User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on December 26, 2009. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

deletion of Exacep[edit]

Please advise why the page I have recently added to the online backup software section was deleted for Exacep. I am an employee of the company and wish to include some basic info for people to read up on the company

Thank you,


The page was deleted, as indicated in the deletion reason, because it satisfied article speedy deletion criterion 7, or "A7". I included in the deletion reason a boilerplate explanation of the deletion: "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion". Articles can be deleted with no discussion if they do not offer any evidence that their subject is important enough, nothing that suggests that there may exist outside sources upon which to base a good article. Wikipedia's notability guideline lays out the principle relatively well. Remember that there's a balance: while the importance of the subject should be evident, the article must nevertheless remain neutral and not spam.
With speedy deletion, there's little prejudice against trying again, so there can still be an article on Exacep—but you shouldn't write it. As a self-described employee of the company, you have an evident conflict of interest with the subject. Generally people are discouraged from editing articles with which they have a conflict of interest. You might want to read the FAQ for organizations to get an idea of where you stand. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 00:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


I am not an employee of Exacep. Please advise on how I can enter this information into Wikipedia without being deleted again
Are you an employee or aren't you? Don't contradict yourself, or it looks like you're lying and it becomes harder to assume good faith of you. The key is to show notability and verifiability, avoiding fulfilling the criteria for speedy deletion, and ensuring that the article remains neutral. I can't give you a guarantee "do XYZ and the article will remain on Wikipedia forever", so I'm not. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 17:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Let be clear. I am not an employee of the mentioned company. please advise on how to move forward.
Simply recreate the article! There's no special process required. I mentioned the main ways to help prevent deletion again above. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this once[edit]

You're letting the side down. I was shocked that alternative dance was deleted by you based on some minor user's unfounded assertions and a non-existent deletion page. Do me a favour and do a basic Google Archive search first next time. I would have expected better from a longtime admin. RB88 (T) 21:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain my point of view to you.
First, if anyone had objected in absolutely any way visible there or on the corresponding discussion page, I would not have deleted the article. Anyone objecting after the fact could similarly have requested that the article be undeleted, and I would have done so without further question unless I had reason to think that the content was libelous or a copyright violation or some other special case. The article had been sitting that way for a week, and the rationale was reasonable.
Second, it is patently unreasonable to expect every admin to do that level of research for every page they delete—especially for proposed deletion, where the deletion can be cancelled at any point by any user at all. Users don't become special because they have admin powers, and they certainly don't get hours of extra free time each day to do careful research on topics that are likely not notable anyway. There shouldn't be special users, and your characterization of Appletangerine un as a "minor user" is both insulting to they, and unfair, as even admins don't have greater editorial rights than the average newbie.
Finally, I can undelete the old article if you like. You'd then be able to see that, in a matter of hours, you have made a better article, presumably from scratch, than the one which lasted five years more or less as it was. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 00:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Place Ville-Marie[edit]

Hi there,

I see on your user page that you live in Montreal. I am going to assume that you have heard of Place Ville-Marie in asking you this question. The reports of the number of floors in Place Ville-Marie vary from 43 to 46. Do you, with your Montreal expertise, know the actual number of floors in this structure, or could you possibly visit this building to find out? Thanks,

-Stuck in Edmonton 117Avenue (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

EPM Live was deleted[edit]

Can you help me get it back up? I can provide more notable sources if needed. thanks! Hchampoux (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Heather Champoux

Done Done, have fun. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of DeskAway wiki page[edit]

Hi, Just saw you have deleted the wiki page Deskaway, citing "Non-notable business or web content producing non-consumer software." I find it odd since it is the alternative for many other softwares, which are on wikipedia! (refer to Comparison of project management software)Moreover the references we had given was from offline magazines, prominent sites and newspaper mentions. So I cannot see how it can be deleted.

It was nominated for deletion via proposed deletion, which means that if no one objects in a week, the page is presumed to be an uncontroversial deletion. If anyone objects after the fact, the page can be restored. Would you like me to restore the page? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya it would be great, if you could restore it! I actually did not see the notice of deletion when you put it up, so could not object in time. Thanks.

