Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Riemann Soong (talk | contribs) at 03:14, 15 December 2011 (→‎File:A549 bridges -- 7-28-at1616.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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 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 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

Equals Three

Now that Ray William Johnson seems to be sticking around, its previous versions were restored, and can now be seen in the early article history. Other attempts were made to create the article, a number at Equals Three, which I feel should also be given the undeletion/history merge treatment. -117Avenue (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? What did you leave? 117Avenue (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An offensive attack version was left in the deleted state. I realise this comedian likes offensive material, but the version was unsuitable for inclusion here as it was speedy deleted as an attack page. You don't need it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant)

As of 2011, subject is now founder and Executive Director of National History Bee and Bowl. Also compares favorably to List of Jeopardy! contestants -Scott Illini (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Lansky

reasoning -173.16.185.83 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your reasoning for asking to undelete it -173.16.185.83 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/A7

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G11

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G12

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G4

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/U5

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G10

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G5 —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket 2011062010009314 covers content from http://www.practicalparenting.com and so this should be restored assuming there are no other violations from elsewhere. – Adrignola talk 19:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, and my clerknote is struck. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aether Records

Appears to have been deleted because the label reissued previously released records. However, several releases were first-issue, including the link below, and others, including Tombstone Valentine - Hidden World, Many Bright Things, Ice Nine, Problematics, Cheetah Chrome/Mike Hudson and two LP's by Vas Deferens Organization. Believe this label is deserving of a page here. -50.90.149.63 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Quoting from the deleted page: This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 05:31, 28 March 2011 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) deleted "Aether Records" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: non-notable record label that reissued previous publications)

Link to a notable issue:

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

Wikipedia is not a source for itself, and notability isn't hereditary. You need to show that the subject, in and of itself, meets WP:Notability (organizations and companies). —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr-mahfouz

I am new on wikipedia and wanted to about my self all around the world, its not about Advertising Please Help Me Undelete This Page, Thanks. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr-mahfouz (talk • contribs)

Javlin

The page should serve as a general information about Javlin Inc. company. To start I used as a placeholder "about" description from Javlin inc homepage - reason for deletion. As I represent the company I am authorized to use that text. Nonetheless the intention is to work on the text so it contains relevant info. -Dpavlis (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well firstly I feel terrible, this was the first article I chose to work on, and I got it deleted for "advertising" I followed the wiki rules and the only content that I added was an info box, fixed links, and added a blurb or two from 3rd party sources not affiliated with the company. I am also well aware that this is not simply a company directory and that the company needs to add something of value. I am a Petroleum Engineer for a company and have seen the reach of PetroSkills as a company, they have partnered with some of the industry giants to make progressive training to basically improve the oil and gas industry as well as making those work environments safer for those of us out on the rigs. I was hoping that someone could either help me make the article read not "like an advertisement" and more like an objective encyclopedic document which was my intent. If not could the article be emailed to me so that I can try and fix it myself? Thanks - -Limerick1988 (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Limerick1988/PetroSkills Alliance. It was already not in good shape before you started editing it. Now, you can work on improving the article's assertion of notability and neutrality at its new location, but please contact Fastily (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space. Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and the relevant notability guidelines - articles that are not in compliance will be deleted. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Return On Event

No references is not a valid reason to prod. no wp:before. bad engagement of new editor. - Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 14:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay_T._Snyder

User "Fastily" deleted the article via PROD with the argument that Mr. Snyder is neither a notable nor a public figure. However, he was a U.S. Representative to the United Nations and a Member of the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy at the State Department. He is also a prominent businessman and philanthropist. -71.167.45.144 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Simone

I believe this is incorrect and I am disappointed by the lack of warning and encouragement of wikipedia by this user. I notice that it appears there is tag/teamwork by a user from visitng the users page so to verify personal opinion and request my page be reviewed and restored. I am creating pages of interest and wish to continue in this endeavour. Reasons were ‎ (Multiple reasons: Speedy deletion criteria A7, G11) -Cynthia 76 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An A7 means that the article's subject fails WP:Notability. A G11 means the article is intended only to promote something. Articles on Wikipedia should be about notable subjects and should be written from a neutral point of view. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 21:12, 7 December 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 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molander and Associates

I am requesting the last revision of this page to be emailed to me, no mainspace restoration required. Thank you -Phearson (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facility Condition Index

