Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 76

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78→Archive 80

paul reed

has fought 2 times on KSW biggest MMA in Europe and will fight a third time on KSW in september 15 2012. KSW i the biggest show in Europe and is a top tier show which attracts millions on television and up to 15000 live gate. As well as fighting 2 UFC fighters beating one by TKO and loosing to win by decision on the UKs biggest MMA show cage Rage -77.86.31.2 (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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/Paul Reed (fighter), 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 Eluchil404 (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) 09:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Bradley

I am a first time writer on wikipedia, and was making this page about Tazylor Bradley as i saw that this was not made already, i was seeing if i was doing it right, and putting the right things in then u deleted page.... thats not right... and its unfair -Buzzybee41 (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Hill Street Station hostages robbers.jpg

Did any discussion of this deletion happen anywhere? This was the main image of an important page not so long before it was deleted, if not at the time it was deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted after the uploader, George Ho (talk), tagged it WP:CSD#G7 with edit summary "per review, fails to meet NFCC; requesting db-g7". Best talk to him. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
He already told me to request undeletion here if I felt the need on my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
True, I gave him a suggestion, and I did upload this image. However, saving this image is pointless. How is a text description of a plot inadequate to a reader? To be honest, as I realized, this image is worthless, and resurrecting it is pointless other than to please one editor who still believes that this image has encyclopedic value. I've already understood the plot when I read the article, and I'm sure that no image is needed to help readers understand the main plot itself. I'm sure that text is sufficient enough to help readers understand the plot. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
IIRC, there was not consensus to delete this image last time it was posted for discussion, so you now have it WP:CSDed and then say recreation is pointless to you so there should be no discussion. You knew I would object to the deletion of the main image of the article I created, so you had it CSDed without informing me. That is not proper. It should be restored and properly discussed until consensus is reached.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done - if it's disputed, it had better go to a discussion. George, will you list at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD as you think best? JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
There was discussion already in June, here. It wasn't just tagged without any reason to tag. REFUND does not apply here. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it that discussion was withdrawn.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Wu Jianquan.jpg

I believe the file is in the public domain for the same reason as found on this page for a similar file. I'm not used to dealing with these copyright issues, but one file seems as valid as the other in this case, as Wu Jianquan died in 1942. The file was originally deleted because it's copyright was in question. -InferKNOX (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Yang Luchan.jpg

I believe the file is in the public domain for the same reason as found on this page for a similar file. I'm not used to dealing with these copyright issues, but one file seems as valid as the other in this case, as Yang Luchan died in 1872. The file was originally deleted because it's copyright was in question. -InferKNOX (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_%28True_Blood%29

Deletion based on episode "notability" is arbitrary. Why was this one episode deleted while all others are left up? The summaries are useful to many people, even if you yourself aren't a fan of the show (and so don't find it noteworthy.) -108.35.176.248 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:BBC Japan Box Ident.png

This image was deleted in Commons because BBC logo (File:BBC.svg) may still be unfree in UK. -George Ho (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

CustomShow has the unique ability to allow presentations with video and flash to play on the iPad -Jslev04 (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. However, Wikipedia is not a catalogue of products: if the article is to be kept, it needs to explain why this is not just another software package, and to establish WP:Notability by references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. What is there now seem to be basically press releases. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Richard Abanes

is referred to repeatedly in articles regarding Mormonism as a critic -70.176.240.39 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bianca Jade

The article was previously deleted pursuant to AfD. Article was nominated in August of 2012 by an editor with only one edit (obviously done for the sole purpose of RfD). Regardless, it went through the process and was deleted as it was "not notable" by consensus. I recreated the article and removed all of the fluff from the original article. I also went through each reference (added additional and removed some that were not even pointing to the correct information) and resourced the article to establish the notability. I then left a note on the talk page of the article after I placed it in the main space. The note stated what I am stating here; however, it was nominated for speedy deletion and then deleted a short time later as it was "essentially duplicates article deleted last month over notability issues." The only thing that is the same is the name of the article. Would appreciate a little warmer welcome as I did a lot of work to show notability for an article and it was speedily deleted without (IMO) anyone even looking at the talk page. Take the article to RfD and let it pass the test (as I know that the person is notable), but speedy deletion does not make sense. Also wondering how the editor making the recommendation could make the recommendation based on it being similar to the articles since there is no article to compare it with. I know that it is different as I have a copy of the that article. -HappyTwoBEE (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC) --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

