Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity

Deletion of "Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity" from Wikipedia- an unwanted, unfortunate exercise.

It has been brought to our notice that "Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity" has recently been deleted. Grounds of deletion: "nonsense" for appearing i.r.bhattacharjee alone in the reference= is not understood.

" Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822[1] – January 6, 1884) was an Augustinian priest and scientist, who gained posthumous fame as the figurehead of the new science of genetics for his study of the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of these traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him. The significance of Mendel's work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century. The independent rediscovery of these laws formed the foundation of the modern science of genetics.[2] Ref Wikipedia.

Similarly I.R.Bhattacharjee is the figurehead of the new science of "Self Gravitation Bio" with study on "Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity". When "Biohysical Society", USA has referred it as new subject of expertise in biophysics, referring it as "non sense" is quite unfortunate. It is to be remembered that Mendel was alone in the scientific world for more than 40 years. Now how many scientists in the present world is following Mendel's law? Possibly more than 99%. So it is not fair to state that I.R.Bhattacharjee is alone in the field and hence science should be deleted.

Tomorrow, the same Mandel's history in the development of science would likely to be repeated as regard "Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity". None yet could nullify the conjectiures on "Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity", as it is based on facts, truth. Any one is free to challenge/ contradict the content/ logic/ arguments.Unless it is made, arbitrary deletion (as personal reflection etc.) is unjustified. So please allow the article to resurface and allow open debate, if desires so. The author is ready to answer all and each such querries. -I.R.Bhattacharjee (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Women's Image Network

Why after years of being on WikiPedia did you delete Women's Image Network? I simply uploaded our logo and wham, our page was gone. This is a longtime charity serving the community...can you pls advise? Why on EARTH was this information deleted? You can find dozens of WIKI pages with our awards mentioned. "Women's Image Network" -76.91.31.239 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  • It was deleted by User:Fetchcomms, who felt it served no purpose other than to promote the organization. I don't think the article is bad enough to warrant that action, however I can't unilaterally overturn his/her decision. You may want to ask Fetchcomms on their talk page. Protonk (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Miro Major

Miro Major is a NZ representitive in the Futsal Whites - New Zealand National Futsal Team. This can be viewed on www.nzfootball.co.nz -Reneekaran (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

VTD-XML

VTD-XML is an open source software -Jzhang2007 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

VTD-XML is an open source XML software that can benefit a lot of users. It is not spam.

Hi, I am author of vtd-xml.... I have been away for a month, but when I come back, the vtd-xml wiki page gets deleted. VTD-XML is an open source software that can be accessed at http://vtd-xml.sf.net, it is not a spam or product promotion.

Can someone please restore it?

  • Hi. It looks like it was deleted as blatant advertisement. I contacted the deleting admin and they should be along to either undelete it or explain why they don't want to undelete it shortly. If they don't want to delete it, you can appeal their decision at deletion review. If it comes to that, I can help you with the particulars. I will note that I don't think the article was spam, but the decision to delete it is not something I can overturn lightly. If you bear with us we will try to help you out. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll restore the page on the condition that you actively work on bringing the article up to standard. Would you be willing to do that? -FASTILY (TALK) 02:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am willing to do what you asked... [[User::jzhang2007
And  Done per above. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul A. Romsky Jr.

Deleted for A7, please e-mail a copy of deleted page to [email protected], Thank You -184.61.70.4 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarence C Hulley

educational, was important living figure -Oneill05 oneill (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dethcentrik

Believe Terrorizer Magazine is a plenty reliable source. Dethcentrik is track 14 on the Fear Candy 84 sampler with issue 200 -MetallerMex666 (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Prator

All information on Page "Mark Prator" was accurate and timely. This Person has had a storied and varied career. User "Ron Ritzman" is unknown to Mark Prator, and undeletion of page is requested at this time.

Reason for original deletion is unacceptable and not based on facts in any way.

