Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Mark Burgess (illustrator)

I believe this page was deleted contrary to the guidelines at WP:PROD. The article, although brief, had one perfectly good reference and the proposed deletion tag had been removed. As the page is linked to from Return to the Hundred Acre Wood it seems reasonable to reinstate the page. Please note that although I am the subject of the page I did not start it. -Marcus civis (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks - that was quick! - and thanks for the suggestions; much appreciated. Marcus civis (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fausto Biloslavo

Fausto Biloslavo was born and raised in Trieste where he was educated. He graduated at Trieste University on Political Sciences / International branch.

  •  Not done This draft (if that's what you call it) already exists here again. The original article was deleted as an unsourced, promotional WP:BLP. Feel free to continue working on it in your userspace, and ask others for assistance if you believe the person meets WP:GNG (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Priyanka Singh

I have read about her and she is quite famous in middle east

this will inspire youngesters -59.164.16.141 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. DMacks (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hristo Stoichkov

HUGE mistake, please *SPEEDY UNDELETE*. It's embarrassing even having to explain why this article should be undeleted. It's like deleting David Beckham or Diego Maradona: Stoichkov is Bulgaria's most famous footballer ever, a Ballon d'Or winner, etc., etc. Someone probably scanned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todor Dankov for links and deleted everything on the page, although this article was only cited as an example of a better quality article. -Todor→Bozhinov 15:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(cross posted on my talk page) My sincere apologies on this one, I searched on the script for everything that shouldn't be there, and I seem to have missed this one. I've restored it now. —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Good News Weekly

This is a legitimate business, registered in Canada and British Columbia. It has been operational since May, 30, 2010. The free weekly paper adds value to vancouver because it publishes only good news. Which is something that the world could use a lot more of! Please see www.goodnewsweekly.ca for a sample of what they do. -24.84.36.79 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Nuttah (talk · contribs), who proposed it, in case he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. To have an article it is not enough to be a legitimate business: it is necessary to be notable, which is not a matter of opinion but needs to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pentaphobe

Despite limited dispute around 27-28 June, 2009 (on the deletion request page), the artist appears to pass numerous notability requirements at this time.

Although the artist has a minimal online presence, a google search shows hundreds of related videos, reviews, social mentions and they appear closely related to other artists and pages listed on wikipedia Beats Antique, Maduro, Amon Tobin, Ark 21 and Bellydance Superstars.

Perhaps notable that the admin who finalised deletion has dishonourably resigned?. -Visinaut (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider writing an article in your userspace with some specific refs and asking for input from others about whether it's viable (need evidence to see what you're seeing). An AFD "delete" decision is not "and never", just a "not at the time of the discussion". Seems pretty obvious that artists could become notable over time no? I would have closed the AFD the same way given the evidence presented there. DMacks (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. It appeared that there was a fairly even spread of pass/no-pass criteria and that the deletion went ahead regardless - I will read up more on the specific criteria that it didn't pass and address them, rather than staring intently at the ones that did. Visinaut (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Remixes for the Damned

Why would you delete a page describing a band's album? Your reason was 'unremarkable album'. That is a matter of opinion. -Grozo (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Aiken drum (talk · contribs), who PRODded it, in case s/he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. Wikipedia doesn't aim to be a catalogue of every album issued - albums, like other subjects, don't get an article unless they are notable, and to show that you need references to show substantial independent comment about this album. At present the article is no more than a track listing. JohnCD (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unikkatil

-96.251.150.190 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. You do not need to post a whole new article here. I have restored the article that was deleted; please add new information, and particularly references to establish notability, to that, but do not give links directly to music samples. JohnCD (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Moses Brown (Beverly)