NOTE - I also left a note for the admin who deleted the page [1]--HappyTwoBEE (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Additional Note - If you look at the 2nd RfD of this article, I agree with the comments about it being poorly sourced and full of fluff. However, those comments do not apply to the article I created. It is worth taking a closer look at as it is properly sourced from numerous independent and reliable sources that are more than just passing mentions of this individual. --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 Not done. This page is for uncontroversial deletions. Since the earlier version was overwhelmingly deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Jade (2nd nomination) only weeks ago, on grounds of notability as well as promotionalism, and since you have already approached the deleting admin, your next step is WP:Deletion review (where the last version has already been, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 3). Deletion review will review the decision to speedy-delete your version, and either endorse it or allow your version to be re-posted for a new AfD. It does not matter that the last AfD was nominated by a single purpose account, since there was unanimous agreement that s/he was right and the page should be deleted: it is of more concern that this page is being pushed by a series of SPAs. Wikipedia is extremely resistant to being used for promotion, and a repost in these circumstances will be looked at very hard. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I guess I am in the wrong forum and apologize for such. I understand perfectly and would welcome a hard look at the new article. I fully understand that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or spam and any article reading like an Advert will be subject to speedy deletion and/or RfD. That is why the article was completely re-written, all of the new sources were researched and cited properly. Thank you again for the review and the information and I will make sure to take it to the proper forum. --HappyTwoBEE (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VHS-oldbldg.gif

reasoning -Scudcrow (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


I've added the correct source information, but the image has still been targeted for deletion. More details about the error can be found on (including the appropriate source info): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VHS-oldbldg.gif

Please help me fix this.

Regards, K

 Not done. This page is for things that have been deleted: this image has not, only tagged for deletion on 18 Sep unless licensing is sorted out. Problems I see are: the file says the author is "VHS Almuni Network" but do they own the copyright? The source page is marked "Copyright © 2012 Vidyaranya High School". Also, who owns the copyright to the actual picture - who took it, and when? See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image guidelines and Wikipedia:File copyright tags and if in doubt ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on this. An Alumnus had scanned the picture and uploaded it to vidyaranyaschool.com. The photo was taken in 1984 by an unknown source (probably another alumnus). Hence, the scanned photo is the property of vidyaranyaschool.com. How can I prevent the image from being deleted (can I enter more detailed information elsewhere?). Regards, K

I'm afraid it's not as simple as that - scanning a photograph creates a "derivative work" but it is still subject to the copyright of the photographer (or anyone he assigned that to), and you can't publish it without his consent. But I'm not an expert and this isn't the place - explain the situation at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and see what they say. JohnCD (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The person who took the picture in 1984 is the copyright holder, not the school. The school has no rights in that picture. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Colin Campbell (actor)

reasoning -Dee1957 (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 00:01, 10 January 2011 Kuru (talk | contribs) deleted page Colin Campbell (actor) (G3: Blatant hoax)


Why has my father's name been deleted as G3?

Because G3 is the criterion under which blatant vandalism, including hoaxes, falls under. I have also taken the effort to correct your header and template. That said, the article doesn't appear to be deleted, thus no undeletion is needed. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 16:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually, I think this may have been a mistake, and I will ask the deleting admin to have another look. (The new article was just a repetition of this question). JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The deleted article begins with this paragraph:

Colin Campbell (20 March 1883-25 March 1966) was a Scottish film and television character actor who is known for his roles in the films Tillie's Tomato Surprise, Nothing But the Truth, The Girl from Nowhere, A Man of Stone, The White Monkey, Big Boy, Eight Girls in a Boat, Wallaby Jim of the Islands, The Secret of Treasure Island and The Lost World.