As Mark Prator is mainly a hired musician, producer, engineer - that is the source of his known status in this industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.210.178 (talk • contribs)

cameron casey

Please re-enter my listing for Cameron Casey

No. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Casey. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin

Deletion was handled improperly, many other Wikipedia articles reference Bitcoin, no discussion was allowed to take place -Knightmb (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - articles linking to Bitcoin include Crypto-anarchism, Alternative currency, Electronic money, ISO 4217, Peer-to-peer. - prat (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Apparent vandalism? - after I posted this comment, User:Korath has systematically gone through and removed all reference. I have raised the issue on the user's talk page prat (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done - this page has been deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin, and cannot be undeleted through this process, which is only for pages deleted uncontroversially. Please read what this page is for at the top. If you believe that the consensus of the discussion was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Polargeo (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. — ξxplicit 07:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment - we've already seen a deletion review. People are now upset with its outcome and requesting undeletion. prat (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - how can you say "no discussion was allowed to take place"? The deletion debate lasted more than 16 days, and fifteen users and several IPs took part. JohnCD (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment - that kind of points out itself because when you go to the deleted article from another link or wikipedia article, it's just deleted and which link on that page was the discussion? I wouldn't have put in a request if it didn't look like vandalism Knightmb (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2010 (CDT)
Comment If you attempt to edit the article (see this link) you will see a pink box indicating the article has been deleted before with a link to the AfD discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment - thanks for pointing that out, after reading over it I'm still wondering why it was deleted. It's either going to be created again by someone else or the information moved to another online encyclopedia, leaving wikipedia kind of burned. I know the goal is quality articles with good sources, but the whole issue of whether the software or project itself is notable or not should not have come up as a decision making reason and as such my opinion of that is just as valid as the next person who believes it should be removed because they feel it isn't notable. I'm sure the article won't return this month I guess, but at least I stated my opinion on the matter. Knightmb (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2010 (CDT)
Comment No, notability is not a matter of opinion but of whether the subject has had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and it is Wikipedia's primary test for whether a subject should have an article. JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - all of which are words that depend on an opinion, but I'm not here to argue semantics; if anyone could be kind enough to point me to a link that contains all the original article text before it was deleted, it would be greatly appreciate. It's kind of annoying that it's at the top of a google search and points to a non-existance page here, needs to be moved elsewhere. Knightmb (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2010 (CDT)
Comment - Someone pointed out Userfication to me, this might strike a good balance here and keep the content in tact for others searching for it. I'll contact the list of administrators to see what deal can be worked out. Knightmb (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2010 (CDT)

For those interested, the article has been userfied at User:Message From Xenu/Bitcoin by the deleting admin. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - By my judgement as a computing professional working both within finance and cryptography, and as a long-time Wikipedia user and administrator, this is good content, on a notable subject, linked to elsewhere both on the wider internet and within Wikipedia. It should never have been deleted. prat (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • And as you full well know it just went through DRV where the deletion was endorsed despite your threat to resign as an admin if it didn't get restored. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Correct, though that has little or no relevance. Requests for undeletion is based upon articles thought to be wrongly deleted through due process. This is one such article. prat (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The header to this page says "Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion and under certain speedy deletion criteria, such as CSD G6." - nothing like your interpretation of it. In fact the nice coloured box with bolded text says "Note: This page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions nor to address the pending deletion of any page." - how you can manage to miss that I can't imagine. The original admin rejected it as having been deleted through AFD and pointed to DRV as the correct place for further review. Definitely time to stop beating this dead horse. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Your 'dead horse' opinion is irrelevant, please stay on topic. Back to the facts: this is the fourth time this article's relevance has been discussed. Initially someone deleted it, apparently with minimal discussion. undeleted it, completely certain that was a mistake. It was then re-requested for deletion, on grounds of notability, which multiple people believe we established to an adequate extent. Deletion occurred regardless. Next, it was deletion reviewed. Here and now, undeletion has been requested. For the record, I am not 'a singleton admin' wanting the status changed, I am merely one of many vocal opponents to the deletion of this article. The record shows many others in support of keeping, at least the following users: Theymos, Dizm, DataWraith, Robert Horning, American Antics, Knightmb and Message From Xenu. I do not know these people, they are independently supporting keeping this article. Removing good content simply prohibits incremental improvement and stifles progress. The article never should have been deleted, and it needs to be restored ASAP. prat (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's totally relevant as is WP:IDHT at some point your continued attempts to ignore community consensus and request a nth bite of the cherry until the outcome matches your desire becomes disruptive. Again read the headings at the top of the page, read the admin who originally closed this opinion. This is the wrong venue no matter how many times you claim it isn't. WP:DRV was and that endorsed the outcome. The horse isn't going to spring back to life. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Rather than making personal attacks, perhaps consider both a real user account and actually responding to points raised rather than simply pointing at procedures. prat (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Powder Coating Industry in Pakistan