I wish to restructure the old content with more research to identify its notability. I need the content that I added to the page in order to work on it -Silivrenion (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done - userfied to User:Silivrenion/Moses Brown (Beverly). JohnCD (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Zishan Engineers

reasoning The website for Zishan Engineers is there and shows the list of projects that have been done till 2004 and the website up-gradation has started and would be completed with a couple of weeks time. Ottawa mentioned in his discussion that the website of the organization doesnt serve as a secondary source and only a primary source, then please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nespak - Nespak Pakistan which only presents two references that are of its own site (no secondary sources). There are also many statements in that article that need citations for e.g the last sentence. This is common for numerous articles concerning pakistani companies (I can give you the article names too if you want) With these emerging pakistani companies and organizations its very hard to find secondary sources since the primary sources themselves (their own websites) are rare. I believe it is for this very reason why wikipedia launched WikiProject Pakistan to improve wikipedias coverage of pakistan realising the need to promote pakistan and that it is new into the internet world.

In all fairness, I feel that ZEL's article has more secondary sources and more notability ( even in its un updated website) than NESPAK(that article doesnt even have one) if you need a comparision, one can google both organizations and compare its notability. I dont see how ZEL is not as notable like NESPAK or other articles on pakistani organizations. I would request you to kindly restore the article please. -Uzairsyedahmed (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done - As announced prominently 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/Zishan Engineers (2nd nomination), asking here for any action is a waste of your time as it will not be undeleted through this process. However, 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 Cirt (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.. Every article must stand or fall on its own merits, regardless of what other pages may exist and any problems they may have. DMacks (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Scroogle

The article (Scroogle) has been censored by Wikipedia administrators/moderators and no specific reason was provided. The discussion page has been emptied and there is no log available anymore. This isn't acceptable for an open and democratic system which Wikipedia describes itself as. The reason why this specific article is being censored is obvious: the author of Scroogle.org is the same author of Wikipedia-watch.org, which is a website where there are articles talking about the dangerous power of Wikipedia's administrators and moderators. Isn't it funny? Let's prove there're wrong and remove the censorship of the Scroogle article on Wikipedia. -Poulpage42 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. The article was deleted as a result of a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scroogle (2nd nomination) and, as it was re-created after that, protected from recreation. The deletion debate has been blanked for privacy reasons, but you can still read it by clicking the "history" tab. If you think the deletion debate was wrongly decided, or that there is more information available now which might affect the outcome, you should first approach user PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs), the administrator who protected it, and if he does not agree you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


I have already contacted PMDrive1061. My conclusion is that Wikipedia isn't what it says it is, at least not anymore. There was a time when people like you weren't administrators because there wasn't such thing as an administrator on Wikipedia. At least not ones that are completely anonymous and have an underestimated power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poulpage42 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. No coherent reason given in this "request". DMacks (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The deletion debate can be read at [1]. Myself I would dispute the blanking as there is no obvious reason for it. However WP:DRV is the place to go to get it back. A userfication could be possible as it was deleted for lack of notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Imperfect Harmonies

JzG deleted the article, because he says the album is "not out", which isn't an excuse to delete the article, because there are hundreds, if not thousands of articles already on unreleased albums (take Linkin Park's "A Thousand Suns" as an example). This album comes out tomorrow, so I was restarting the article with the basics, then allowing other users to fill in the blanks, so I'd like the article undeleted, please. -MightyJordan (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The release date is postponed 2 weeks, see http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/news/article/0,,7351945,00.html However I think that the concerns in the AFD were addressed as there is now a known tracklist, album cover and release date. So the G4 delete was inapplicable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Not every album is notable ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It may actually need to sell copies before it proves itself, however notability was not an issue in the AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

