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
Plamka (talk | contribs)
198 edits
→‎Wisreed: new section
Plamka (talk | contribs)
198 edits
→‎Summary: -- corecting the heading level for "Summary"
Line 349: Line 349:
4.3) Even unproven concepts and unpromising technical ideas (such a WisReed) deserve to be described in Wikipedia, if for no other reason, than making it a clear that WisReed was nothing else but a half-baked concept and any allegations about its grand potential must be taken with a pinch of salt until proven with facts.
4.3) Even unproven concepts and unpromising technical ideas (such a WisReed) deserve to be described in Wikipedia, if for no other reason, than making it a clear that WisReed was nothing else but a half-baked concept and any allegations about its grand potential must be taken with a pinch of salt until proven with facts.


== '''Summary''' ==
=== '''Summary''' ===


I propose to restore the article on WisReed. It was '''not''' written as an advertisement, its text did '''not''' praise WisReed and even did not endorse it, its text made it clear that the claims made by the authors of WisReed were just claims and not yet proven facts. The text was written in a balanced way and it provided information to the reader, which was useful in clarifying what WisReed really was.
I propose to restore the article on WisReed. It was '''not''' written as an advertisement, its text did '''not''' praise WisReed and even did not endorse it, its text made it clear that the claims made by the authors of WisReed were just claims and not yet proven facts. The text was written in a balanced way and it provided information to the reader, which was useful in clarifying what WisReed really was.

Revision as of 13:49, 17 July 2013


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 rejected Articles for creation drafts), 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

Cindy Siegel

reasoning -Waterrockhannah (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC) My reason for the not deletion is because in the article, Cindy Siegel was written as important because she was the mayor of Bellaire, Texas for two terms.[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. Small-town mayor; fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been recreated and is now at AfD. Lectonar (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedy deleted the article again. Lectonar (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dax Networks

Company is top 3 networking company in India and provide all networking solution including high end Enterprise Networking solution etc. Company is more than 25 yeas old, which is significance of notability. For article/page improvement we need to give some to public -Gokulchandola (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose there would have to be a claim of importance in the article about that top 3 position along with evidence about that. Press releases and a company web site will not be sufficient citations for this to survive. Providing those solutions is not a claim of importance itself. As for 25 years old. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dax Networks shows importance in IT industry, especially in India. There is huge demand in Government department of Dax IT equipment's. If we review of Dax Networks products, show clear importance of company. For further clarification we can read about company from many reliable sources. (Gokulchandola (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Tiferet Journal

Article is not spam, nor intended to be advertising, rather, as with many other publications that appear on Wikipedia, it is an explanation and history of the Journal's existence and contribution to the literary world. If it still does not fit the criteria, could you kindly be specific as to what needs to be edited to fit Wikipedia's criteria? Many thanks. -Tinfoilrose (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. Hm, let me quote.... "Tiferet aims to further meaningful dialog about what it is to be human and conscious in an often contradictory and confusing world"..... "are dedicated to promoting peace and tolerance and to furthering an understanding of the creative process". If you can not see why this was deemed advertising (I agree with this evaluation, btw), we can not help you. Also see WP:COI, WP:NOBLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lectonar (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fran_Hauser

the page has very decent content, I am working on improving it. it was deleted without warning, and I don't understand why this page was marked for a speedy deletion - there is nothing in there that would not be a candidate for improvement. This is not fair. I can delete hundreds of other pages that have a lot worse content now. -agringaus 10:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fran Hauser, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Mark Arsten (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) 10:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sencha Inc.

I, Sgmarch, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Sgmarch (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page is a copyright violation. Another reason for deletion was the fact that it was a copyright violation (G12); we do not restore copyvios. Lectonar (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shivbramhapota

reasoning -Shivbramh (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC) It is historically established. The supporting books are in custody of erstwhile Maharaja of Jaipur. On geography it is established. There are many more records.[reply]

Please repair your request - we cannot process malformed requests. Please use the code {{subst:refund|pageName|reasoning}} (replacing pagename with the name of the page you wish to have restored). Did you perhaps mean Sheobramhpota? Lectonar (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Pryor

New hire at Karen Pryor Clicker Training to copyedit, research, and justify previously un-cited content. Karen Pryor is a prominent figure in her field and is the identifiable face of an entire philosophy of animal training and behavior modification. She has expanded this philosophy with her parent company (Karen Pryor Clicker Training) and an academy for animal training professionals. Pryor lectures both domestically and internationally, in addition to hosting two company-specific expositions each year. -70.88.200.153 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. What this article needs most are reliable sources, and I would urge you to add them as soon as possible. Lectonar (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely reeks of promotion and bias. I've cleaned out a little of the very worst stuff. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Wills