Is there any published evidence that he acted in any of those films? Due to the structure of the article, it seemed to be a complete hoax. If you have new information about an actor named Colin Campbell, can you give us his birth and death dates? IMDB is not a reliable source since it contains user-submitted information. There seems to be a different real actor named Colin Campbell who was born in 1937. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is a hoax - I know IMDb is not an RS, but you don't usually get false entries as detailed at this one with all the cast-list entries for the films corresponding. He's also in Allmovie and Ranker.com. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Per this post by User:Dee1957, he is talking about the Colin Campbell born in 1937. So undeleting the article on the 1883 Colin Campbell would not be helping him. Dee1957 should be encouraged to create a new article on the 1937 Colin Campbell using reliable sources. I suggest the article might be called Colin Campbell (actor born 1937). EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are 54 Colin Campbells in IMDb, so confusion is not surprising. I think we should resuscitate our article - minor roles, but early start and long career look notable enough. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a short biography of Colin Campbell (1883-1966) in this Allmovie entry, signed by Hal Erickson. The facts presented there seem plausible. I am not sure if Allmovie is considered a reliable source. But if the Campbell 1883 article is restored, is there anyone who has an interest in working on it? The deleted article contains no reliable sources whatever, and it seems possible that different Colin Campbells are being mixed up there. The requester of this particular REFUND is interested in a different Colin Campbell so it seems unlikely he is prepared to straighten out Colin Campbell (actor born 1883). EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
While the capsule bio of Colin Campbell 1883 in Allmovie looks reasonable, the list of movies for Colin Campbell on the same page looks like the similarly-named actors are mixed up. If CC 1883's last movie work was in 1924 why is he credited with playing a character named Ascot Gavotte in My Fair Lady, 1964? The actor names in Allmovie seem to be presented with no disambiguation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That Allmovie article is thoroughly confused. It gives the dates, 1883-1966, of the one we had an article on, Colin Campbell (I) in IMDb, but not only is the filmography a mish-mash, the actual capsule bio says "The best-remembered of his Selig directorial efforts was 1914's The Spoilers", and that was Colin Campbell (IV) (1859–1928). Maybe there just aren't the sources to write articles about these early days; but I'd have thought, on balance, we are better off with than without the deleted article on CC(I), given that the IMDb records are at least internally consistent and for somebody long dead like that no-one has an incentive to falsify them. I might drop a note to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and see if anyone is interested.

I have explained things to the enquirer here. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at history of the original deletion; this a result from an AIV request to block a person who was creating a series of hoax articles. On a quick review, some of the articles were deleted outright, some were trimmed back to sourced material. I'm not sure what triggered the G3 at first glance; this was a year and a half ago and I cannot recollect the event. I can look into it in more detail over the weekend when I have more time, but John's approach is the correct one - if there are reliable sources that can match even parts of imdb, then undelete. Kuru (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

AppIt Ventures

AppIt Ventures is a recently formed LLC based in Denver, CO. It offers both B2B and B2C services and products in the field of software development. AppIt Ventures has a website at www.appitventures.com, as well as Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, and YouTube profiles. All information regarding AppIt Ventures to be posted on Wikipedia will be necessarily unbiased, factual, and verifiable. The Wikikpedia page for this topic was deleted under code #A7; please undelete for continued revision including the addition of more information and input of reliable sources. -Brandy R Anderson (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2012 (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. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of shopping malls by country

Please undelete the full history of Talk:List of shopping malls by country (deleted 2007 per CSD#G8), and redirect to Talk:List of shopping malls, thus matching the redirect List of shopping malls by country.

I'm expecting to find in it history, referenced by Talk:List_of_shopping_malls_in_the_United_States#Note_to_all_editors, a pre-2006 significant history of debates over what should be in these lists. The old debates may help inform the ongoing discussions at the bottom of Talk:List_of_shopping_malls_in_the_United_States. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. The conclusion then seemed to be, don't have lists, use categories, but you can read it all... Redirect it to the other talk page if you like, but if you want the discussion to be easily available it might be better not. JohnCD (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fallen Angel (novel)

This page was deleted while it was work in progress and I would like to request that it's content be userfied. I still need to add references and fine tune the text of the article, which I didn't have time to do as it has been deleted while I was actually working on it. If you can track the history of that page, you will notice that it was discussed in the chat with an admin, that I got feedback on it, did some changes and had some more to do. Thank you (Yvancg (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