The FCI is a well-established bemark used in the Facilities Management industry. The author of this article has the same information in a national publication for higher education -RobertGBrooks (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brayden richards

Please, oh please, give me this page back. I'll change it. Please? My life is over without it. -Chanchilla (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why is your life over without it? Are you Mr. Richards' publicist? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 21:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done and will not be done The article contains no useful content whatsoever; please read your first article before attempting recreation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Val-Dieu_Triple_Magnum.jpg

Quite awesome that a) there is no way to view the image or a thumbnail or anything anymore although you are the original uploader or a contributor in anyway; and b) even the actual metadata about the image, such as upload comment or copyright notice, is gone.

Sarcasm mode off: after some effort I have been able to find a thumbnail of the image on the interwebs, and I can confirm that it was a photograph I took myself. I am fairly certain that I also added appropriate information about that in the image information. Regardless, the image certainly is NOT non-free; if this was not properly reflected on the information this can be corrected. -Filipvr (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Have to agree not being able to asses the history for a photo uploaded five years ago isn't exactly helpful. I've restored it so that you can check out that it has been tagged as 'product cover' which would not be free even though you have taken the photo, and then been deleted as being without fair use rationale. Which still needs to be fixed.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been reviewing the situation and here are some remarks:
  1. There only was a boilerplate non-free notice posted on my talk page. Nothing about (lack of notice for) fair use or cover art being at the heart of the problem. TBH that is not very helpful either.
  2. I see in the history that an actual fair use notice was already added to the page right after it being marked for deletion. Err... somewhat contradictory actions?
  3. A few days after being marked for deletion, a bot tagged it for resize. It was deleted regardless without being resized.
  4. It is still tagged for being resized now. But according to [Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request] and User:DASHBot#Tasks it should happen automatically? It didnt seem to have happened over the last few days since the file was restored, though. Indeed, according to [uploads] no resizing has happened since november 24th.
  5. Before I noticed the FUR on the restored image, I went looking for what to do myself. I got lost in a swamp of copyright templates and rationales. I still wouldn't know what to actually add. In fact, I now know that resizing should happen because the image was tagged that way. But I wouldn't have known without that tag. Or what size it is supposed to be at. (I can only assume now that it is max 400px in any direction because of a notice at the top of the [Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request] page)

I dont believe the photograph itself is really worth much discussion over. It's not that awesome. But the above points highlight IMO that at some points, WP processes, guidelines and "documentation" have turned wrong and could use some serious review and redesign - read: simplification. Heck, I am adding all these comments here; but it's likely not the appropriate location either.
Filipvr (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ankamale.PNG

reasoning -CN-07 (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed Request - please use {{subst:refund|pageName|reasoning}} (replacing pagename with the name of the page you wish to have restored and reasoning with the reason for your request). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. You need to provide info as described on the tag. --Tikiwont (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ism (band)

contesting PROD. -Chubbles (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. January (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lockman Hole

Lockman Hole was deleted in the Marshallsumter incident as documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/User:Marshallsumter_Incident_Article_Fix-up_Coordination_Page

Based on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Astronomy and cosmology and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL it seems that it would indeed be worth an article, and I'd like to see what was there before it was deleted and possibly make it into a suitable article or stub. I'll look for and fix any of the sort of copyright violations that led to the ban. -★NealMcB★ (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Nealmcb/Lockman Hole. At least the initial stub looks reasonable and you're willing to go through it. --Tikiwont (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can I get the talk page also? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond

This is one of my first book articles that I created under my old disclosed Schuym1 account. The article was deleted by prod and I would like it restored. I found [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. -SL93 (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. GB fan 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agneyee

More information and notabality can be put in. -Rahul Das, Advocate 17:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Agneyee This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia.

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Rd2kin/Agneyee . You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact Alexf (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space. Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and the relevant notability guidelines - articles that are not in compliance will be deleted. --Tikiwont (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Dove

reasoning -Phoenixmiddleschoolmax (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Speedy Deletion because said person was not significant. He is significant for being the 2010 Ohio Teacher of the Year and having a documentary on PBS.

