Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mayonglan (talk | contribs) at 18:14, 21 January 2013 (→Da-Wen Sun). 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 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

Zudella Pimley-Smith

Please can I have the article back as I cannot trace it on the deletion log. Sarah Stierck deleted it but I cannot find her as one of the administrators to contact for deletions. Thank you. I hope I can find where to pick up your message?-Pimlezu (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'm not seeing much potential for an article; if you enable e-mail I'd send it to you.--Tikiwont (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done (procedural) Lectonar (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wood Productions

Josh Wood Productions does not qualify for the speedy deletion criteria under section G4. This article is not a copy of a previously deleted article. This article describes absolutely deferent company than the one previously deleted for the lack of notable references. It is not identical to the previous article which was deleted. It is not unimproved copy of the previously deleted article. For the above mentioned reasons the article is clearly not qualifying to be deleted under criteria for speedy deletion section G4, therefore must be reinstated. Thank you very much for your time reviewing this issue. -Luisa Pisani (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete Article does not qualify for the speedy deletion criteria under section G4. This article is not a copy of a previously deleted article. This article describes absolutely deferent company than the one previously deleted for the lack of notable references. Article equal to the following articles Silver Pictures, Samuel Goldwyn Films, Imagine Entertainment, Millennium Entertainment, Amblin Entertainment, Crystal Sky Pictures, Skydance Productions, ect... articles mentioned hereby do not even have references, although some of the articles created in October 2010, remains without any warning as it is clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines (better job to do). Josh Wood Productions was not identical to the previous article which was deleted. It was not unimproved copy of the previously deleted article. For the above mentioned reasons the article is clearly not qualifying to be deleted under criteria for speedy deletion section G4, therefore must be reinstated. Thank you very much for your time reviewing this issue. --AllisonID (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Wings of the Dove (Henery James Novel) 1st edition cover.jpg

This image is of 1st edition, published in 1902. It should be out of copyright, so prior versions may have higher resolution. -George Ho (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. {{PD-Art}} only applies to 2-dimensional artworks. This is a three-dimensional book, and thus the photo itself is copyrightable, even though the cover itself isn't in copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done (procedural) Lectonar (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genius_Inside

After discussion with one of the wikipedia administrator, we have made substantial improvements to our company's page and believe all sources are now up-to-date and with solid references. Moreover, as one of the leading company in the project management software business, we do believe our page has an importance in this sector and in informing the users of project management softwares. At the beginning, our page was deleted because the administrator stated it did not "provide sufficient evidence that the company is notable" -Rbernard84 (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The place you're looking for as indicated by Mark Arsten is deletion review.[1]. Here we could only give you back the text which you already have but not overturn the previous community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genius Inside (2nd nomination). Make sure to link to your draft and review the links i post you on your talk page.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done (procedural) Lectonar (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IACCM

Page originally deleted back in 2008 because it was an article ...about a company that doesn't assert significance. IACCM is now quite a significant entity in the contract management world. A formal article has been written located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Contract_and_Commercial_Management. The IACCM page should be undeleted so that a redirect to the full article can be established. -Bmickler (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, but the new article needs work if it is to be kept. Every single reference is to the organization's own website, but Wikipedia's notability requirement is for references that show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Also, it reads more like the organization's manifesto than an encyclopedia article about it. See WP:42, WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:FAQ/Organizations. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPGRADE

I am part of the boyband UPGRADE here in the philippines and I decided to create our own wikipedia. I used our account UpgradeOfficial here in wikipedia to create the article. After I created the article on January 12 2013 at 3am, i sleep and when I wake up i check it and it was deleted by RHaworth and I don't know why. I am still hoping to regain my article back. I worked for it so please do something. I feel all of my work are gone to waste :( -121.54.29.100 (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request, user RHaworth (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Also see User talk:UpgradeOfficial Lectonar (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPGRADE

I am a press and I want to know more about the boyband UPGRADE,and when I checked the wikipedia, someone deleted it. please bring back the article thanks. -121.54.29.100 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're fooling nobody. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 07:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last Res0rt

Further analysis of what was in the article revealed this fully reliable source about it. I think that's just enough for notability. -Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you talked to Sandstein, the Admin who closed the AfD as delete? Lectonar (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see much point. He has a whole lot on his plate it seems. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done This is now at DRV. Lectonar (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 15#Last Res0rt. The log shows that User:Martijn Hoekstra restored the article and User:Malik Shabazz speedied it G4. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 2710