 Not done. I will re-userfy this for you if you insist, but I seriously advise you not to bother, because I think you will be wasting your time. The promotional tone (it reads like a publisher's blurb) could be fixed, but the point is that Wikipedia does not expect to have an article on every book that gets published, and has a quite demanding standard, described at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Read that carefully, particularly the sections "Criteria" and "Threshold standards", before deciding to put more time and effort into this. JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for the clarification. Please do proceed with the userfication. At least that would allow me to recover the time and efforts I have put into for for some other use may be. Meanwhile I will take a closer look at the link you mentioned. At the moment my main concern it to get my work back, as i didn't get a chance to save a copy locally. Thank you for your help. (Yvancg (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC))

 Done to User:Yvancg/Fallen Angel (novel). JohnCD (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I will keep it userfied until it meets the notability standards your sent me. I trust it is not risking deletion if it isa only userfied, correct? (58.11.134.158 (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC))

Well, the user page policy does say that user pages "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." In practice, "indefinitely" is usually interpreted to allow a few months, but it would do no harm to make yourself an off-line copy. JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hipsters com

reasoning -Sumon Rahman 14:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


Hello Admin,

Please accept my apologizes if I did anything wrong with the last page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipsters_com

Actually It is a Social Networking website released in this month. I believe that we should let people know that they got a new social networking site to stay tuned with their fnf. www.Hipsters.com is a social site like Pinterest.

So I'm highly requesting to you please stop the page deletion.

Looking for your soonest reply.

Sincerely Sumon

Not done and will not be done We are not here for you to get free publicity for your startup. This article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning websites. 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 websites will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The Chris Gethard Show

The user Dennis Brown restored the article to a re-direct page because that was how it was left after a previous "Article of Deletion" discussion. That previous discussion ignored many good points made on the side of keeping the article and made it a re-direct page anyway. Instead of going through the proper channels to undelete the page, an anonymous user undid the original revertion to a redirect page and started updating the page regularly. Since these new changes were not the correct wiki etiquette, Dennis Brown felt it necessary to revert the article to its previous "official" status as a re-direct page. His own comment directed me to this "request for undeletion" page to apply for undeletion, even though I am not sure if it is the correct channel to go through. Now, as to why the article should be undeleted. The Chris Gethard Show is a television show that is very quickly gaining notoriety among a general audience and among several notable public figures, as outlined in the new sources provided by the user Phanink. It is one of the most significant things Chris Gethard has done, and is a webshow currently being aired weekly so it is very relevant and is constantly being updated with new episodes and new notable public figures who have appeared on the show. It deserves its own space since it is a much larger entity and involves many more people than Chris Gethard himself relates to in his "notable" life events as accounted on his Wiki page. The show should not be simply redirected to his page. -Dr Clocktopus (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: This is now also under discussion at Deletion review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 14, and that is a better place for it. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Philip DeFranco

Can an admin please restore old revisions of this page and sxephil, I am looking for further information that we can add to the article. -Alizaa2 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done for Philip DeFranco. There is nothing useful in the history of sxephil - some of the revisions are attack pages and the others say no more than that he is a Youtube celebrity. JohnCD (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

TrekAmerica

this is our company history page so no idea why someone else deleted it. Please undelete so we can update -84.92.151.194 (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Pui Chan

re-establishing article with new material and supported claims of notability -Spidey111 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. JohnCD (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Climate Himalaya

reasoning -Vajpai 04:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

May kindly look in to the issue of deletion of Climate Himalaya page. We at Climate Himalaya, a voluntary initiative working in Himalayan region on awareness generation and advocacy are not funded from any source and therefore any of our efforts are voluntary, and for social cause. We also are not a company or business that has any financial interest by advertising us at wikipedia. As ICIMOD (that has a page at wikipedia) we are similar kind of organization growing and working for mountain development.

We look forward for our request to be heard with utmost seriousness.