Then cite them. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:08, 10 December 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/Timothy Dove, it cannot be undeleted through this process. Nevertheless, if you believe that the consensus found at the discussion was in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Wizardman (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nami face.jpg

This non-free image was deleted for lack of usage after the article Nami (One Piece) was merged into List of One Piece characters. Consensus on the matter has changed and the page is no longer a redirect. I figured it would be easier to have the old image restored rather than to find and upload a new one. -Goodraise 22:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Skier Dude (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion 5.0 December 2011 Cover Ali Fedotowsky.jpg

as publisher, I Morgan Myrmo own copyright to this image and allow usage in Wikipedia -Morganmyrmo (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to clear this through our volunteer response team first, especially because we cannot and do not allow "Wikipedia-only" images. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 04:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Security Ray

reasoning -Maksudul haque (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:EverQuest - East Commonlands tunnel.jpg

This are computer game screenshots for the EverQuest game. The first one was speedy deleted in november 2010 although the file was uploaded in october 2004. We had a discussion about it in 2005 and the file was tagged with 'Non-free game screenshot' template which should be enough for fair-use rational. The reason for deletion was "no fair use rationale" but the fair-use rationale was in the template just below : "a computer video game". The other one were also deleted because of a lack of fair-use. Isn't a computer game screenshot enough as a rational?

Please let me know what I should do to have those images restored :-) -Hashar (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done All three restored with the time reset so that you can study the edit history and have a week. All of them need to be used in an article and a detailed fair use rationale for that article. Plese check also Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline--Tikiwont (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vajazzling

reasoning -Bebe Jumeau (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vajazzling is a legitimate topic for discussion - it is highly popular in the United Kingdom throughout 2011 and widely mentioned in both electronic media - such as Nowhere Else but Essex and also print media especially and has been the subject of academic papers by Pamela Church Gibson of the London university of the Arts

it is related to the UK mainstream press discussion in recent weeks on Muff Marches and designer vaginas and vagina and labio plasty surgeries and also the USA practice of vajacials which are facial style treatments for vaginas

the debates around deletions earlier in 2011 did not seem to be well informed and also reflected a US cultural perspective and I suspect a male cultural perspective and perhaps even a religious POV

it may not be to everyone's taste but it's a fact of modern life


so can we restore Vajazzling to have a more real and accurate wikipedia experience not a walt disney norman rockwell experience

  • 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/Vajazzling, 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. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outsource magazine

The article was considered non-notable however, I had included citations that proved a targeted circulation that was audited by the ABC and was received by a substantial and key demographic of around 12,000 core opinion formers (in print alone) in its chosen industry sector who respect the editorial and read it regularly. The magazine is also sent digitally to a large database of opt in subscribers who feel that the magazine is both notable and relevant to them and their industry. If required I can add additional citations/references to prove this. As the page creator I was also only notified of the PROD process on Saturday morning so expected to have several more days to veto the deletion which I was then not given. -Dave Louca 09:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova

Has two more recent acting credits, plus the first one, which was a substantial role in a high profile film. Think it's time to let her back in to Wikipedia? -Fightingirish (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Not obvious enough for this board which doesn't really cover AfD. Consider to write a small draft with good sources showing that the one additional real credit has created enough coverage on her and bring it to deletion review. Probably won't work unless A Novel Romance becomes notable enough for an article. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hussainsha_-_Ajima.JPG

as per your request i will try to add details to the image file page . kindly guide me . -Dr Ananda Kumar Pingali (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These images have not yet been deleted so they cannot be restored, whcih is the purpose of this board. As you're now here, let me observe that they seem to come from the organization's site, where copyright is claimed.[9]. So unless the organization decides to donate them, they will be deleted regardless of any details you add. For more information see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Above, I referred to the fact that you as uploader have tried to grant permission. If you wnat to use images without asking for a change of their copyright, a fair use rationale may apply in some circumstances, but that's a different discourse.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MehranVB/Archive1

per WP:UP#DELTALK -In fact 14:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Bwilikins. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William "Sandy" Darity, Jr.