I didn't propose the deletion! I merely carried out the deletion when it was time; check the page history for who did add the deletion template. I did, however, restore the page just now. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Restoration plans?[edit]

Seems like File:Garden_delights.jpg this image could be improved substantially through some minor restoration work to remove the watermarks and maybe move to FP status. Any plans?

I don't really have much experience restoring photos, so no, I don't have any plans to do that. It might be worth looking into, though. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Artemis (software)page[edit]

Hi, Just saw you have deleted the wiki page Artemis (software), citing "Non-notable business or web content producing non-consumer software." What do you do all day? Delete perfectly good articles? Artemis Views and Artemis 9000 are long-standing software tools for project management.

You know, it's really not helpful for you to accuse me of deleting "perfectly good" articles all day. If you had looked a little deeper you might have seen that, for example, I didn't nominate the article for deletion, but merely quoted the concern, given by another user, in the deletion summary.
I don't particularly mind either way whether there exists an article on this software—I was doing some straightforward maintenance work as no one had visibly objected to the proposed deletion of that page for a whole week; it was presumed to be an uncontroversial deletion.
If you like, I can restore the article. Just ask, it's as simple as that!* {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
*It does, of course, help to be polite when asking. :)

OK - please will you restore the article? Happy to build it up into a properly referenced article provided no other wiki editor deletes it. Donoreavenue (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to restore the article? Getting somewhat fed up with the endless deleting fest that Wikipedia has become :-( Donoreavenue (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait. I've undeleted the article. I suppose it does feel like an "endless deleting fest" sometimes, though it's not all deletion; we do do nice things (like undeletion :) ) too :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RationalPlan deleted[edit]

Noticed you have deleted our product from wiki; The reson was " Not a notable piece of software. Only a single review cited, and even general notability requires multiple sources" I just want to say the the application is actively developed and it gains in popularity; The only reason we cited a single review was because we didn't thought it needs more (in the end it was selected as #4 in a top ten in its domain. Could you please put the page back so we can have the chance to cite more reviews ?

 Thanks from RationalPlan development team
Done. Remember that, as the development team, you have a conflict of interest with the article. Make sure that your additions reflect a neutral point of view with regards to the software—generally merely suggesting edits on the talk page is what's recommended for someone in your position, though adding references would certainly be useful. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Null edits[edit]

It is time to do some null-edits in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. One article has been there for over a week. And now 10 images. If it wouldn't be too much trouble for you... Debresser (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be better now. I handled those from my iPod earlier. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You're magnificent. Debresser (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
There's another three there. I won't bother you for less than that. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
And another 3. Including a .js page, which I don't know how to treat. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Should be done. The trick for .js pages (although only usable by admins, since .js pages are only editable by their owner and admins) is to add commented nowiki tags, in the following general form. These pages appear periodically since people will use JavaScript to add protection syntax, which means that they'll have the full syntax of a protection template around in some cases, which the page will use for categorization despite not displaying the template itself. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
//<nowiki> This line doesn't affect the JavaScript code, but it affects the wikicode, telling it to not try to apply templates, etc.
addOnloadHook(function() {
//</nowiki> This line is really not necessary by any means, but it's elegant to have a closing tag.

Please undo deletion[edit]

Hello, I am a journalist and I worked on an article re: Jonathan Messer Australian Film and Theatre Director. Can you please undelete it. he is very gifted, and I will edit it and make the 'red line' or whatever it is to his work removed. Thank you. Giselle.

Done. Enjoy… :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

thank you.... It's Getting there... :) I am a newbie (Pellican54 (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

Lee Zehrer Wiki Page[edit]

Hello, I run a company that is in negotiations with Lee Zehrer as an Angel Investor and we want to find more information on him, but it seems this page was deleted. Is there any way you can restore the page or give us a link with more info on Lee?