The reason cited by administrators for the deletion of the David S. Wills page was the lack of notability of the subject, Mr. Wills. Mr. Wills' recent book on the author, William S. Burroughs, and his relationship with Church of Scientology, in addition to his work on the Beat Generation with Beat magazine, would suggest that he does indeed has the requisite notability for a Wikipedia article. -175.100.32.160 (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David S. Wills, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Joe Decker (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. Lectonar (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rsinghduhan

reasoning -Rahduhan (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rsinghduhan

about a user of wikipedia -rsinghduhan 14:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done I did not find a deleted userpage with that name. Lectonar (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And for the article page Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. Lectonar (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bradyon

I, Dimension10, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Dimension10 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SchoolDesk

I, 50.138.127.21, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 50.138.127.21 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The draft could have been deleted as a G11 (advertisement) easily, as it was extremely promotional. If another admin wishes to restore nonetheless, feel free. Lectonar (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Shaima Alawadi

Although I have not been as active in the past due to being busy with real life (including work) and did not see this AfD I would like to contest the articles deletion. The event which is the subject of the AfD occurred in March 2013, for a brief period the event received international attention, and coverage lasted well into 2013. IMHO this meets WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, although coverage has fallen regarding the trail that doesn't mean that the event is therefore not notable, see WP:DEGRADE. -RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at the coverage, it received significant coverage in the many months after the event occurred, with the last major article written in January 2013, this maybe due to the fact that after the pleading, the next trial regarding the case will not occur until 25 July 2013

Next Court Date: Preliminary Exam, Jul 25 2013 8:15AM, Department 11, San Diego Superior Court, East County Division, East County Regional Center

— San Diego County District Attorney, 10 July 2013
.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will not template you, so....first I would contact Mark Arsten, as he closed the AfD; if he does not restore the article, deletion review should be the next step. They are quite good at evaluating things like these. All this because I do not think the undeletion would be uncontroversial. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Leejack

Important side bar information relating to former members of and early development of the internationally ubiquitous Heavy Metal Band KISS -71.197.179.197 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Lectonar (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ward (actor)

reasoning -Samuel0102 (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC) References were cited, page should not have been deleted.[reply]

ZDROWIE Direct

Page has been deleted despite the America's equivalent eHealthInsurance is in wikipedia.

I added some reasons to leave it here on the talk page. But no one answer me.

Zdrowie Direct has built a pioneering Internet technology that customers can get health insurance entirely via the Internet. It is for the first time in Poland.

It created his own Approval internet system which can approve applications during one online session. It is the first online marketplace in Poland, next to the eHealthInsurance in United States, where customers can get health insurance entirely via the Internet and compare various plans of major insurance companies. -Registrar88 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hal and Sidra Stone

They are world known specialists -Jaceknow (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user KnievelFan24 (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. All of the article's sources are primary, the Stones' own website and writings. In order to establish WP:Notability, it needs references that show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Schelling ‎

Would a kind administrator please move this article to my userspace? It was deleted because it contains content in Spanish. I will remove that portion of the article. -Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (German, actually) to User:Candleabracadabra/Erich Schelling. Check out WP:Translation and note that if you translate from an other-language-WP you need to use {{Translated page}} on the talk page to give attribution . JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Angel Builes‎

Would a kind administrator please move this article to my userspace? It was deleted because it contains content in Spanish. I will remove that portion of the article. -Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done to User:Candleabracadabra/Miguel Angel Builes. I have commented out the categories while it is in user space. JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Robledo Ocampo ‎

Would a kind administrator please move this article to my userspace? It was deleted because it contains content in Spanish. I will remove that portion of the article. -Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done to User:Candleabracadabra/Arturo Robledo Ocampo. This one still has some Spanish Categorías. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

file:kim possible 09.jpg

This must be resurrected. I will add the link to this deleted file into Kim Possible (character). -George Ho (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZippyChatter.com

It Is My Web Article Not Copyright And I Removed Link Of My Web From Article -EpaCco (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dzidzio

Please, undelete the page about the Ukrainian band Dzidzio. This is one of the most popular bands in Ukraine, and with many followers in Internet. As well, the information in the deleted page was obtained from the the group's website (www.dzidzio.com) and from the Ukrainian version of Wikipedia (http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B7%D1%96%D0%B4%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%BE_%28%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%80%D1%82%29). I wish the article will be undeleted

