references to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - see WP:42. The recently deleted article was only three lines, gave no indication of importance or significance, and gave no references but www.red5.org. If you can find independent references to confirm the claims you make, I suggest you write a userspace draft article (advice on how to do that on your talk page tomorrow) and then approach user ThaddeusB (talk), the deleting administrator, for agreement to post it. As far as other articles go, we know that many are below standard, so What about that other article? is not an argument that is accepted - each is considered on its own merits. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

R.M. Engelhardt

Subject Has Citations-Notability -Poemflower (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring new citations to the attention of the the previous editors in regards to author-poet as deleted R.M. Engelhardt. Here are several links that have been provided as well as article quotations in his regard to his notability as a writer/poet on the internet and websites. There are also several previous links to his works-books listed in your previous documentation as well that closely deserve attention.

Thank you.

ALBANY POETS HISTORY Albany Poets (then, AlbanyPoets.org) began in May of 2000 by poets R.M. Engelhardt and Thom Francis as a way to promote poetry and spoken word in the Albany area by featuring local poets, spoken word performers and events on the Internet. R.M. Engelhardt was the poet responsible for first creating AlbanyPoets, then with coming up with the idea for Albany WordFest, an idea a myriad of poets have been carrying out since 2001.

 Not done. This article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. M. Engelhardt so, as stated at the top of this page, it will not be undeleted here. The administrator who closed that discussion is no longer active so, as Dlohcierekim (talk) has advised you, you need to make your case at WP:Deletion review. Note that WP:Notability, in Wikipedia terms, requires evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The links you supply above are to a list of Engelhardt's works and the website of his group; what is required is independent comment about him, such as reviews. If you wish, I will "userfy" the deleted article about him - move it into a sub-page in your user space where you can work on it, to prepare an improved version to be considered at Deletion review. Read WP:Your first article, WP:Notability, and WP:Notability (people), particularly the section WP:CREATIVE. One suggestion at the deletion discussion was that it might be easier to show notability for Albany Poets. JohnCD (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherness (band)

reasoning -Rhett 27 (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there. If a deletion was applied to "Otherness (band)" and I think I have clearly explained why it is an important article, then can you explain me what's the difference with this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Others_(band)???

Thanks for your time and consideration

Regards xxx

M

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. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bound for Glory (band)

band is still active and performing -203.98.215.5 (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2012 (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. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kymlardner.jpg

reasoning -86.161.35.228 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I am Kym Lardner, owner and commissioner of this image and I aprove it's use on Wikipedia

This image is found on my official website, http://kymlardner.com/about.html

Neil Z. Miller

Neil Z. Miller is a notable voice in the field of medical journalism and the vaccine community. In addition, the article on Neil Z. Miller can be edited to include his two important vaccine studies that were recently published in a peer-reviewed journal. -NathanWright (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anne K. Block