GoodyBurrett LLP

The proposed article on GoodyBurrett LLP, deleted on 19th June 2009 3rd September 2009 and 7th April 2010, should be undeleted as it meets the guidelines for inclusion. The company operates in Colchester, Essex and plays a key role both within the local economy and as a responsible member of the community. I believe the article should be re-instated firstly as it would add balance to the other Colchester-based solicitors firms that have been allowed wikipedia pages in the past. The most notable example being Birkett Long LLP. Secondly, in light of the companies continued efforts in fundraising through events such as the Three Peaks Challenge for The Anthony Nolan Trustand their involvement in the Colchester Cycle Challenge. Thirdly, in it's field, GoodyBurrett LLP operates a unique, Lexcel accredited practice. It's a member of the GLEAMED mediation providers and several of it's partners hold and have held intresting roles within the community. The company also offer services to Japanese clients in Japanese language. The company also has a long and varied history in the Colchester area, over 250 years, leading me to believe it would be of interest to potential wikipedia viewers. Further, I believe previous articles have not attempted such an in-depth and unbiased view of the company as could now be offered by users such as myself. I look forward to a reply.-Loz1234 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is everything else being answered except this??
Everyone here is a volunteer; in my limited time recently I have answered first those that could be done quickly. Yours needs a longer response, and here it is:
 Not done This article has been posted and deleted so many times that the title has been salted - protected against re-creation. It gave no indication of notability - just said that they were a firm of solicitors with offices in Colchester and Great Dunmow, and gave a long list of the things solicitors do. Wikipedia is not a business listing directory. If you want an article, what you should do is
  • Read WP:Notability. Note that it means showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. More detail in WP:Notability (organizations and companies) Think seriously about whether you can show that, because if not you will find that attempting to get this firm into Wikipedia will just be a frustrating waste of your time as well as ours. There are many worthy organizations that do not qualify to be in an encyclopedia, and that is not at all to their discredit.
  • Read the WP:FAQ/Organizations
  • Read WP:My first article
  • If you are connected with the firm, read WP:Conflict of interest and WP:BESTCOI
  • If you then want to go ahead, make a draft in your user space at User:Loz1234/GoodyBurrett LLP. If you ask, I will copy the deleted article there, but you will not find it much help. Make sure that your draft is not promotional in tone, cites independent references, and does not go into great detail of the kind that would be better on the firm's website than in an encyclopedia.
  • Post at WP:Requests for feedback to get advice from other users.
  • When you are ready, make a request at WP:Deletion review for the title to be unprotected. (Normally, the first step would be to contact the administrator who protected the title, but in this case he has retired).
With regard to the other sites you mention, the argument What about article x? is never accepted - each article is considered on its own merits.
JohnCD (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your reply John, i'll edit an article in my personal space as you suggested and then contact you to ensure it meets the notability criteria.

Beena Sarwar

this page may have been deleted in error -Fahd (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify users Stormbay (talk · contribs) and Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) who proposed it, in case they wish to nominate it at Articles for deletion. The article needs references from independent sources to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lars Pearson

Lars Pearson is a notable publisher, editor, and writer, who has been producing media-tie in reference books and essay books for over a decade. One of the books from his press, Chicks Dig Time Lords, was featured on IO9.com this past week. He has worked with notable, Award-winning SF/F authors in his essay books, as well as numerous writers associated with Doctor Who, from both the classic and new series, and tie-in novels. You can find out more information about his publishing company Mad Norwegian Press at their website: www.madnorwegian.com. -Caitlinpapa (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Kenilworth Terrace (talk · contribs), who proposed it, in case s/he wishes to take it to Articles for deletion. The article has a long list of books by Mr. Pearson, but what is needed to establish notability is references about him, showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Polar Tree

Genuinely useful article deleted

I have been using Wikipedia as a resource for many years, but this is the first time I've been motivated to contribute back.

This deleted data compression article is useful and interesting to anyone practicing the art. I have created data compression codecs that have shipped in tens of millions of products on Xbox 360/PS3/PS2/PC (and this is easily verified, as I am in the public credits for these titles) since 1993. Polar Coding is extremely useful - it is simpler to implement, results in less code, and is extremely fast. I cannot find a reference to the technique anywhere else. It's as least as useful and relevant as (say) these Wikipedia articles on ROLZ or Truncated binary coding:

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

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

I feel the Wikipedia deletion process has gone off the rails if these two articles stay, but an article on a useful technique such as this is deleted.