Re-work with citations -Usmanadeel 2000 (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

officetiger

reasoning -InDpendentThnkR (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC) There was nothing objective to the page and gave a good history of a now defunct, yet important company in relation to the creation of outsourcing to India in the United States. It may be debated by some that this webpage may hurt the credibility of certain individuals with the negative stigma towards outsourcing, but it revolutionized commerce and exchange with India and whether or not for the best impacted ideals in the United States.

  • The whole page reads like an advertisement or a "corporate history" would look like on the company's official website--probably why it was deleted as a blatant advertisement. You mention that the company is now defunct and that their influence revolutionized outsourcing to india. Do you have some evidence for those claims? Protonk (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Daph Nobody

This writer and actor is very active and representative of contemporary film and literature in Belgium, he deserves to be mentioned on wikipedia, the same way guys like Jean-Noël Gobron and Giles Daoust are. Belgium has very few champions, on a national scale as well as abroad, and Daph Nobody is one of them, notably through his international works, in France and in the United States, recently with BLOOD BAR (novel) and A BROKEN LIFE (film). I don't understand why this article was deleted, it is almost discriminative for the young generation of Belgian authors. The article was deleted for a so-called lack of references, making the information unverifiable. But many (external and internal) links were added to the page, to support its relevance. Please could you reintegrate this page in wikepedia once and for all? Thank you. -109.128.73.175 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Lauren Burk

According to the archive this is the reason it was deleted:

"The result was delete. David Eppstein raises an excellent point. Sean William @ 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)"

"# Delete per WP:BIO1E. Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC"


At the time of the event, it may not have been particularly unusual, but as it was discovered, her killer was a recent Iraqi War Veteran that had returned home, which immediately brought up speculation that PTSD could have been behind the killing. Not to mention, Westboro Baptist Church involved themselves with her funeral since she was of Jewish faith. And she was abducted ON CAMPUS, which prompted heightened security AND prompted Auburn to change security policies... that alone provides LONG-TERM notability.

Just because it doesn't convince someone that it was unusual, doesn't alone give reason to delete. -74.178.128.252 (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Barb Higgins

The page "Barb Higgins" was uncontroversially deleted on July 31 for the reason (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content). Further reasoning given was "Mayoral candidates and local news anchors are not automatically notable just because they exist." I would like to ask that this page be undeleted, as it was speedily deleted without discussion. The page failed to adequately state the case for notability, however I believe this requirement is throughly met: Ms. Higgins is currently a candidate for mayor of Calgary, the largest city in the province, and according to two recent polls she is the frontrunner (http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/Calgarians+putting+their+support+behind+upcoming+Civic+Election/3337533/story.html). As the Mayoral election approaches (about 80 days away) voters will be looking to Wikipedia for information on the candidates, and many of the others have active pages. If she wins, which appears likely, it would make sense for there to be a developed article on her. -Lola60311 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Lola60311 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 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 closed the discussion, user Bearcat (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.
Note - I have taken Lola through the steps and helped her to recreate the page to Wikipedia standards for inclusion based on Higgins journalist career as opposed to her new political career, this request can now be archived or removed- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 15:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Health diagnostic laboratory

I marked the page with hangon expecting to be able to discuss the speedy deletion tag. Please put the page back so a discussion can be had. -Ctwise (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Reads like a blatant avertising, no concept of how it meets any general notability guidelines, and therefore apparently not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. When you put a hangon tag, it is YOUR requirement to then edit the related talkpage to give the patrolling administrator proof that it does neet the notability requirements/is not promotional. If you have read WP:CSD, you'll know that it does not involve additional discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

DULHA

This is a profile of a village that exists in India -Amanjha1 (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It was moved to Dulha, in accordance with the rules of capitalization in English. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