The original article was deleted with little discussion after the subject repeatedly whitewashed the article, removing all citations and sources. The subject is an individual of great regional import who has attempted to recall at least 11 elected officials including the current Executive of Snohomish County, whom she has attempted to recall three times. Snohomish County is a region of world import, it is the home of Boeing and the third largest county in Washington State. It contains the largest port no the west coast. Block's actions greatly affect the governance of this region. In addition,Block is a pioneer in utilizing the Public Records Act. Block has filed numerous large requests and related court claims. She targets municipalities that cannot process the volume of documents she requests and then files suit. Her requests have caused hearings and proposed law changes at the state and federal level. Her actions have resulted in the bankrupting of small municipalities and the resignation of multiple elected officials. While none of her numerous legal actions have been sucesful, Block has cost the state millions of dollars and her posting of embarrassing (publishing unsourced claims of elected official's supposed STDs or affairs) or private details obtained through the records process has caused several elected officials to resign. Every action that Block files must be contested by a team of City, County or State officials and while her usual practice is to withdraw her motions the day before the case, the government and targeted officials must go through the cost and time of preparing. The Seattle Times states that these costs now occupy over 35 percent of Block's hometown's yearly budget. Block maintains a twitter account and an online news site to promote her activism, and her recall attempts and litigation are covered by all of the major regional media outlets including daily newspapers with circulations in excess of 500,000 subscribers per day. The Seattle Times has published numerous articles on Block including a front page investigative report conducted by the Times' Pulitzer Prize winning team. The other regional dailies and every broadcast outlet have also covered Block. The article in question, while in need of work, is backed up by primary sourcing consisting of articles from major, respected daily newspapers, regional broacsating outlets, and original source documents from courts and municipalities. Block did not shirk the attention of the page but instead deleted all of the sourcing and chose to write in the third person about her accounts. I would like to achieve a neutral, well-sourced version of the article as it is a subject of great importance both in the State of Washington and regionally. Please consider undeleting this page so we can create an informative and fair BLP. Thank you. L8incoub3rt (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC) -L8incoub3rt (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This was an attack page, contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. See WP:Articles for deletion/Anne K. Block. If you want it restored, you will have to make your case at WP:Deletion review, but first read the policies I have linked, and WP:Biographies of living persons. JohnCD (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I am new at Wikipedia. It is my intent to write a fair, sourced, neutral piece. I have read your links and will follow the advice you have given me. However, I have one question/point to run by you. Encyclopedic content should be factual. Factual is different from balanced. In some cases, there are not an equal number of sources that paint point/counterpoint pictures of individuals. It has been stated that the Anne K Block article was an attack page. I agree that it was far from a finished prodct, and that it needed work. However, if the page was an attack page, then it was only an attack page because that's what the sourcing dictated. I would ask any editor to read the Seattle Times piece that is used as the most prominent source in the article. I found 25 other secondary sources but used the times source the most because it is the largest and most respected journalistic outlet in the region. What if the facts as reported by secondary sources don't paint a balanced portrait? Thank you very much for your input. It is appreciated. L8incoub3rt (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last two lines of your first request above say that you want a neutral, well-sourced article, but the previous twenty or so lines are sustained anti-Block polemic. The strong impression given here, in the edit-wars on the deleted article, and by Anne Block being reposted by another single-purpose account within a week of the deletion of Anne K. Block, is that the citizens of Snohomish County want to use Wikipedia as an arena for their local political battle. That is absolutely not what an encyclopedia is for.
Yes, it is possible to construct a balanced biography where sources are largely negative (we manage to cover Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot), but it requires care in considering the overall impression given. If the author's opinion of the subject shines through, and the selection of sources is relentlessly one-sided, then the article is an attack, and we will not accept an attack as a basis for development. See WP:BLP#Balance, in particular the sentence:

"The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced, because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be balanced and fair to their subjects at all times."

See also WP:COATRACK, particularly the sections WP:BITR and WP:CHERRY, and the guideline on WP:Conflict of interest. I am sorry to quote so many policies and guidelines, but this kind of situation is far from new, and it saves writing it all out at length. JohnCD (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HP Envy

This page was deleted because it was dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page, however there was no deleted or non-existant page related to it prior to deletion. -Bgibbs2 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done GB fan 17:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WT:Articles for creation/The Gravity Theory of Mass Extinction

I CSD'd this article without knowing that copyright permission was on file. It was not mention in page comments. I will have to learn how to check this - :- ) Don 16:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I see the article author Jstheorist (talk · contribs) says on your talk page that he is John Stojanowski, the author of the paper copied, and has "given Wikipedia the right to freely distribute", but how has he done that? We can't just accept an OK from someone on the end of a wire - permission needs to be confirmed by one of the ways described at WP:DCM.
More seriously, even given permission, this fails WP:No original research - he has lots of references, but he has combined what they say to produce his new theory, and that is WP:SYNTHESIS and not allowed: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but CSD was reverted once by another editor, so I assumed there were no other problem. Bad assumption. I will check on the permission and notify the author that the OR has to go. Thanks John. --  :- ) Don 19:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's salvageable - the whole thing is OR. If posted, it will certainly go straight to AfD. The other key passage in WP:NOR is: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." There are plenty of Ghits, but they are all about his book, I don't see any independent discussion. There is, for instance no mention of this theory in Google Scholar. JohnCD (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, let's at least give the editor a chance to respond. --  :- ) Don 22:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editor's response is here. Cancel the undelete. --  :- ) Don 09:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius (video game)