Rich Geldreich - Bellevue, WA 

 * http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,190072/
 * http://www.giantbomb.com/rich-geldreich/72-55326/
 * http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1568544&trk=tab_pro

-Richgel999 (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done - As announced prominently at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and not for articles deleted after a deletion discussion. This article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Tree. However, 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 Cirt (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. With regard to the other articles you mention, each article is considered on its own merits - see What about article x?. JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Manmeet Singh

I dont know why this article is deleted or by whom, all the information was correct. Myself actor model from India. Check details at IMDB profile http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2082701 or my official blog http://www.mankameet.blogspot.com. Thank you -Mankameet (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Counsel and Care

Originator asking for userfication. See User talk:Care4elderly. -Fæ (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done to User:Care4elderly/Counsel and Care. JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nu Youth Systems

My page was deleted by an admin called Kuru.

I would suggest he gets his administrator status removed immediately as I obviously has no idea what he is doing. I am writing an article about a company of importance called Nu Youth Systems and an important subject as well as adding viable references.

Undelete the page immediately -Aske Jeppesen (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

George T. Yang

sources to back-up statements found -J (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Not done - a deleted page with this name does not appear to exist. Spartaz Humbug! 09:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
It's actually George_T._Yang ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Ahah! And I couldn't find it in the requesters deleted edits anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
..and it has been deleted twice as blatantly promotional, and salted by admin Kinu (talk · contribs), who should be approached for any permission to recreate. Also, it appears to be autobiography. which is strongly discouraged, being by user GeorgeTYang (talk · contribs). JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The requesting editor then chose to recreate the article at George tan yang, which I deleted as WP:CSD#G11 (again) as having the same spammy tone. Trying to assume good faith, but there might be some meatpuppetry going on; the text was essentially identical. Wow. --Kinu t/c 17:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfume genius

relevance, artist reviewed on international columns -Memory hunter (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There has never been an article by this name. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it was Perfume genius. Protonk (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 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. If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Dagons

The original article was deleted under guideline A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The current article is completely different and follows Wikipedia guidelines -Rizmagnusson (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I have moved the page from your user page into the mainspace. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Los Lobos Goes Disney

Deletion cites A9: Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article. This is false. This work is part of the band's catalogue, why is no reference made? Without seeing the page, I can't judge whether it was worthwhile. -75.146.224.18 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right that this was not a valid A9; however, the entire text of the article was "This album won Album of the Day on Rhapsody on June 30, 2010" with a blog link to http://blog.rhapsody.com/2010/06/aotd0630.html. That is hardly worth restoring: suggest you write a properly-sourced article linking to the band's article. JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Eight queens puzzle solutions

First, deletion was conducted with enormous haste - like 7 days ? for material which wasn't actually disputed or subject to any copyright claims. I suspect that the whole thing was pushed fast by people who either don't know much about computer programming or had some private agenda.

There has to be a long process for something like this to happen and very strong justification - no one has the time to patrol around when is someone who didn't like some code going to orchestrate a quick deletion.

Arguments for blanket deletion were bogus at best. Reasonably small sections of "code" in several very well known computer languages are well recognized representations of algorithms and are commonly used to explain directly many details and subtleties which are either not visible at all or hard to follow in a mere textual or even worse "mathematical" description. Disproportionately larger number of people can read and understand algorithm presented as a concrete code in a well known language and deleting them is a rough equivalent of saying that all medical articles should be only in Latin and for ultra specialist.

Concrete code for an algorithm is every bit as encyclopedic as a plain English explanation of a medical or legal term or exact formula to calculate something without wading through pages of text - provides usable information to much wider audience. For example every high-school student who know programming can follow C or Java code but not mathematical descriptions. A thing like eight queens is for many programmers the first entrance into different kind of programming and for them having straight code, on the spot is vital to having a fair chance to understand it at all. Programming is not math - don't usurp the right to pass a judgment on its nature from the position of some other discipline.

Small number of lines of code from published books and articles is always exempt from any claims under the fair use doctrine, especially for well known algorithms where even the notion of code autorship is mute (all or most implementations are isomorphic up to renaming of variables and invariant code reordering).