PS: I noticed that you are one of the "nice" wiki editors ;) Can you please restore the page for us? I'm sure once we can learn more about him and from what I've found on the net about him, we can update the sources and make the page more a more reliable source.


Justin Saunders

Give me a minute, I'm going to review the deleted page and the deletion. You're not the first to ask about this page; see for example the ones in User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-30. I haven't substantially reviewed the deletion: the first person requested I send a copy by email, and the second was incoherent in their comment.
I can certainly email you the content of the article, and I might undelete the article outside of usual process since I've gotten so many questions on it. I appreciate your offer of helping provide sources, though I must remind you that, given that you "run a company that is in negotiations with Lee Zehrer as an Angel Investor" you have a certain conflict of interest with the subject. Be aware of it, be transparent, and it probably won't be a problem if your main goal is to add references.
The simplest route to undeletion would be userfication, where I undelete the article and let you work on it as a user page before it gets moved back with all the other articles (or deleted again), but as you've apparently not registered yet it isn't practical. If you do register at some point, let me know. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the deletion. I deleted it under speedy deletion criterion A7 (that's article criterion 7), which is used when the importance of the subject is not evident or suggested through the article. Falcon8765 nominated the article as such. It is usually applied to completely unreferenced articles. The Lee Zehrer article did have some references, but they did not help assert "notability" because they either a) did not mention Zehrer (a significant portion of the article was taken up by information on his venture) or b) were primary sources and/or not independent of the subject. Thus I did not take the references into account. As I mentioned, a significant chunk of the article discussed his venture. That part was written in a somewhat promotional tone, which didn't help, since Wikipedia is supposed to follow a neutral point of view. The material would not itself fail the A7 criterion, but I found no evidence that suggested that Zehrer was notable independent of Nothing in the rest of the article suggested that Zehrer was particularly notable, so I deleted the article. I continue to offer a copy of the deleted article by email if you'd like (you can email me at, if you like), and if you'd like to recreate the article to some extent, ask and I'm sure we can work something out. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


This is Justin Saunders again, sorry I have not checked in since. We've found dozens of relevant links and I can assure you Lee Zehrer was the sole principal of and is a very relevant VC and Angel in the Web 2.0 community. If you like, I can add references such as:

There is plenty of literature out there on him, I just wish there was a wiki page that we could see all of this in one view (which I thought was the purpose of this site). Please restore the article.

Thank you,


Deletion of Empresaria Group plc page[edit]

Please could i have further clarification of the deletion of the page Empresaria Group plc?

The company is a well known global staffing and HR solutions company, which is also listed on the LSE.

The page created was inspired by the below pages and followed a similar structure including refferences to the most recent annual report

Regards (EmpresariaGroup (talk) 10.25, 11 November 2009 (GMT))

It was tagged for proposed deletion, which applies if no one contests the deletion within seven days (168 hours). Since you object, I've undeleted the article. By the way, you have an evident conflict of interest with that articles, since you're clearly associated with the organization—be sure to be transparent, neutral, etc. in your edits as outlined. Also, in theory, I should block you indefinitely pending a username change, since your username suggests a role account, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I suggest that you apply for a username change. Sorry for the wait; I've been a bit inactive lately, the offline world has been catching up. Please be advised that the page can and may be deleted again, though it's likely to go through Articles for Deletion in that case. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please undo WorkLenz deletion[edit]

Hi, I noticed that our WorkLenz Wiki page was recently removed after a proposed deletion. Can you please restore it? We've considered the proposed concerns of "Advertising article for non-notable web content or software" and are planning to incorporate more clearly unbiased references in the next few days. In the meantime, can you please restore the page so that those seeking project management software can use our page to compare our capabilities to other products? I feel this is extremely crucial for those referring to the following page, which I also found our product's name deleted from:


Malon3r (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


It has been five days since my original request, and I am still waiting on a response. Can you please restore our page, or tell me what adjustments need to be made to make the restoration possible? We need to have our page restored as soon as possible, and I would prefer to have it done legitimately. Your immediate attention on this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Malon3r (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've undeleted the page; pages deleted by proposed deletion can be undeleted on request. Go ahead and improve it, but please be aware that since you seem to be affiliated with the software (you said "our product's") you should remember your conflict of interest (COI) with the software and edit accordingly. Feel free to ask for help in that regard to any Wikipedian, particularly admins. I'm sorry for the delay: I've been somewhat inactive lately and I left my talk page alone for a few days. Remember that I'm a volunteer, and that you can ask any other admin for help with administrative issues like deletion. In particular, I suggest that the administrators' noticeboard would be a good place to start. If you're looking for general help, e.g. with COI, the fastest way is probably to visit the (semi-unofficial) IRC channels for Wikipedia by visiting the #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en channels on Freenode. If you don't have an IRC client, you can use Freenode's Java applet instead. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

puya (band) deletion[edit]

Hey there why was this page deleted? Wikipedia was a good source of info for fans. they just recently had two reunion shows this year and are planing a new album and live dvd come next march.

please restore thanks

Since the page was deleted via proposed deletion, I've undeleted it per your request. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Undelete ProjectInsight[edit]

Can you please undelete the ProjectInsight page? The software is notable and I will add additional references. The software has been featured in numerous offline publications as well as online publications. On notable reference I can add is the fact that the company, Metafuse, the developer of Project Insight was nominated as a "Red Herring top 100 finalist in 2008" as a result of the software.


SurfAndSwim (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Have fun. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Just pointing out to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS per this stuff.
Get rid of articles about products without notable sources. Marketing has made Wikipedia into a first stop in an advertising plan.

SkyBonTalk/Contributions 19:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Diabetic Hypoglycemia journal page[edit]

Hi, This is regarding the recent deletion of the page entitled: Diabetic Hypoglycemia (journal) on 8 Nov 2009 at 16:15. The suggested reason for deletion was:

“It is unclear whether the journal is peer-reviewed (most articles are written and evaluated by the editorial board). Doesn't look like spontaneous submissions are possible. These are not in itself reasons […])”

If they aren't reasons in themselves for deletion, could you please reinstate the page?

I subscribe to the journal and I think that it is interesting enough to merit a Wikipedia page as there aren't really any other publications available for specialists in this particular area - I've found it really useful.

Also, regarding the above reasons given for deletion: a) The journal publishes articles by a variety of expert authors in the field of diabetic hypoglycemia, of which only a proportion are written by the Editorial board b)The Editorial board do evaluate (and often comment on) the published articles, and I believe from my existing knowledge of publishing policy that this does count as peer-review. c)Spontaneous submissions are not possible or allowed with many other review publications – this does not make them any less valid, or mean that they cannot be referred to as a journal.

I would be happy to amend the page to make the above points clearer, and to make any further changes that you feel should be included. Thanks,

Laurel7000 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The full deletion reason was "It is unclear whether the journal is peer-reviewed (most articles are written and evaluated by the editorial board). Doesn't look like spontaneous submissions are possible. These are not in itself reasons for deletion, but in combination with the fact that the journal is very new without any further indication of notability (not even in the few external links that I removed from the article), it appears that this does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)." as proposed by Crusio; my only involvement in the deletion was to carry out the deletion once the usual period (1 week, which is 168 hours) was elapsed. I've undeleted the page per your request: feel free to add information and sources, et cetera. Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Userfy Woopra[edit]

Please could you userfy the deleted Woopra article to my user space as per Talk:List_of_web_analytics_software#Woopra and User_talk:Hm2k#WA_list_cleanup_and_Woopra_page. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Enjoy. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about the deletion of Soman (band)[edit]

I don't have any particular vested interest in this - it's a band in a genre I listen to, though not a band I know much about. But Google would seem to suggest that they've had two releases on Metropolis Records which I think clearly meets the definition of an an important independent label, so I'm not sure Soman are obviously non-notable.

I suspect the article may well be little more than a stub but that's not a bad thing in itself, is it?