Invalid speedy deletion: "G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page: more at User talk:Zeizei123 - please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox". The article may well be crap, but that's not what G8 is for. -▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't asserting importance but not being eligible for A7 itself, it had been redirected by an editor to its developer Shiver Games already tagged itself for speedy deletion. Athaenara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) then deleted the company and the redirect per G8. If you think the game now deserves a game, I'd suggest you go ahead, if you want to start from what (little) was there let me know and I'll userfy.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Oh, my mistake. It was put up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests so I thought I'd check it out, there was no way for me to know it was a redirect. Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tereza Mrdeža

Tereza Mrdeža is a tennis player who competed for Croatia in 2012 Fed Cup. See her official profile: http://www.fedcup.com/en/players/player/profile.aspx?playerid=100042619 , therefore meets notability criteria -Vinz57 (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please update the article accordingly. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Len

Contesting PROD. -Chubbles (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Sarah Stierch also invoked A7 and there currently aren't any references, I've userfied it at User:Chubbles/Mr. Len. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamin Thompson

the guy is a real person and a great local athlete in my town -204.11.170.48 (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - As announced at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and has no applicability to articles deleted after any deletion discussion. The article about the tennis player was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamin Thompson, it cannot be undeleted through this process. Nevertheless, if you mean the sme person amd 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 Courcelles (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. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden_City_Football_Club

Was there any debate or questionning as to why the page should be deleted? -171.208.99.231 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. there was no debate about this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riette Burdick

reasoning -Ioscat (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I already had a reference in the article, and it was still removed.[reply]

 Done. I have restored the article and reset the ten-day clock. You need to find a better reference than IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source because it is user-editable. If the article is to be kept, you also need more significant coverage to establish WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian terrorism

Category was deleted for the reason that 5 years ago a category with the same name was deleted as the result of this discussion. And the user which deleted it today guided by Wikipedia:CSD#G4. But as you can see from the discussion results and deletion summary, 5 years ago this category was deleted because just one article linked to it. Today I have recreated this category and added 22 articles and 3 subcategories. And as it's stated in the Wikipedia:CSD#G4:

"A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies ...".

So as you can see reason for the deletion is no longer applied for this situation. But user which deleted the category also removed all links from articles and by this he created artificial situation when his position seems correct. -Wertuose (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Decisions of deletion discussions are not reversed here - see top of page. The 2007 discussion you linked shows that the reason for deletion was not primarily that the category was under-populated, but that the name was considered inappropriate. The closing admin mentioned the possibility of creating a new category "without the baggage of the current name". Re-creating the category with the same name does not improve it, or overcome the reason for deletion. If you wish to challenge the result of the 2007 discussion, or my recent G4 deletion, the place to do that is WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File: Logo for Center of Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny

reasoning -Benirschke-Perkins (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. That file is stated to be licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND (i.e. non-commercial, no derivatives), which is too restrictive for Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA because it does not allow derivatives or commercial re-use. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Treak

The administrator deleted it because he didn't knew about this record label, Its recently founded and its from India, Please undelete it, Our website is on maintenance mode and will be active in 2 days. Meanwhile you can check our Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/digitaltreak -Djamogh (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Wikipedia is not a place for new organizations to announce themselves. See WP:Notability, WP:Conflict of interest and the WP:FAQ/Organizations. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File: Logo for Center of Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny.png

reasoning -Benirschke-Perkins (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Creative Commons license for this logo can be found at this URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

This logo can be freely copied, distributed and transmitted, as long as it is not used for profit and/or altered in any way. Furthermore, the creators of the logo would like to be credited when if/when the logo is used. This complies with Wikipedia's goal to be a free content encyclopedia.