We can debate latter which programming languages are widely known and accepted for certain kinds of algorithms. Always C and at Java/C# (when expression is substantially different from C) and for many things 1 or 2 scripting languages. For example if there's no Java code, JavaScript will be equally understandable. The "pseudo code" is the talk from 20+ yr before universally known programming languages exist. For simple algorithms code expressions in C/Java/C# (even JavaScript) are virtually indistinguishable. For more complex things usually both C and Java/C# are needed for wider reachability.

There are algorithms that have to be presented in 1-2 languages which are not universally known (Haskell and F# in particular) if they are not representable in C/Java/C# in a reasonably simple form and there will always be time and place to debate adequacy of particular code in particular article (and review and editing, like other material), but not blanket deletions in haste. Only minor/specialized languages with "devotee" followings would be immediate candidates for removal (like Python, Ruby, Scheme, Lisp) but only if they are not the sole code in the article (better something than nothing).

So I'm asking for immediate restoration of deleted page and that no further blanked deletions should be allowed for code representations of algorithms of reasonable sizes without a reasonably long due process and a fair attempt at editing.

-ZeeXy (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done - As announced prominently 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. This article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight queens puzzle solutions after the normal seven-day debate, at which five users plus the nominator argued for deletion, two for a selective merge, and no-one argued for keep. However, 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 King_of_Hearts (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Felipe de Ortego y Gasca

Inquiring why the above article was deleted. Unable to find reasons for deletion.

Felipe de Ortego y Gasca ortegop@wnmu.edu -198.187.251.27 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kristinakrogh/OriBase Pharma

The article was apparently deleted with the reasoning of promoting a company. The article was not even published, thus still under construction to be sure to fulfill the requirements of Wikipedia. Moreover, this article describes a pharmaceutical company, just like for example "Merck" and "Sanofi-Aventis". The article about OriBase Pharma does not differ from these similar articles. -Kristinakrogh (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  •  Not done It was quite promotional, even for a userspace draft - even they have to meet certain guidelines. Was there going to be a point where you actually added notability? The company, as written about, clearly does not not meet the same notability standards as Merck. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:BofA_small_print_ad_gaffe_(in_Safari).png

No reasoning given. -Elvey (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Template buggy; reasoning was given: {{subst:refund| File:BofA_small_print_ad_gaffe_(in_Safari).png |I logged in to find http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elvey&redirect=no#Disputed_non-free_use_rationale_for_File:BofA_small_print_ad_gaffe_.28in_Safari.29.png and the image deleted. But the image page contained a good FUR, IIRC and I feel that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#F7 is certainly inapplicable. The note indicates the FUR was disputed, but it seems there is no information available to me as to the nature of the dispute with the FUR, and I can't see any potential issues other than user error.}}

I logged in to find http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elvey&redirect=no#Disputed_non-free_use_rationale_for_File:BofA_small_print_ad_gaffe_.28in_Safari.29.png and the image deleted. But the image page contained a good FUR, IIRC and I feel that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#F7 is certainly inapplicable. The note indicates the FUR was disputed, but it seems there is no information available to me as to the nature of the dispute with the FUR, and I can't see any potential issues other than user error. --Elvey (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • The template left was {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, with the rationale "I don't believe that there is not a fine print gaffe example that has either fallen into the public domain or is free or could be created, and would serve the same purpose.", left by Magog the Ogre. I can restore the file, but I can't see what the image is supposed to illustrate. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review. Where is that? On the deleted page? --Elvey (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes. Most image deletion is done via time-gated "pseudo-speedy" deletion tags, not external discussions. In this case, an editor disagreed with the FUR and posted the notice, starting a timer which expired in 7 days unless someone removed the tag. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Not done Now at DRV. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Annotations Of An Autopsy

Added Links for direct proof.