Roy Badami (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I now understand that pages deleted by PROD can be undeleted on request - can I request undeletion of Soman (band) then, please? Thanks Roy Badami (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Dave Warwak page[edit]

Wondering why is was necessary to delete the page on Dave Warwak, an educator of vegan practices and animal rights. I see that your comment on the reason for deletion was "the only thing he is known for is being fired" however that is not the case in the animal friendly, vegetarian, vegan community. In fact he is praised by many for his passion in properly educating children about the origins of their food. Why would you find it so crucial to "speedy" delete a page that simply speaks of CRUELTY FREE living, and aims to educate people on the truth about their "food"? Is that information threatening to Wikipedia for some reason? And I wouldn't think as a wiki admin that your OPINION on the topic is reason enough to control what info is available and what is deleted. YOU may know Mr. Warwak as only being fired, but being the intelligent science studying individual that you are, surly you must realize that his efforts to educate children and promote compassion for animals is actually very honorable and deserving of recognition. PLEASE show a little compassion yourself and undelete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't write that deletion rationale, I merely quoted the one given by the nominator Kelapstick; look in the article's history. My involvement in the deletion was janitorial: I carried out the deletion once the usual conditions were satisfied. It's happening often enough that I'm getting blamed for the deletion rationale that's given that I really ought to change the boilerplate slightly so that it's more obvious that it's merely a quote. My part of the deletion rationale ends with "concern was:", and is entirely boilerplate text in any event.
Second, it wasn't a "speedy" deletion. The page was nominated for proposed deletion and left for a week (168 hours or so); had there been any visible objection to the deletion on the page itself or the talk page, the deletion would have been cancelled. The general idea is that if no one objects to proposed deletion within a week, the deletion of the page is likely uncontroversial. The proposed deletion process is lightweight and takes a huge load off the more involved articles for deletion process.
Third, I've undeleted the page. Pages deleted by proposed deletion can be undeleted on request. :) The page can still be nominated to be deleted again, but it's up again for now. If you truly value the presence of the page on Wikipedia, try adding some sources to the page to establish the notability of the subject, make the article verifiable, et cetera. I can help you if you have questions on how to go about doing that. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Larch Sanctuary Page Removal[edit]

Hello Nihiltres,

I originally put up the Larch Sanctuary page. I have no problem with the deletion of this page as I was asked to put the Larch Sanctuary page up in error. I was mistakenly informed the Larch Sanctuary had officially been designated by the City of Edmonton and The Edmonton and Area Land Trust, as it turns out this is still expected, but has not happened yet. It was never intended as a "stealthy advertisement" for the developer of "Larch Park" which is in fact a residential community. Any advice on how to avoid the perception that it is an advertisement for the nearby development would be appreciated.

Once the land is officially designated I will likely post again, but citing as many official references as possible. The goal of the article is to explain the wildlife and biology of the protected public space for those who will visit it. The goal is not promotion of the near-by residential area.

All that being said, is there any way to fast-rack Larch Sanctuary's complete removal? or will the deletion history/log always show? I am new to Wikipedia and certainly did not intend to create all these complications.



The deletion history will always be accessible, and will display on the page for now: non-existent articles display their deletion logs. The simplest way to make it go away would be to create another article at the same title, which would make it less visible, since existing articles don't display their deletion logs so visibly. Don't worry: a proposed deletion (or "PROD"; the process used for that deletion) doesn't leave a prejudice against the article being created again, and if you can provide references to multiple reliable sources, that's great. As the article was, it did look a bit promotional (I'm not the nominator, though; I just quoted the given rationale in my deletion reason) but you can fix that next time around if you plan to create the article again. Don't worry, we're not about to bite your head off. :)
If you have any other questions, or if I've missed what you're looking for here, please feel free to ask me more. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Why did you delete the Template: Infobox Fluorine ? I think i might just be a little confused, but just let me know, okay? Qwertyfish11 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the template at Template:Infobox Fluorine because it was a test page (speedy deletion criterion G2). Another template at a different capitalization of the name, Template:Infobox fluorine, remains unaffected to this day, since it's the proper template. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 01:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Australian Society of Section Car Operators - Deleted[edit]

Can you please reinstate this page.