I will redo it to match standards -Whyagainwiki (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The page was deleted : 

   04:50, 2 July 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Nokia 2710 (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

May be my writing style was a bit biased. But I could have redone it to make it neutral. I am not an employee or so of Nokia. I just liked the phone so my style was like that. I will make it neutral, if you undelete it. thanks

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at user:Whyagainwiki/Nokia 2710. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Da-Wen Sun

As Orangemike's advice, I have carefully removed any promotion quotes. I believe the page is no longer promotional. However it was deleted unilaterally by Sandstein. Then Graeme Bartlett restored it, but it was deleted again by Sandstein. I believe the idea here is to improve Wikipedia, not to delete things that he does not like. By looking at the history, for some reasons, Sandstein has a strong view on the page although the page has been edited by many experienced Wiki Editors in the past few years -Mayonglan (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better take this to WP:DRV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Graeme for your kind suggestion. If the page is no longer promotional, then Sandstein's deletion is clearly an error, and the page should be restored Mayonglan (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scriberius

Accidental DEL by a bot -Scriberius (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User:Scriberius was contested and decided to be DEL (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_7#Category:User:Scriberius), but not my user page. --Scriberius (talk)

Done, obvious blip by the bot. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline Technology

This is the Bromcom MD's first company and has links to Bromcom Computers PLC, thus is important within the MIS sector for schools in the UK -StacyLarkin (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Frontline Technology Ltd. Have you contacted DGG who speedy deleted it? He is quite approachable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera Camera (Nazia and Zohaib Hassan album)

reasoning -117.192.71.134 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2013 (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/Camera Camera (Nazia and Zohaib Hassan album), 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 The Bushranger (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.

Minsk (band)

Please could you re-open the Minsk band page. I thought it was a perfectly well referenced and adequate page, for a band that is important and deserves it's own page. If you were able to tell me the reasons why it wasn't, I would be happy to make improvements to the page to keep it open. Many thanks Jack -Jtaylor477 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. The concerns of the proposer Radiofan (talk · contribs) were: "Not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. References provided are original ones or essentially copies of press releases." --Tikiwont (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AssaultCube Reloaded

It is not a copyright violation, which was the reason for its deletion. -23.17.148.90 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done The copyright deletion has already been overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 14 It's notability is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AssaultCube Reloaded. Feel free to comment there. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RapidQ

Active Programming Language -155.207.43.8 (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Being 'active' isn't sufficient. The article needs third party references to establish notability and may still be nominated for a deletion discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

catholic health Services

reasoning -Smaranikamishra (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. The article you created is at Catholic Health Services Maybe you got confused by the renaming. But you can't sign here with a weblink, so I redacted it--Tikiwont (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma_Atheists

Connected to Facebook page that we wish to update. We also have sufficient demonstrated notability that we would like to add. -68.227.122.221 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done Although this was a PROD, it was deleted 18 months ago. The existence of an org does not mean its notable, and nothing in the "article" suggested any notability, nor was it proven. On top of that, someone involved in the org should not be writing about it as they clearly have not got the appropriate detachment as per WP:COI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fabienne fredrickson

The page was recently created by somebody who wasn't sure how to properly create an article. I created an article for her after this, but it was already on the speedy deletion list so it was deleted. The page wasn't spam or advertisement, and had all of the correct sources after every sentence backing it up. I wish for the page that I created to be undeleted. -Mandirenfroe (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There only seems to be the page that you created at this name. However  Not done as that version is too promotional. Next time if your write it use less glowing terms. Also references like linkedin and facebook are not counted as reliable. And references to her company or press releases are not independent. So find reliabe and independent substantial sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

jana k. arnold

Jana K. Arnold is the screenplay writer of at least two produced movies mentioned on Wikepedia -99.109.245.175 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gomess

I would like to have the existing text of this article to work on rather than start a fresh article. Thanks. -Mathewignash (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Scholz

Deleted on 4 January 2013. Reasoning: "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." He has played his first A-level match today (19 Janaury 2013) in the Belgian Pro League for Lokeren vs OH Leuven causing him to pass to requirements. See http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/matchcenter/mc_voetbal/jupilerleague_1213/speeldag23/1.1525145 (in dutch). Please restore. -Pelotastalk|contribs 22:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please update the article and add the reference. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Combine