Thank you. -Fjgalindo (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kalinski

This page is needed -Mattedia (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Kalinski_(2nd_nomination), it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

shopame

i'm a fan who would like to share info about the product with others. what happened to the page? why is it blocked? -Victoria388 (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TES India

No opportunity was given to allow any changes to be made to the TES India page. TES India is a website and represents the teaching community of India by supplying free teaching resources and lesson plans for teachers to download at no charge. I would have happily addressed any issues the Wiki user Lesser Cartographies had. No opportunity was give to amend the page. I request suggestions for improvement of the page and reinstatement of the Wiki entry. -78.146.224.62 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. Oh, and see this. Lectonar (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Hall (Georgia Tech)

Please restore this article so we may merge this information with Georgia Tech main campus article per this discussion Thanks -Mistercontributer (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caldwell Hall (Georgia Tech)

Please restore this article so we may merge this information with Georgia Tech main campus article per this discussion Thanks -Mistercontributer (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Hall (Georgia Tech)

Please restore this article so we may merge this information with Georgia Tech main campus article per this discussion Thanks -Mistercontributer (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Hall (Georgia Tech)

Please restore this article so we may merge this information with Georgia Tech main campus article per this discussion Thanks -Mistercontributer (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Conception Of Saint Joseph

reasoning -Albin013 (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC) This page contains valid data[reply]

article was de-PRODded by IP editor, was never deleted —rybec 05:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for bot archiving. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WECAN SOCIETY

reasoning -Tombhaduri (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. The advertising language in the article put aside, it also seems to be a copyvio. Lectonar (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musashigawa stable (2013)

I lost the material I wrote, and want to use it in either other established articles, or to add material to make it more notable. FourTildes (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Restored to user:FourTildes/sandbox 6. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zipwhip

This is a legitimate article about the company Zipwhip (www.zipwhip.com) that was deleted due to the sockpuppet investigation. While the page was created by one of the banned accounts, it has been edited and refined since then. Please restore it. -108.16.27.23 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Hmm, apart from the banned user creating it, we had some edits of an editor with a very probably Conflict of interest, and some weeding out of the puffery stuff, some categorization...all in all, I'd say deletion review should be the way forward here; undeletion would not be uncontroversial. Lectonar (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Link2city

I, 50.198.245.157, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 50.198.245.157 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The draft could have been deleted as a G11 (advertisement) easily, as it was extremely promotional. If another admin wishes to restore nonetheless, feel free. Lectonar (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THUNK a cappella

this is a page dedicated to Northwestern University's premiere co-Ed a cappella group. It seems odd that other a cappella groups from the same university are allowed on Wikipedia and this one is not. Please undelete the THUNK a cappella page in due time as it is an important page to have to allow representation of Northwestern and of the Arts at NU. -Mer253 (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. And please read this. Lectonar (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article restored/recreated, see above. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 01:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Pandini

After five years, much more notable -84.39.116.180 (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Pandini, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Seresin (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.. And you would have to present the reliable sources to sustain your assumption of him being more notable. Lectonar (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Saturday_Nightmares:_The_Ultimate_Horror_Expo_Of_All_Time!&action=edit&redlink=1

(no title supplied)

(This user used the preload form for AFC undeletion, but did not specify the name of the AFC draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) MichaelLeeStever (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done user has no contributions to undelete, but please let us know the article if there is one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it might actually be the one above: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saturday Nightmares: The Ultimate Horror Expo Of All Time!, only a bit malformed. In the history of that AfC, we have user Michaellee4, which is near enough as usernames go to just think he might be the same editor as the requester above. Lectonar (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PME Power Solutions

Still building the page and aiming to provide significant information regarding transformer manufacturing and engineering, procurement and construction measures applied to power substations worldwide -Nehapuri2304 (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done but improve this quickly as there is no text here yet! I have placed a prod on it that you are free to remove. But if you do nothing this will get the chop. If you are going to be slow, then a sandbox is a good idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gullah Gullah Island episodes

Invalid R3 (Speedy deletion was declined appropriately in 2011) -76.110.65.48 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Enterprise Document Sharing

very little discussion at delete time - I now wish to improve it -Medconn (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC) This is a significant means of sharing medical information which has been slow to catch on the US (though meaningful use regs are now pushing it) but it is widely used in large parts of Europe, Australasia and Africa, with use in hundreds of hospitals and many thousands of people working on implementations. I see that only 2-3 people contributed to the delete discussion (none of them names I know, and one frankly wrong in his dismissiveness - probably looking from a US perspective). OK - it might need some improvement/better references, but I'd prefer to start from an existing page than from scratch![reply]

Not done The page has been userfied and can now be found here: User:Medconn/Cross Enterprise Document Sharing. Lectonar (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gene_D._Matlock

Quiet popular author, supported by multiple reliable sources. -Capitals00 (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. Lectonar (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Punj Page restoration.