copyright owner -Loyalcoya (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Mae Lentz

i THINK THAT THIS ARTICLE SHOULDN'T BE DELETED BECASUE i FORGOT TO WIRTE THE REASON AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF SUBMITTING THIS ARTICLE. THE REASON IS ELLA MAE LENTZ HAS CONTRIBUTED ALOT TO THE DEAF COMMUNITY. SHE HAS WRITTEN BOOKS, DEVELOPED PROGRAMS, AS WELL AS PERFORMED MANY SHOWS. SHE IS A REAL INFLUENCE TO THE DEAF COMMUNITY AND THATS WHY I THINK THAT THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED -Aslforever02 (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Aslforever02/Ella Mae Lentz II. There you can work on it adding the referecnes from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ella Mae Lentz. Then please contact Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who deleted the page. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The African Identity

I didnt have the time to make the adjustments that were needed nor do i understand all the codes for templates to provide reflist. I have all the proof of the importance to the article why the group was impactful and history of the group.. -DonMegaTV (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:DonMegaTV/The African Identity . You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space. Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and the relevant notability guidelines - articles that are not in compliance will be deleted. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater Worldwide arms smuggling claims

Contested PROD -Gobonobo T C 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek kumar

reasoning -Andrewsymonds12 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page is of an upcoming actor who's film very much much hyped in Bollywood. I have added the references in the new page which is in the creation process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Abhishek_Kumar

There's many reliable sources that talk about this actor if you search Abhishek Kumar 5 Ghantey Mien 5 Crore on the google. I have put in some of the references but the deleted page is administrator protected. Please allow this page to be created again.

 Not done My recommendation is for you is to make a userspace draft. When you have verified with a few trusted editors that it's ready to go, you may make a request at request for unprotection to have the title unprotected. Be aware that "up and coming" actors do not yet meet notability requirements, and WP:CRYSTAL applies (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.S. Nagarajan

The article was deleted under WP:BLPPROD. This article is NOT a Biography of a Living Person. The person in question is DECEASED, was an illustrious writer and filmmaker from the classical era of Tamil and Sri Lankan cinema, and as for verification, was my grandfather. The article was created precisely because of the lack of documentation on the internet of his career, but his IMDB page does exist at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2426080/ -Cyfanfor (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As IMDB is not a valid WP:RS, and all articles (whether BLP or not) require sourcing, could you please advise what types of sourcing you'll be able to add? I acknowledge that this is a PROD, but the article will not be able to remain on Wikipedia without sourcing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Kelly Photo.jpg

I have asked for permission and have received permission from the Public Affairs department at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center to use this copyright free Thomas J. Kelly Photo.jpg. Wikipedia should receive an e-mail from Joe Pisarchick for submission of this photo. I have asked Mr. Pisarchick to send the e-mail to photosubmission@wikimedia.org . -Davidthelion2 (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I believe the reason it was deleted maybe the approval did not reach your department in time. This will be the second time I have asked Mr. Pisarchick to e-mail Wikipedia expressing approval of the usage of Dr. Kelly's photo. The URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Kelly_(scientist) should you need the location of Dr. Kelly's biography.

I would be happy to ask Mr. Pisarchick to e-mail the admin directly should he/she need additional information. Thank you. David

File:A549 bridges -- 7-28-at1616.jpg

I uploaded this image and someone deleted as a duplicate of another image I uploaded, but it was not a duplicate. As I recall, the focal planes were different and the images are subtly (or even significantly) different. -John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image looks completely identical with File:Intercellular connections in a549 cells.jpg is this the one you were thinking of? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall there were some differences between the two images. John Riemann Soong (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please restore it; the image was never placed on IFD, and was moved to Commons without my consent. John Riemann Soong (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE? I uploaded the image on a free license, and it is NOT a duplicate. John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are bit-for-bit identical. Both images hash to (with MD5) 6be87eaea86c8ce92c51d46ea4b0e144. I can restore the wikipedia copy if you like but I really don't see the point. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please? John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please undelete all images of mine that were moved to Commons -- I am trying to find a missing image that I cannot find anymore. (I planned to insert them in articles when I had the time.) John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emergn

reasoning -PDarrall (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The following reasons for deletion were noted.

19:37, 14 December 2011 Amatulic (talk | contribs) deleted "Emergn" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): See WP:NOTINHERITED, also WP:CSD#G11)

This is not the case.

Explanation of the subject's significance was clearly noted and inherited. The Universal Credit Programme, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Credit, one of the largest pieces of UK government legislation, the largest change to benefits since their introduction, a pioneer in the way the govt does IT projects is being led and advised publically by Emergn. Reference public articles including reference in the House of Lords. How on earth is there no inheritance. The deletion is clearly done by someone with no subject matter knowledge.