 Not done. It does not go far enough to comply with Wikipedia's goal. Being credited is not a problem (that is the BY bit); but the "'not used for profit and/or altered in any way" restrictions (the NC-ND bit) are not compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA, which allows both derivative works and commercial re-use.
However, there is a "fair use" exception for "non-free content" which complies with all ten of the conditions at WP:NFCC#Policy, and a logo like this probably qualifies. See Wikipedia:Logos for advice on how to upload it with a {{non-free logo}} template and a non-free use rationale. I have not restored your image because, in order to comply with WP:NFCC#3b, what you upload should be a low-resolution version, no larger than actually required on the page.
If the logo is a registered trademark, life gets still more complicated, see Wikipedia:Logos#Trademark concerns. I am sorry this is all so difficult, but copyright law is a nightmare and image copyrights are worst of all. JohnCD (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

paul reed

has fought 2 times on KSW biggest MMA in Europe and will fight a third time on KSW in september 15 2012. KSW i the biggest show in Europe and is a top tier show which attracts millions on television and up to 15000 live gate. As well as fighting 2 UFC fighters beating one by TKO and loosing to win by decision on the UKs biggest MMA show cage Rage -77.86.31.2 (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - As announced at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and has no applicability to articles deleted after any deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Reed (fighter), 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 Eluchil404 (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Bradley

I am a first time writer on wikipedia, and was making this page about Tazylor Bradley as i saw that this was not made already, i was seeing if i was doing it right, and putting the right things in then u deleted page.... thats not right... and its unfair -Buzzybee41 (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg

Did any discussion of this deletion happen anywhere? This was the main image of an important page not so long before it was deleted, if not at the time it was deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted after the uploader, George Ho (talk), tagged it WP:CSD#G7 with edit summary "per review, fails to meet NFCC; requesting db-g7". Best talk to him. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He already told me to request undeletion here if I felt the need on my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, I gave him a suggestion, and I did upload this image. However, saving this image is pointless. How is a text description of a plot inadequate to a reader? To be honest, as I realized, this image is worthless, and resurrecting it is pointless other than to please one editor who still believes that this image has encyclopedic value. I've already understood the plot when I read the article, and I'm sure that no image is needed to help readers understand the main plot itself. I'm sure that text is sufficient enough to help readers understand the plot. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, there was not consensus to delete this image last time it was posted for discussion, so you now have it WP:CSDed and then say recreation is pointless to you so there should be no discussion. You knew I would object to the deletion of the main image of the article I created, so you had it CSDed without informing me. That is not proper. It should be restored and properly discussed until consensus is reached.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - if it's disputed, it had better go to a discussion. George, will you list at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD as you think best? JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was discussion already in June, here. It wasn't just tagged without any reason to tag. REFUND does not apply here. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it that discussion was withdrawn.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yang Luchan.jpg

I believe the file is in the public domain for the same reason as found on this page for a similar file. I'm not used to dealing with these copyright issues, but one file seems as valid as the other in this case, as Yang Luchan died in 1872. The file was originally deleted because it's copyright was in question. -InferKNOX (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wu Jianquan.jpg

I believe the file is in the public domain for the same reason as found on this page for a similar file. I'm not used to dealing with these copyright issues, but one file seems as valid as the other in this case, as Wu Jianquan died in 1942. The file was originally deleted because it's copyright was in question. -InferKNOX (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_%28True_Blood%29

Deletion based on episode "notability" is arbitrary. Why was this one episode deleted while all others are left up? The summaries are useful to many people, even if you yourself aren't a fan of the show (and so don't find it noteworthy.) -108.35.176.248 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBC Japan Box Ident.png

This image was deleted in Commons because BBC logo (File:BBC.svg) may still be unfree in UK. -George Ho (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fallen Angel (novel)

This page was deleted while it was work in progress and I would like to request that it's content be userfied. I still need to add references and fine tune the text of the article, which I didn't have time to do as it has been deleted while I was actually working on it. If you can track the history of that page, you will notice that it was discussed in the chat with an admin, that I got feedback on it, did some changes and had some more to do. Thank you (Yvancg (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=511815531"