Warm regards

K N Vajpai Convener Climate Himalaya www.chimalaya.org

 Not done Hello. The page may not be intended by you as advertising but it certainly read as such - advocacy for the topic. Advertising is not limited to commercial companies at all. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Please note also that the page appears to have been a copyright infringement of the content at the organization's website (the free license at that site is not compatible with Wikipedia's [because it disallows commercial redistribution]) and plagiarism because it did no provide attribution, as well as of this page. If this topic is notable – generally meaning the subject of substantive treatment in multiple, published reliable sources from which an article can be written through citing those sources and thus verifying the information content – it may be that an article is warranted and can be sustained, but the text that was posted was not that article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Degrees in acupuncture and oriental medicine

personal review -Stillwaterising (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please email to me. Thanks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done, sort of. The deleted article was simply a copy of this plus a long list, maybe all, of the entries from this list. I will email you what is perhaps more interesting, the state of the article at 17 March 2011 before an SPA, Verummusae (talk · contribs), inserted the copyvio. That could perhaps be restored as a basis to start development from. JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nokia 100

So I and others can read about it when looking it up, while not the most popular device being able to read about low-end phones can still be useful. Nokia is not a small or unknown company, and this product is sold in a great many places. -123.243.172.144 (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

All Pakistan Physiotherapy Colleges Sports Gala

The page is not the promotion I will review the contents -Khalid Saeed Khan (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


I will rewrite this article. and remove the material as per direction.

phi society

I am a member of the Phi Society fraternity at the University of Virginia, and for the past two years I have been updating and maintaining the wikipedia page. I have just found out that the wikipedia page has been deleted/redirected, and I am not sure why. The wikipedia page is important to our fraternity because it not only allows new students at the University of Virginia to learn about our history, but it also is a source of reference for current brothers and alumni. The Phi Society page has been deleted and now when you search "Phi Society" it redirects to the Phi Delta Theta fraternity page. This not only causes confusion among University of Virginia students who wish to learn the difference between the Phi Society fraternity and the Phi Delta Theta chapter at the University, but it also undermines the importance of the Phi Society as a fraternal organization. The Phi Society has a rich history and importance at the University of Virginia, and by taking down the wikipedia page, the fraternity is unable to demonstrate its importance in student life at the University, and its right to be a part of the Inter-Fraternity Council. If the page was redirected or deleted because of copy right issues then we will be happy to make whatever changes are necessary to maintain the wikipedia page. I am not entirely skilled in the use of wikipedia, but the last thing I want to see (and the last thing my other 48 fraternity brothers want to see) is the deletion of Phi Society from wikipedia. We do not want our existence to be written off as insignificant. I hope this is understandable, and will be taken into account. Thank you -Henrykittredge (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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/merged/redirected after any deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was redirected through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi Society, it cannot be restored 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 redirection, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Mark Arsten (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek a reversal, you ma¥ make a request at deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/Stephen_Bland

added several citations prior to deletion, thou never discussed and now MARTA and Jacksonville seriously considering (1 of 2 potentials for both) [2] to add. -Marketdiamond (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Dr. Blofeld (talk) who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you would be welcome to contribute. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Appreciation. Marketdiamond (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Quake 3 Fortress

Deleted by incompetent admin, plenty of additional sources available, problem presumably caused by admin in question acting well outside his area of knowledge. Searching for the full form, or abbreviated form of the name "Q3F" returns many many sources with which the article could be updated. Admins argument for deletion that search for additional information resulted in insufficient coverage is clearly completely false. Lack of knowledge on a subject and/or inability to use basic web tools like Google to search for additional coverage is not a valid reason for deletion. -213.235.49.210 (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please read WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith. The comment you object to was not placed by the deleting admin but by user Neelix (talk), who I will notify in case he wishes to consider nominating the article at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you could contribute. If you can find references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources please add them; the only existing reference is a deadlink. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Frances Amey

reasoning -2.101.176.194 (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_athei..._and_technology

reasoning -94.43.121.53 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


Someone called Armagedonic has deleted the page: List of atheists in science and technology, evidently out of the reasons of religious intolerance.

Please help me to restore the page.

Thank you very much.