File:CatilineTragedy.jpg

Scan of a book published in 1692: may have been mislabeled as fair-use (this seems from the log and from here to be the deletion reason), but very obviously passes multiple PD tests with flying colors, e.g. Template:PD-art, Template:PD-old. -Wareh (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Stewart Crameri

prod deleted article, he has now played a senior game, 13 Aug 2010 [1] -duffbeerforme (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Com

This template was deleted on the basis "we don't need links to commons" and "just type it out". I would like to point out that making things easier - eg not having to type out long links - is a major reason for templates to exist - after all, if we wanted we could all just type out the entire code for an infobox in every article, but we don't, because it would be long, laborious, and likely to create mistakes. Now, if we delete things like {{com}}, then we should delete other, similar templates, such as {{c}}, {{u}}, {{tl}} - all of which would be very simple to type out if we could be bothered. But the point is they make things easier, and they're useful. That is what {{com}} was - it was a nice simple way to link back to pages on Commons. And really, how was it hurting en.wp by existing? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC) --mattbuck (Talk) 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Weak squeak

the claim that the weak squeak is not a notable bidding convention in contract bridge is simply incorrect. It is very widely used, non-intuitive, and the basic model a lot of other conventions are based on. Not only that but the use of the rapid deletion process seems inappropriate as it is not obviously a candidate for speedy deletion and a chance for discussion should be allowed. -Trewornan (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify Stormbay (talk · contribs), who PRODded it, in case he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. You need to add references to verify what the article says, and to establish notabiity by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Far 2 skilled FC

The reason it was deleted was due to 'article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject', but the page was deleted before i had even wrote the information about the groups, hence the significance. -J.O'Grady 21:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - the club is based at the "Playstation Stadium (Capacity: 278)" and plays in the "L-Gate Fantasy League" and "Soysource League". Sorry, but to have a Wikipedia article a club, or anything else, has to be notable, whic means showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See also Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Gundu Hirisave Rama Rao

It has necessary references -Narayanasharma (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Center for Food Safety

This should be fairly uncontroversial, but the problem is that the deleting admin seems to be no longer active. (See User_talk:Luna_Santin#Center_for_Food_Safety) I have no experience with this process, so somebody please help. -Dyuku (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify FisherQueen (talk · contribs), who PRODded it, in case he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. You need to add references to verify what the article says, and to establish notabiity by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, JohnCD, for restoring. I'll take care to improve this page and demonstrate notability. --Dyuku (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Easttom

It was a very well sourced article that was instantly deleted without any discussion -Willbennett2007 (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

reasoning -Willbennett2007 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There was an article on this topic about a year ago. I had nothing to do with that article or its subsequent deletion. This year I wrote my own article on the same topic AFTER discussing it with some of the original deleters. My article was extremely well sourced. Well today someone deleted it with NO discussion, not even mentioning to me their intent.

This is outrageous. I did a good article. Two other wikipedians helped clean it up. Then simply because someone else had previously done an article on the same topic that was NOT as well sourced, mine gets deleted instantly with not even a message to me or a chance for me to respond? This is completely outrageous.Willbennett2007 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I worked very hard on that article and found over 25 independent sources that verify that subject meets the notability criteria. In fact that subject meets it far better than these wikiarticles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rouse_III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_McCorduck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_E._Crowe

I gave sources from universities using the subjects works, independent journalists referencing the subject, I did everything the Wikipedia guidelines dictate and gave far more sources than most similar articles. Willbennett2007 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is patently absurd. Out of almost 30 sources, one was a blog. Please at least make an attempt to be honest in your critiques. I gave book reviews, university websites (including MAJOR universities), journal articles, etc. As I stated, my article was far better sourced than many on Wikipedia, but mine got deleted while the others are up for years.76.183.110.116 (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I WITHDRAW my request for undelete. I took the time to email the subject of the article, and he asked not to be included on Wikipedia. He did not elaborate as to why.
From what I can see anyone can delete even an article with 30 sources, while other articles, that have few or even no third party sources can remain. So my confidence in the reliability of Wikipedia information has been seriously undermined.76.183.110.116 (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 Not done Request withdrawn. To requester: see What about article x? JohnCD (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Kewal Krishan (anthropologist)