Not sure why it was deleted - has references on it/


Sulzer55 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, done. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article[edit]

As far as I can tell, Nihiltres did not follow the deletion policy regarding the entry Norman Warren, which he deleted recently. Also, Nihiltres was biased in assuming there was not sufficient notability. I do not have much time to deal with wiki, but I am pointing out this admin's errors. Thanks. Dougmac7 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nihiltres did follow the deletion policy, since Nihiltres followed a very simple deletion procedure very precisely. He deleted the page after it had been nominated for proposed deletion by Accounting4Taste and had not received any objections to deletion after 7 days (168 hours). The deletion reason given by Nihiltres in his deletion summary is largely a quote of Accounting4Taste's rationale. If you want the page restored, just ask Nihiltres and he'll do it, since pages deleted via proposed deletion can be undeleted on request. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 07:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request undeletion of the article Warren Norman. There are full reliable sources for the article; the subject is fully notable and worthy of a wikipedia page. Yesterday the subject received one of the major NCAA football awards. The subject is more than notable. Thank you. Dougmac7 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm troubled by the fact that this article was created by a banned user -- actually, a sockpuppet of User:Dougmac7. I can't see how best to cure this situation; as I understand it, the page can be deleted at any time by any administrator who notices or is alerted by a tag, and thus the user would be in the same situation all over again. Should we be encouraging this user to recreate the article as by his unbanned username? Accounting4Taste:talk 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, where's the evidence that the accounts are connected? I agree that it would be a straightforwards G5 deletion if that were the case, but I don't see the connection. Is there an ongoing sockpuppet investigation, and if so can you point me to it? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for not having been clearer. The creator of the article is in the edit history of the Warren Norman article as User:Relax777 and you'll note from that user page that that user has been blocked as the result of a sockpuppet investigation of a few weeks ago. The sockpuppet investigation can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dougmac7/Archive. I should also add that the closing admin noted that User:Dougmac7 "readily admitted to being Relax777" and I take it from that that the creation of an alternate account was felt to be innocent in nature. I have no real desire to lose useful content for Wikipedia if the assertions of notability for Warren Norman can be borne out with references, which is why I've brought this up; perhaps we can cure this deficiency if it seems warranted. Your thoughts on this would be welcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lee Zehrer Page?[edit]

Why deleted? I can add to it... please revert. Thank you.

-Nic A. Peterson

See some earlier discussion above. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 23:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bluewolf proposed deletion.[edit]

I am an employee of Bluewolf, and would like to know what exactly can be discussed in Bluewolf's article to prevent deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

You just have to ask, and I'll undelete the page. That being said, I'm somewhat loath to undelete the article on request of an employee given your conflict of interest. Please take that into account. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Orange Recordings[edit]

There are a lot of links from other articles to Orange Recordings. Why has the Orange Recordings page been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:37, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

The article as created was spam; promotional material. Promotional material is not accepted on Wikipedia; here we strive for a neutral point of view. There's no prejudice against creating a new version of the article, but further unacceptable versions would meet the same fate. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Lee Dorman broadcaster[edit]

Faye Dorman (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  I hope the changes made to the information on "Lee Dorman--Broadcaster" and the sources provided for verification and sourcing are sufficient to avoid deletion or to restore the paragraph to Wikipedia. Numerous newspaper stories (Nashville City Paper, Portland Leader, Portland Progressive) Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle) have chronicled my broadcasting career over the years, and the recent publication of my book on the history of broadcasting in Nashville for Arcadia Publishing.
  If there are any questions you feel need to be answered, or any other information you would like to have, feel free to e-mail me at
  I think the "Lee Dorman the DJ played Lee Dorman the musician's records on the radio" fact is of interest to many music-lovers and Iron Butterfly fans.

Lee Dorman

Faye Dorman (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is up for deletion again, and I won't interfere, but if you'd like any tips I can give you help. In that case, please let me know. Cheers, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 03:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)