That page was deleted because it lacked resources. Now, in addition to the single article cited as source, I have found a second mention of the website in a national magazine and also two Academic thesis about the game and programming. I would also mention that the original article was deleted also because some anonymous user rewrote the article to use it as a publicity means, and was no longer consistent with the article cited. I can provide PDFs of the new additional sources upon request. Thank you for your attention. --RubenWan (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC) -RubenWan (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2013 (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/Star Wars Combine, 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. GB fan 01:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick reply. I admit I could not find the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Combine, when googling for it only the Cons of Star Wars Combine came up. I will surely contact the administrator who closed the discussion now that I know his handle. Thank you again. --RubenWan (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to understand better. Now I remember that page was already undeleted in 2010 upon providing new information (You can check that in my Talk page). Is there a record of the second discussion to delete that page? In any case, I contacted the administrator Marasmusine, but I'd really appreciate to know what happened to the "version 2010" page. --RubenWan (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The subsequent two deletes are under criterion G4. This means that it is a recreation of the article deleted by a discussion (like AFD) without addressing the problems mentioned in the debate. For this situation it is bes to crate a sandbox version where you can improve the content with good sources, before it gets the chop. This is the delete log:
  • 08:47, 6 May 2012 Neutrality (talk | contribs ) deleted page Star Wars Combine (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
  • 11:00, 10 October 2007 Marasmusine (talk | contribs ) deleted page Star Wars Combine (Speedy G4; direct repost of article deleted through AfD; content was: '{{db-repost}}The Star Wars Combine is a free online player-based simulation revolving around the Star Wars universe. First conceived in [[...')
  • 00:53, 22 April 2007 Coredesat (talk | contribs ) deleted page Star Wars Combine (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Combine)
So you can talk to Neutrality about the 2010 version deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

saint petersburg international film festival

This is a real festival, there are a plethora of online articles and other proof available. Although technically a new event, it is actually a collection of 4 pre-existing events which have been running for decades. We do not understand why the article about the festival was deleted. -109.172.15.23 (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The only comment by the deleting party that I managed to see before the page was removed was that there were no sources. I did not understand what this meant and before I could get to the bottom of it, the page was removed along with the volunteers contact details.

I would be gratefl for any advice you can offer.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this.


C.A

American School Band Directors Association (ASBDA)

reasoning -Mekelrogers (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user RHaworth (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a discussion lasting seven days to which you would be welcome to contribute. What the article needs is references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish Wikipedia:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wii U Internet Browser

This was deleted through PROD, and I am interested in trying to improve it. -FunPika 22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peto Coast

People want to know, he's sort of a gay legend. -86.159.0.114 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

australian bulldog

This page has recently been deleted, some discussion about the deletion seems to relate to a few individual breeders creatin gthe page and that this is not a true dog breed just a cross breed.

So what - it is still a product sold regularly in Australia. It has been in exsitence for over 2 decades and there are more than 200 breeders across 3 associations involved in this breed a few more than stated in the discussion the page was an interesting history of the breed.

I am sure there are pages on wiki that need deleting but this is not one of them. there are over 7 dedicated facebook groups to the Australain Bulldog, hundreds of breeder apges, forums and 3 associations. Why not a wiki page??-124.150.71.204 (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2013 (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/Australian Bulldog, 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 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cross Records

There is no reason why this page should be deleted, given that Southern Cross Records is an independent record label and is presently active. -58.167.66.187 (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning companies. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stazione Corridoio Trento Italia.JPG

I moved this to Commons in February last year and requested deletion of this file per WP:CSD#F8, believing that this was a photo of a building from the mid-19th century. However, it was later discovered that the building is from the 1930s, and it is currently up for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Angiolo Mazzoni because the image violates Commons:COM:FOP#Italy. The building is protected by copyright in Italy, but should be fine on English Wikipedia (see Commons:Template:PD-US-architecture and {{FoP-USonly}}), so I'm requesting undeletion here. -Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Article talk notification

I want to create another non-free file problem notification template and perhaps want to use this as a starting point. Please also restore the documentation subpage. --- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lectonar (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=534194985"