False reasoning, evidence for action of deletion was/is not sufficient. The band named "Annotations Of An Autopsy" is still alive to date! Please fix this. See Record Labels - Nuclear Blast Records & Siege Of Amida Records for present proof! -86.135.12.199 (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  •  Not done As per the first 3 times that the article was deleted, the band does not meet the notability guidelines defined by WP:MUSIC. So what if they're still "alive", they haven't done anything worth being in an encyclopedia - Wikipedia is not a garage band listing service. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ami Rebecca Blackwelder

the aticle Ami Rebecca Blackwelder was deleted because of refernce. I believe I did not do it correctly. Please undelete so that I may correct and do the referece on the article. It is the first article I write.

Thank you. -Igvaru (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • There are actually two problems here. One is that there is no claim of importance as to why this author is special, and second there were no references at all to support any of the facts. Are you able to address these problems? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you can restore I will address these problems why this author is so special and second I can make references. Oh, Graeme also keep in mind that this is the first article I write your guidance would also be a great help. Thank you, Igvaru

RAID Admin

Need to export revisions to wikiasite:apple. I think it would help the wiki. -—I-20the highway 02:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment You can also send me the history via email and the the latest revision's text. I will handle it from there. —I-20the highway 14:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Mick Gerace

OTRS 2010090810001387 raised with an offer to release copyright of the text biography on the source page http://www.mickgerace.com. I can add a notice to that effect on the talk page of the article once undeleted. This does not preclude the possibility of re-deletion if the article has serious issues outside of copyright infringement of this source text. -Fæ (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Nackord

OTRS 2010091010001462 raised with a note that http://www.nackordkarate.com/MrNackordBio.asp is the original source for the text and now has a CC-BY-SA & GFDL release statement at the bottom. Consequently the original rationale for deletion (G12) has been addressed. -Fæ (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Restored by Protonk and re-deleted as CSD G11 by Orangemike.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
As the Webmaster involved has followed a reasonable process via OTRS of addressing copyright, I suggest the article is userfied for them to resolve and seek advice on the G11 issues. Just re-deleting a couple of hours after undeleting, without giving opportunity for improvement, appears rather harsh and deleting without discussion whilst improvement is in progress is not good practice. I shall leave the OTRS ticket open and unresolved in the meantime. Fæ (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done restored to User:PadovaniML/Dennis Nackord Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
OTRS notice added and requester advised on userfication and the WP:RFF process. Fæ (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ensa Machine Bouw b.v. (producer of cigar rolling machinery)

I would like to make alterations by which significance of company to industry becomes clear and also explain more about the history of machine made cigars -80.127.63.140 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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. If you want to improve the coverage of cigar manufacture in general, it would better done at Cigar#manufacture or the like but not inside one about a "niche within a niche" supplier.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Manmeet singh

information mentioned was all correct. You may type manmeet singh at Imdb and check -120.60.128.16 (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If you mean Manmeet Singh: the actor is not notable; only bit parts were asserted, no reliable references were provided to back up even those claims of trivial interest (IMDb is not a reliable source). --Orange Mike | Talk 04:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

for an actor's profile IMDB is the most reliable site to check his details. How else do you need to check then? -120.60.128.16 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's just not true. IMDb is filled with information provided by the subjects. I ought to know; my IMDb listing and that of my daughter consist of information provided by me (accurate information, as it happens; but information provided by me). And like Manmeet Singh, but even more so, we are not notable just because we are in the IMDb. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
...and making multiple requests mere days apart is not typically going to change the result. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeremiah Cohick

I completely disagree with User:King of Hearts reasons for deleting the article. There certainly are less valuable entries in wikipedia. Mr. Cohick's appearance in the Switch campaign alone warrants an entry -Tozerboy (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Fast

Yes, I know that by the letter of the rules this is the wrong place for requesting undeletion of articles deleted via AfD, but in this case the deleting admin has agreed that the deletion should be reverted but is unable to do so, so I prefer to bring the matter here so that the AfD closure can be reverted without dragging the admin through the dramafest of deletion review. -Phil Bridger (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Florence House

this is an important building in Portland and should be included in Wikipedia. It's the first of its kind building for HOMELESS people. It is not advertising anything or anyone. -Feetplanted (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  •  Not done But where's the notability? I'm sure that Florence House exists, and is a wonderful community resource, but it doesn't meet any notability guideline - that is why it was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Notes:

The article was originally suggested for deletion for "ambiguous advertising". So ambiguous in fact that I, as the writer, did not even know what it was advertising. But I took the advice of Sluggo and made it more encyclopedic based on a different wikipedia article re: a significant building.