Secondly reference is made to advertising. This is flatly denied. There is no sales pitch, no sales material, everything was factual and referenced. It did not infringe the style of article necessary for Wikipedia.

There is no inheritance because WP:Notability requires every single article to stand or fall on its own merits. In other words, Article X's existence or absence CAN NOT be used to justify the presence or absence of article Y. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree, your language looked pretty damned promotional to me, with gimmicks like testimonials from an M.P. (members of the House of Lords are certainly not considered reliable sources). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe changes have been made to it which I did not start with - as I definitely would not have used a term like testimonial. Additionally the reference to the House of Lords is not the Lord himself, its to a Hansard reference - and that surely is a reliable source. The objection is to the speed of the deletion, without discussion and without any chance to rectify issues that may have occurred in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:PDarrall (talk • contribs) — PDarrall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nonsense: you say that "Lord So-and-So mentioned Emergn in the House of Lords" as if it mattered. Hansard by definition documents almost every trivial utterance on the floor of the House; that neither makes those utterances significant, nor conveys some mystical notability because the name "Emergn" was mentioned once by a member of the Lords. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a stylistic choice, its intention was not to denote 'some mystical notability'. The Lord in question makes no positive statement in regard of Emergn, he merely notes their role within a public project. However surely the case still remains, how can problems be corrected if speedy deletion process is applied out of nowhere, with no indication of the problem within the article, which I am sure could have been fixed to the standards of Wikipedia. Including, if it was felt that using the House of Lord statement was promotional. There was earlier comment in the original file on some quotes from the CEO, which were felt promotional. That was accepted and the comments were removed without objection from me personally. However I believe Emergn is as significant as some competitor companies listed within Wikipedia such as Thoughtworks. The aim is to produce something to the standard of the wikipedia, deletion prevents that. My case for reversing the deletion is the article can be improved and corrected to meet any necessary standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PDarrall (talk • contribs) — PDarrall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The thing to do, then, is to create a new draft article in a sandbox such as User:PDarrall/Emergn (which I just created for you), and work on it there. Then ask some of the previous version's critics to look at the new draft and suggest improvements. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, could I ask a second favour. That you place the old deleted article also into that sandbox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PDarrall (talk • contribs) — PDarrall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Already done. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tellmygov

Tellmygov is a social media network. It is in the same category that facebook is in and facebook is allowed to be left up, I don't understand why tellmygov was deleted. -MightyPen1 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE X CANNOT BE USED TO JUSTIFY ARTICLE Y. Every article has to be notable in and of itself. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done and will not be done The deleted "article" was an advertisement by User:TellMyGov Admin, since blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tellmygov is a social media network and provides a service to all Americans in keeping them informed about the government. Facebook is allowed to remain up, Tellmygov should be allowed to remain up as well. This was deleted because it was said to be promoting the company, but it isn't promoting the company, it is informing about a social network site that is the first of it's kind, completely political in nature. The article was approved to begin with because it met all the criteria and I don't think that one user should be allowed to come along and say, oh now it's not approved because I don't like it. Wikipedia is to inform the people, this article is meant to inform the people. It doesn't deserve to be taken down. I think that once it has passed initial inspection, which it did, it shouldn't be allowed to be taken down based on one person's opinion. -MightyPen1 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook's article CAN NOT be used to justify this one. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, are you saying that a user named tellmygov admin edited it last? -MightyPen1 (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike himself said, up above, if you were paying attention, that the article willn't be restored because it was an advertising piece by him. And your only edits that I can see (and the warnings on your talk page) suggest you are either he, someone editing on his behalf, or an employee; hence I have tagged your user talk page with {{sockpuppetry}}. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet, and I was not aware he submitted an article previously. Thank you for your help. -MightyPen1 (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jeremy, let's assume good faith here! Mighty, as I implied elsewhere, I'm afraid that somebody who comes roaring in to defend what was basically an advertisement for a new website, one created by an obvious spam account, is bound to be viewed with a cynical eye; and yes, as the link given above will show you, there was an account named User:TellMyGov Admin who created the tellmygov article, and was blocked as what we call a "spamusername". --Orange Mike | Talk 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=465936451"