List of atheists in science and technology has not been deleted. The page was blanked but has been restored (and the editor involved has been blocked). --bonadea contributions talk 20:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nassim Heremain

reasoning -204.16.64.3 (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I'm tempted to flat out delete the request as no reason for it was given (and it was from an IP and it was for an article on a non-notable quack, as the AfD which got overwhelming support makes clear.

 Not done. This page is for uncontroversial deletions. Since the earlier version was overwhelmingly deleted, on grounds of notability as well as promotionalism, your next step is WP:Deletion review. Wikipedia is extremely resistant to being used for promotion, and a repost in these circumstances will be looked at very hard. (Cribbed from JohnCDs closure of Bianca Jade.) Consider accepting the consensus decision. --Elvey (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

2014 Men's Hockey World Cup

I've been working on the Hockey World Cup articles and I want to create a page for the upcoming edition. Want to see what there is to work from in the deleted page. --Kafuffle (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, though as it was a PROD deletion I will restore it if you like - say so below. The entire content was "The 2014 Men's Hockey World Cup is the 13th World Cup tournament, which is held every four years. The competition will be held in The Hague, Netherlands." JohnCD (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wes Lyons

reasoning -98.219.137.213 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Can a administrator restore Wes Lyons page I am looking to add content and realized this page was deleted. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.137.213 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Manindra Bhushan Bhaduri

Some details and references have been made. -Kbsanjay (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Template_talk%3ANon-free_mugshot&action=historysubmit&diff=154472941&oldid=154292786

(revised)

I refer from mainspace to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ANon-free_mugshot&action=historysubmit&diff=154472941&oldid=154292786 and I need to know what it said, INCLUDING THE CITATIONS. Please restore it the template, and talk page, including their history, to mainspace or user space. ( I don't understand why the underlying template was deleted; Sfan00 IMG 's rationale [3] makes no sense to me; his thinking often doesn't make sense to me because the pattern I see often is that a template is removed from use inappropriately, and then deleted using that lack of use as justification; I'd be surprised if that isn't what happened hereThat's exactly what happened here! But, this whole parenthetical is tangential to the undeletion request...) And the refund template doesn't seem able to handle a request like this for old versions of a page. -Elvey (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

London Canoe Slalom Invitational

Article was deleted because of the nature of the contributor, not the article, I wish to see and improve the article. -Kafuffle (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Petra Liebetanz

Southern Stars poster

This was a well written page that documented the history about this rare poster, the popular entertainers who were included on it, the photographer and illustrator who created the poster and how it helped to play a part in preserving Louisiana's music history' especially after Hurricanes like Katrina in 2005. The page included verifiable references including those from USA Today and the Times-Picayune, links to the artists who are still alive and those deceased. It became a page of history and in April of 2012 the poster was formally presented to the Louisiana Music Hall of Fame for their museum during Louisiana's 200th Birthday celebration in Baton Rouge. There is no self promotion because the poster is not being sold for profit and the agency it was created for no longer exists. I have a college degree and am knowledgeable about Louisiana music and history. If I have time, and you give me directions I can upload the articles if need be to help. I'm not sure why the Southern Stars poster page was deleted? Please forgive me if I've posted this in the wrong place and advise me as to the proper steps to take so it will be reinstated. Thank You. Respectfully, A Fan of LA music history -98.71.129.155 (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jason0221&redirect=no

reliable source :http://www.amazon.com/Quality-Management-Your-Key-Success/dp/0557627036 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason0221 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. The fact that someone has written a book standing alone is not an assertion of importance for purposes of A7 consideration. Here, the book was published by lulu.com, a vanity press, and so is a good indication of lack of importance. Nevertheless, 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 ItsZippy (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Tony Scott.jpg

The image that was uploaded into Commons has been deleted as ineligible or impermissible by author for Commons. Therefore, this non-free image must be undeleted for the article Tony Scott. -George Ho (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Done --Tikiwont (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bhattacharya

Cause for deletion was erroneous. Bhattacharyya, contrary to common perception, is NOT a surname. It is actually a historical title that is now used as a surname. It is worthy of inclusion in a public encyclopedia, especially as many people do not know its historical origins. -115.184.236.14 (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Awake