MINUTES LATER as I was editing NawlinWiki deleted it. He/she noted there were no "reliable verifiable sources". There were. There were at least 5 different sources referenced correctly with links to the direct media outlets reporting on the building's significance These sources included Portland Press Herald and Maine Public Broadcasting Company. I commented back to NawlinWiki that I had posted a "hang on" tag based on the instructions so that I could edit it more encyclopedically... I did not need to edit it for sources or look up sources, I already had plenty listed appropriately.

Based on Wikipedia's help section, I started the article again in the encyclopedic format with reliable sources specifically listed and linked, yet NawlinWiki deleted it again in a matter of seconds while I was editing. Even though again there were SEVERAL OUTSIDE SOURCES included and based specifically on Wikipedia's instructions, so do not understand how he/she could not see that.

The article that I spent so much time editing is now completely gone. I am new at this but have just as much right as anyone else to contribute here. It is not self-serving at all and I am following the rules that I see published here.

Done Independent references were in the article at the time of deletion. However, I wouldn't judge NawlinWiki too harshly -- it could be a case of he loaded the page just before it was saved, read it through, then deleted, and never saw the revision.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Manmeet singh

Well I dont think it was me who started this page about me. I only edited in some more information. -Mankameet (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. but please supply more independent and reliable references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Chrishan

Page was deleted for no reason. -Outlawdon (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done - As announced prominently 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/Chrishan The Prince, it cannot be undeleted through this process here. 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 King of Hearts (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. — ξxplicit 19:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeremiah_Cohick, again

I take exception to the deletion of my Wikipedia article about Jeremiah Cohick. The criticism and review process that led to this deletion is only based on the opinions of few reviewers, reacting on their own personal biases without putting the article into a greater context. While I believe in peer review, in this case I do not think it happened. Even if there were valid criticisms to the article, that would have made it a candidate for editing, not for deletion. If those criticisms were pointed out, the edits could have been made and the article would have remained. The complete deletion was unnecessary.

The Apple Switch Campaign article has been on Wikipedia since 2004, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Switch_ad_campaign with Mr Cohick's name as part of that article. If an encyclopedia is to be inclusive, then any references to individuals in existing articles, should be made available for exploration and study. When I saw Mr Cohick's name in the Apple Switch Article I decided to write and submit a Bio to Wikipedia, to help fill in the blanks of the Switch article.

In the review there was a critique that the Bio was autobiographical. I am not Jeremiah Cohick. I was a fan of the Apple Switch Campaign and the Internet phenomenon that surrounded it. I became familiar with Mr Cohick through those commercials. A few years later I did get to meet him, which helped me write the article.

Certainly there are others mentioned in the Apple Switch entry, that have existing Wikipedia articles, with Bios that are on the same scale as Mr Cohick's, like Ellen Feiss http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Feiss or Liza Richardson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liza_Richardson I am not suggesting that these articles be deleted, I only mention those to put the review process in a greater context.

The question is where is the line drawn? If a person is named in an article, shouldn't there be a Wikipedia entry? If not, why mention the name? If we delete bios of individuals mentioned in long existing articles, should that individual review lead to a review of the earlier and overarching entry? One logical conclusion would be to remove any name that is mentioned in an article, if they do not have a substantial biography. Personally, I think, using the Apple Switch entry as an example, if a person is mentioned in an article and there is no other information available, a small entry similar to this could be used ?In 2002, MR X starred in one of the Apple Switch ad campaign commercials.? With a link back to the main article. Entries like that would help make the Encyclopedia complete, encourage others to flesh out articles and make Wikipedia more inclusive. The review process for Mr Cohick's entry has the opposite effect.