As you have mentioned at your website that to be notable one should have member of National Academy of Sciences. He is a member of this academy as well as many like this.

e.g. 1) Member-Midwest Bioarchaeology and Forensic Anthropology Association 2) Life Member–European Anthropological Association 3) Life Member–Indian Anthropological Association 4) Life Member–Indian Academy of Forensic Sciences 5) Life Member–Indian Association of Medico-Legal Experts 6) Life Member–Punjab Academy of Sciences 7) Member- The Indian Congress of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (ICFMT) 8) Member– The Science Advisory Board, USA 9) Life Member–Society for Indian Medical Anthropology (SIMA) 10) Life Member–Indian National Confederation of Academy of Anthropologists (INCAA) 11) Member- American Society of Forensic Podiatry 12) Life Member- Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine 13) Life Member-National Academy of Sciences India (NASI), Allahabad 14) Member of Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA)

Moreover, Kewal Krishan is an Indian Forensic anthropologist. He extensively worked on Gujjars of north India for forensic footprint science. He has more than 30 international publications in this field in all the leading journals of forensic science. Besides being Editor-in-Chief of one international journal, he is on the editorial board of more than 18 international journals. He is also on the reviewer/referee board of more than 20 international journals of repute including many Wiley Interscience and Elsevier journals. He has been awarded many travel grants and delivered lectures internationally. -220.227.11.195 (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done - this page has been deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kewal Krishan (anthropologist), and cannot be undeleted through this process, which is only for pages deleted uncontroversially. Please read what this page is for at the top. If you believe that the consensus of the discussion was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

United Autosports

we own the content for United Autosports -Bgoodman0310 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


I was not informed that my page was going to be deleted. I did send SouthernNights a note about the deletion, but his page indicated that he does not check his Wikipedia Admin information very often, and I'm very concerned that our page will not be reinstated in a timely manner. Drive Digital Media represents United Autosports' web site and Flickr account, and we have full rights to all of the content in these areas. I believe what SouthernNights was saying is that there was copyright infringement on the text involved. I need to be clear that the Wikipedia page and the web site must reflect each other closely, as we need to be sure our material is exact. Could you please reinstate our United Autosports page as soon as possible? I am very anxious to hear back from you. Thank you,

Bgoodman0310 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  • In a word: no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an advertising venue. The primary issue is that while you may own the copyright on your page, I'm certain you do not understand the license you are agreeing to release this content under. In order for us to accept text (or any other content), it must effectively be released into the public domain. All downstream users must have the right to recreate, modify and redistribute your content for any purposes whatsoever. The second issue is that if your goal is to have a wikipedia page match a corporate page, you almost certainly shouldn't be creating a wikipedia page. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ronnamee

It was created without my approval, by past employee -75.4.2.233 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I'm not clear whether you are making a request to have it restored? If so, please give the exact name - we have never had an article with that title. JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

File:2007-10-03T132959Z 01 NOOTR RTRIDSP 2 OFRWR-MYANMAR-THAN-SHWE-20071003.JPEG

This is not my image-this is an image of a reclusive world leader, necessary to illustrate that article. I will properly license it and give it a WAY BETTER NAME that is not YELLING or cryp03T132959ZRTRIDSPtic. ;) -Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done JohnCD (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Got it, working on the tags, changed the image as potentially problematic. This way the history is still saved, thank you for that!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Adam2

The article should not have been deleted. It relates to the bootloader to ADSL modems used by millions, and supported by 3rd-party firmwares. No objection was filed to the PROD tag only because it has only come to my attention -Chewbaca75 (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. See item below. JohnCD (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Pspboot

The article should not have been deleted. It relates to the bootloader to ADSL modems used by millions, and supported by several opensource 3rd-party firmwares. No objection was filed to the PROD tag only because it has only come to my attention -Chewbaca75 (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify Rilak (talk · contribs), who PRODded this and the one above, in case s/he wishes to nominate them at Articles for deletion. You can read Rilak's concerns if you look in the article histories at the last version before today. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives

Please userfy this article to User:Paulwizard/Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives. I deleted it as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives, but there is credible indication that the reasons for deletion can now be overcome. Thank you. -Skomorokh 14:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you John. Skomorokh 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fingask Follies

want the info for use elsewhere -Rodolph (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.. See item below. JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fingask Castle Subscription Mural

want the info & photos for use elsewhere -Rodolph (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.. I will notify user Deor (talk · contribs), who PRODded this and the article above, in case s/he wishes to nominate them at WP:Articles for deletion. You can see the concerns raised by looking in the article histories at the last version before today. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Slater

I would like to express an opinion without quoting chapter and version with opaquely names paragraphs and rules. I often use Wikipedia to learn about current events. As controversial as some of you may find the brouhaha about a flight attendant bailing out of his job after 20 years, it is a current event about which informed people should want to be educated. I don't understand how a reasoning public could want to *not* have Wikipedia discuss Steven Slater's actions in an impartial fashion. -Giantsequoiadt (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To explain without quoting strings of policies: Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and the idea is that it will be a better encyclopedia if it doesn't try to be a news site as well - there is a separate site, Wikinews, for people who want to catch up with things that are briefly in the headlines but will be forgotten in weeks. Also, it is not felt appropriate to have an article about someone who is famous only for a single event. However, not everyone agrees, and when any sensational event happens there are furious arguments about whether it should be in Wikipedia or not. You can read all the arguments for and against this one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater and the appeal against the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_August_17#Steven Slater. JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

super 8 (film)

Ive read the article on here before about the up-coming film between jj abrams and steven spielberg but all of a sudden it's gone

Super 8 (film) hasn't actually been deleted, it has been blanked and replaced with a redirect to J. J. Abrams' article, so this is not the place for this discussion, try Talk:J.J. Abrams. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 18:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The edit summary left upon the redirection is linked to WP:NFF, which provides the underlying rationale.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick Thomas-Webster

The page was deleted I believe in error. It is not advertising it merely lists the progress and achievements of Nick Thomas-Webster. It is a genuine reflection of his history through life. It may be that an attempt to delete was made out of jealously by a member of the public. No notice of intended deletion was made or advised. Would you please review your decision and advise. Many thanks in anticipation -92.16.240.100 (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response - is there any way the page can be edited offline to supply external links ie http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2154519/. I understand there were also links to reviews of movies in Hollywood publications

IMDB is user-editable, and thus is not a reliable source. There are ways of possibly moving the article to your userspace. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry IMDB is not user editable - all information is supplied to IMDB Editors who verify before publication. Here is an extract from their regulations:

Please note that titles submitted to the IMDb are not automatically added to the database but must be processed/checked by our staff. Detailed eligibility rules for new titles are listed on the submission form. IMDb retains the right to reject any work whose eligibility is dubious or/and not verifiable. That includes works that are in their very first development stages. They may be rejected at that stage but accepted later on when they are actually finished.

Eligible new titles normally take two to four weeks to be processed and added to the database, but may take substantially longer in some cases. If your title submission is rejected or held pending for some reason (normally because of lack of verification data), you will receive an email notice with details on how to correct the problem.

Also there was reference to other external links such as http://www.altiusdirectory.com/Entertainment/harry-potter-order-phoenix.php and http://phoenixmoviereviews.blogspot.com/ with the comment made "We have also fantastic performances by Richard Bailey, Albert Finney, Michael Gambon, Romola Garai, Rufus Sewell, Nick Thomas Webster and Youssou N'Dour". Are you saying all these are "User editable? " Can you please review your decision again in the light of new evidence presented and advise. Can you also advise why you chose to remove the page after some 5 years - was this as a result of a complaint? perhaps a fellow professional slightly jealous? also why was I not advised that this article was listed for deletion rather than a straightforward deletion

UPDATED August 20th 2010 - Still no response from B Wilkins - wonder if any Wikipedia Editors would care to look and comment please ???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.241.99 (talk • contribs)

  • Still  Not done Blogspot? User-edited/created. IMDb? Usable portions are "writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America" and "MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, that are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America". You may have the article userfied and attempt to properly source the article, but as it is a WP:BLP it needs much better sourcing. Failing to WP:AGF by railing on about "jealous fellow professionals" is ridiculous. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if you are correct in your assumption that only information you deem acceptable from IMDB are writing credits marked WGA and MPAA ratings, with which I disagree, you have not covered the external sources I have also mentioned. Why are they invalid? Please transfer the article to a user space so that I may reindex all the external sources and ask IMDB to ensure that all my works are verified by WGA - I will post you a response from IMDB and WGA here