Person is holding chairmanship and MD position in $2.4 Billion company and well known Industrialist in India. With other detail about him, page must be restore. Administrators are kindly request to restore Atul Punj page. -Gokulchandola (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. If it is as you say, finding reliable sources should be no problem. Lectonar (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wisreed

reasoning -Plamen Grozdanov (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Justification why the article on Wisreed should not have been deleted[reply]

1) Statement of personal involvement or personal interests

I have no personal involvement or indeed any involvement with WisReed or Fujitsu (who allegedly have created it), nor do I have any personal interest (such as even the slightest benefit) in Fujitsu, its products and in particular WisReed.

2) History

Last year I was investigating the technologies and the communications protocols suitable for [Smart Metering]. Someone (a non-technical person) had suggested and claimed that WisReed were a major candidate for such a protocol and its implementation in UK was imminent and planned by a competitor to the company in which I am working. However there was something not right in this claim -- having spent my life in telecommunications, I was surprised by such a bold statement (that WisReed were to be implemented in millions of devices in UK) and that yet I had not heard of it at all. So I set at finding out what WisReed was. Hardly to any surprise, I found that it was just a half-baked concept, which had Fujitsu as a proponent making grand, but little substantiated claims. My research found that WisReed was not as good as it was touted to be and far from the panacea for M2M (machine-to-machnine) communications that our competitors were alleging. And it certainly was not in competition with the main-stream technologies for Smart Metering in UK, and above all it had no chances of being approved by DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change in UK) for deploying in UK the Smart Metering Network.

Having spent time on investigating this rudimentary and yet-unproven communications protocol, I decided as a public service to write a short article in Wikipedia so that others could find quicker what it was about (Wikipedia is alsways the first port of call in all my research and I presume that it is for others too and thus by writing the article I thought I might save some time for other researchers). I thought that this article would provide some information and dispel many of the unfounded allegations and claims about the greatness of WisReed.

3) The content of the deleted article on Wisreed

The content was written by me, I tried to be as impartial as possible, and I did not make any statements in praise of WisReed (or unsupported critique, as a matter of fact), I only included some of the allegations of the creators of WisReed but made sure that each of these statements opened with the words "Allegedly..." or "It is claimed that..." making it absolutely sure that the reader would get the the correct impression that these were just unproven claims. If anything, I was trying to avoid being too critical of this half-baked protocol and its too-grand claims of being a sort of panacea to M2M. Unfortunately, since the creators of WisReed came solely from within Fujitsu (with whom I have no affiliation nor any personal interests), it appears that this fact led to Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion to be falsely triggered. Note that there was no other way how to describe WisReed in an article without making it clear that WisReed was only an attempt by a 'single company' at a 'proprietary' M2M protocol, and not as claimed by the competitors of my employer that WisReed somehow were a global de-facto standard to be imminently implemented in millions of Smart Meters in UK.

4) Why I would like the article on WisReed to be restored

I think that it would be a good thing to restore the article on WisReed because:

4.1) The text contains no praise, nor advertisement, not even an endorsement of WisReed

4.2) The text contains no praise, nor advertisement, not even an endorsement of Fujitsu. Please note that there is no other way how to describe WisReed without making it absolutely clear that it is only a proprietary communications protocol. The text of the article did precisely this and it pointed out WisReed was only developed by Fujitsu (hence the inevitable mentioning of a single company name -- but you have to agree that WisReed must not be described as technical and de-facto accepted concept, it must be made clear that it is only a Fujitsu's creation far from a de-facto global standard).

4.3) Even unproven concepts and unpromising technical ideas (such a WisReed) deserve to be described in Wikipedia, if for no other reason, than making it a clear that WisReed was nothing else but a half-baked concept and any allegations about its grand potential must be taken with a pinch of salt until proven with facts.

Summary

I propose to restore the article on WisReed. It was not written as an advertisement, its text did not praise WisReed and even did not endorse it, its text made it clear that the claims made by the authors of WisReed were just claims and not yet proven facts. The text was written in a balanced way and it provided information to the reader, which was useful in clarifying what WisReed really was.

--Plamen Grozdanov (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=564653920"