All of that aside, I believe Mr Cohicks article was worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. His appearance in the Switch ads alone would make his bio worthy. But his appearance made him an Internet phenomenon and he gained quite a cult following. On top of that his survival of a helicopter crash, ironically while attending MacWorld, is of great interest. If one uses those two things as context to his success as an entrepreneur in technology, I think it creates an interesting and valid biography. In the context of other Bios I read on Wikipedia, it also worthy of inclusion.


I request that the article be undeleted.

-Tozerboy (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done - As announced at the top of the page, and as you have already been told here, this process does not apply to articles deleted after any deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Cohick, it cannot be undeleted here. 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 should first contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user King of Hearts (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, you may take it to Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Liz Meyer

I was notified that my page was going to be deleted in 10 days, and I'm not sure why. I'm a successful public figure in Europe, and have music released in the US as well. YouTube, Google, and MySpace are full of my work. Please let me know what I can do to ensure this page stays up. Thank you. -143.231.249.137 (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, since this page is about you, you should not be editing it except to correct simple, factual inaccuracies. Secondly, the article has had no references since 2008. This is serious. Information on Wikipedia is required to be verifiable in reliable, independent sources. Thirdly, this is not the appropriate venue for this discussion, since the article has not yet been deleted. Please discuss the matter on the article's talk page instead. --Chris (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
For clerical purposes: Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. Please see WP:PROD for the instructions for responding to a proposed deletion. --Chris (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Make a local backup; deletion is imminent unless major improvements are made. Note, Chris somewhat misrepresented COI policy; you may edit pages about you, but it's not encouraged. (I disagree with that policy loophole, but that's what the policy is.) --Elvey (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not misrepresent the COI guideline at all. "May" and "should" are two different concepts. She may edit the article but she should not. --Chris (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Scouts et Guides Pluralistes de Belgique.png

actually, this one I need someone to userfy or e-mail me the earlier blue-and-white version, I needed to snag it before deletion, been a rough week -Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Contacted by email. Do you intend to use the fair use image on Wikipedia? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I do, but after it has been vectorized, not in its present state. Sorry, it came through all as text, can you send the png? Thank you!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done JohnCD (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unikkatil

I was working on the article and found numerous reliable sources, however it was deleted before i got to submit them -96.251.150.190 (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

  •  Not done The article was deleted via deletion discussion. If you insist that the original should be restored, it must be done at WP:DRV. However, the closer stated "The result was delete. no sources = no article. Can be recreated as and when someone finds some" - note "recreated" and not "restored as is". First, make sure that they are actually 3rd party reliable sources. Use the article wizard or incubator to recreate. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

International Symposium on Circuits and Systems Design

This article is about a traditional scientific conference organized by traditional technical societies like IEEE and ACM. The symposium started 27 years ago. It is not organized by a company, as was stated as reason for deletion. We just published this article fe days ago and I found that it was delated when I enter in the page to edit it to include more information and links. The webpage of the conference is http:// www.sbc.org.br/sbcci. Please cancel this delation. Many others scientific conferences have articles in the wikipedia -Ralreis (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The right name of the conference is: Symposium on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design - SBCCI

How much time it will take to have the page reopen? Ralreis

Yes, you can do an userfication for the moment. But what secondary sources are needed to prove the notability? It is a scientific and technical conference sponsored by scientific societies well known in the field like IEEE Circuits and Systems Society and ACM. I can include several references/links to the sponsoring societies. The proceedings of the conference are available in digital libraries of IEEE and ACM. I am a new user of the Wikipedia and I am learning how to include new information. Ralreis

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Ralreis/Symposium on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design. sponsors are not independent, find other journals and newspaper articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the sponsors are not independent"? IEEE- Institut of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and ACM are the most known internacional scientific and technology societies in the fields of electrical and computer engineers. See at: http://www.ieee.org/ and http://www.sigda.org/ Ralreis
Yes, but the notability test is whether people independent of the subject have thought it important and significant enough to write about. In considering whether a symposium is notable, comments from its sponsors do not count as independent. JohnCD (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_18&oldid=1088683970"