The old version was deleted, so may I get a copy of that. Thanks! -TBrandley 05:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. The portal shouldn't have been deleted as G7 in the first place, since it had been around for some months: Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Explanations#Articles. BencherliteTalk 07:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheung Pei Shan Road

I don't know what the article was and the person who deleted it has retired, but I think that I could improve it and add references if it was undeleted. -Jc86035 (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC) PS I'd also like to know what the original content was. Jc86035 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Jc86035/Cheung Pei Shan Road. Since it was a proposed deletion you can move it back to article space anytime you see fit.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Richard Cottle

It has been edited and believe it should all be copyrighted correctly now -Rcottle (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. If you refer to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Cottle you'll find the same answer there and the recent changes to that draft are marginal. As far as I see no copyright issue was raised in either case.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Samara James

Sir, the Article is a free work and has a lot of reason for not being deleted. Samara James is an diamond selling organization in UK. The reason why article shall not be deleted are given below: 01. Samara James created a revolution in the world of diamond by letting people every information of diamonds. Their Videos are very instructive and helpful. Samara James first introduced the Diamond Scanned that can automatically scan diamond and its fields which is rare in UK and the world. Samara James introduce a new version of the diamond ring model of Princess Diana in the wedding of Kate Middleton and Prince William in 2011. Samara James are the third highest selling Diamond organization in UK. They have online service of high level and they work in there. The did a lot of campaign on the importance of consumers understanding the country of origin of diamonds purchase and and the weaknesses in control of the Kimberly Process. Samara James has been quoted in the UK Press about the changing demands of customers in an internet age, no other organization has been quoted for this. They are specialists of Engagement Rings. They are accurate with their carat rate. The organization has some good References to be on Wikipedia. They have become the Headline of BBC.co.uk and showed their work on the program. They along with Russel Lord work for making jewellery for the member of the Royal Family. So, it's my earnest request to not delete the Article and I wish you will be kind enough to do so. -Sourov0000 (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This board is not for assessing topics, I could restore the draft but you already have it at User:Sourov0000/sandbox. You may want to discuss it with the deleting administrator User:Peridon or consider a submission at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Bolliger & Mabillard logo.svg

Hi, on the English Wikipedia the source of "File:Bolliger & Mabillard logo.svg" is to an image that has been deleted. Is there any way to get that image back to figure out the real source? The reason why the image was deleted was because it was not used on any articles...meanwhile it still is, on Bolliger & Mabillard. -Dom497 (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Answered on my talk page where Dom497 also posted. I gave the known source info there. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic Company

the page is not an advertisement. The page clearly displays the history of the Catholic Company and its accomplishments. A page for a celebrity or another popular company would read similarly -Nrabiipour09 (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Lines like "answering the call by Pope John Paul II for all Catholics to join in a New Evangelization" for a retail company[!] do not make a very good case for a claim that this is not promotional. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  •  Not done. I have also reviewed the article and its sources. Unfortunately it is a blatant promotional piece and although the subject might possibly be notable, it would need a complete rewrite and sources that comply with our criteria for companies at WP:ORG to be notable according to Wikipedia policies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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

The deleted article was relevant, the one it now redirects to is mostly not. The deleted article was a bit messy but still good, the current one is messy and gravely lacks information. The deletion was based on the claim "about a fanmade term that has had no serious or critical coverage by any sort of media" which is very strange because the term is commonly used even if noone writes philosophical essays about it. It is simply a term that isn´t used by everyone all the time. The term "magic satchel" that it directs to now is ironically much LESS used still, and as someone on a talkpage said, Hammerspace is what you have IN a magic satchel. Not to mention that Hammerspace is very commonly used for comedy effects, rather than a magic satchels convenience. Currently, if i want information on Hammerspace, the page specifically on this term on TVtropes is the place to go, because the joke of a wikipage that i get directed to is practically useless for this term (and some others that seems to have been crammed together in one very poorly thought up mess, under a heading that is less used than most of the terms it tries to cover). Epic fail. Also, the delete discussion showed a horrible lack of objectivity or knowledge, user Ryulong dismisses both "keep" votes in a very questionable way. And finally, now there ARE additional obvious sources for the original article to refer to, like the TVtropes one. This is without doubt the most stupid/questionable/unwarranted merger/deletion i´ve seen on wiki so far. Really needs fixing. -DW75 (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Anatomy Trains

Please email all versions. Writing article on similar topic. - - 08:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

raghav juyal

reasoning -58.146.126.166 (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This article has not been deleted. Deletion is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raghav Juyal, and that is where you should comment, but read WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions first. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Troost Avenue

reasoning Article was deleted because "concern was: Non-notable street". Street is extremely important culturally and historically in Kansas City. It is a major racial and ethnic dividing line in the city. -Chaglang (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Share Your Knowledge/Story

I don't need it undeleted permanently, but I can't see how it could contain a copyvio from the mentioned website and I suspect that there were many different versions containing plain, non problematic data that would be greatly useful for me to recreate it anew. You can also just send me the texts via email, I would deeply appreciate any prompt replies. Thanks, -Elitre (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. There were two versions, both copyvios, and I have emailed both texts. More on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I couldn't get live help in IRC (btw, I never manage to). I am frankly puzzled, these are obviously vandalisms, I was pretty sure someone had added valuable contents previously. Whatever. --Elitre (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

FUUAST Talent

That page was totally about an educational society. Similar pages also exists on Wikipedia. Deletion of the page FUUAST Talent was very unfair. I am very disappointed with wikipedia's policies. -Fahad Malik 20:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Malikfaadi/FUUAST Talent. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space. Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and the relevant notability guidelines - articles that are not in compliance will be deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sparrow SMS

"Sparrow SMS is a product by Janaki Technology Pvt. Ltd, a Nepal based IT company. The company has been regarded as one of the top 10 IT companies in Nepal for 2012 in a public survey. Sparrow SMS is the third most popular brand in Nepal in Facebook as per the Socialbakers report. Survey - http://everestlist.org/everest-100-top-it-companies-in-nepal-2012/ Sparrow SMS facebook page - http://facebook.com/sparrowsms and the Socialbakers report is http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/nepal . The official blog for Sparrow SMS is http://blog.sparrowsms.com/" -acpmasquerade 13:17, 27 September 2012 (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, user NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Iman Foroutan

Request opportunity to rewrite article. Iman Foroutan is a major figure in Human Rights movements involving Iran. This page was not given a seven day period for discussion or revisions before it was deleted for supposed advertising. Please allow me to rewrite the article from a new perspective. Thank you. -Charity Cupp (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. As this page was litte more than an extremely promotional CV there is nothing in it that will help towards rewriting it from another perspective. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Stellar_Global_LLC

reasoning -Whoop90 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am requesting undeletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_Global_LLC.

If the article is too promotional or insignificant, please provide me guidance on how to improve the article. Whoop90 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done The "article" was shameless and promotional, full of puffery, sourced to press release websites, and consisted in part of advertisements for something called The Great Game of Business, whatever that might be. It is impossible to avoid a suspicion that you work for Stellar (or The Great Game of Business) in some capacity. Read the links already provided on your own talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Trucks

My sandbok User:Argosy/sandbox and I creator portal version french ; fr:Portail:Camion another count FrankyLeRoutier, complete construction portal, my version to sandbok is o.k. ? english is not principal language for me. Thank you -Argosy (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Trucks, 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 Salvio giuliano (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. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

another page ; Portal:Trucks/Categories, Portal:Trucks/Intro, Portal:Trucks/Projects, Portal:Trucks/Related portals, Portal:Trucks/Selected article/1, Portal:Trucks/Selected article/2, Portal:Trucks/Selected article/3, Portal:Trucks/Selected article/4, Portal:Trucks/Selected article/5, Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/1, Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/2, Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/3, Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/4, Portal:Trucks/Selected manufacturer/5, Portal:Trucks/Wikimedia, Portal:Trucks/box-footer, Portal:Trucks/box-header

Could you please explain further why you want this portal and its subpages back? Do you need it for attribution? What connection does it have with the French version? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_76&oldid=1142568359"