File:MargueriteChapmanPressphoto.jpg

this is not my image, but it is necessary to illustrate the article, a deceased subject. I will fix licensing and all, thank you -Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Fixed, thank you!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

kingqueen

Many inquires have been sent via artist website to have a wikipedia page set up. reasoning for original deletion was not correct, page is to provide fans access to information on background of artist. -Andrewcurryla (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

1. There is no history of any article by this title.
2. We don't have articles on a lot of non-notable people. "to provide fans access to information on background of artist" is the job of a publicist, not an encyclopedia. Please read our guidance on conflict of interest and "spamming" Wikipedia for further details. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter Whitfield

The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. -Christopher1X (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


1. The original article was "speedily deleted" for a supposed "copy-write" infringment of an open review article on the book that Peter Whitfield wrote. The article deemed in violation is not copy-writed. After it was deleted i then post an article that only stated the facts of the Author's name and the titles of a few books he had written with reference links to Library archives of the Australian National Library to prove the author had written them, the date written (1800's). I also had reference links to a review of one of the books. the reference links were also determined "unreliable" by the deleting admin which is suspect to the admin's own opinion and not to the facts of the reliability of the review reference's author. i would like a restore of my last page creation of "Peter Whitfield" to my userspace and a review of that page alone for compliance as it seems it was deleted because i recreated the page so quickly. thanks.Christopher1X (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  • You already have that page. User:Christopher1X/Peter Whitfield and there is a note on your talk page telling you that and providing the link. The page was moved to your area because it has no souces and reads likes a personal essay. What I suggest you do is read some articles on similar people and get a feel for the structure and sourcing that is required. Then try and rewrite in that way. You can also use the Incubator if you would like to get other users involved in helping you fix this. Spartaz Humbug! 04:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Marigliani

prod deletion, now played a senior game -duffbeerforme (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.. Please follow-up by adding information to the article about senior play and please cite your source when you do so. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

MegaSearches

reasoning -Takapoisa2002 (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

☒N Not done. In addition to the fact that this was not uncontroversially deleted and so cannot be restored through this process (see the top of this page), you have provided no rationale for your request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

YoungBlood Services

I believe it was deleted in error. It was claimed by the nominator that it was not impporant. The article was not a new article. It has been on Wikipedia for almost 4 years (November 2006).

The subject of the article is a theatre training company of some importance due to the number of alumni who work in the industry (television and film actors), such as Laura Greenwood. It should not have been speedily deleted, it should have been put up for AfD discussion at most, or a proper request made of me (the creator) to improve the article if improvement was needed.

It would have been far simpler for all concerned to have not speedily deleted a four year old article. -Hu (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It was not deleted in error. It was an unsourced article that made no claim to significance or importance, regardless of how long it had existed in that bad state. The fact that it has important alumni and so on, might have constituted an indication of importance or significance that would have invalidated its deletion under CSD A7, but that was not in the article. Speedy deletion under A7 does not look at whether a subject is notable on the merits but considers the very lower bar of whether "importance or significance" is indicated as to what is in the article at the time it is considered for deletion. For that reason (unlike if it was deleted through AfD) it may be re-created and is not subject to deletion under CSD G4 as a repost but if you re-create it, cite your sources and put in the material showing its significance or it will likely just be re-deleted for the same reason. In any event, this page is not for requesting deletion of any page unless it was uncontroversially deleted, i.e., by prod or as housekeeping. You may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) and if you do so and that is not availing, your concerns can be taken to deletion review but I doubt you will get a different result. Finally, if you want to work on a better article that does not fall afoul of our policies and guidelines, I will provide you the article content if you request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How can I even discuss any of this while you see it and make allegations and I can't? Hu (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC) There was no discussion, not public and none that I was party to or had a chance to be party too. It was "nominated" at 10:08 and deleted at 10:17. That's speedy and no chance was given to contest it. Nine minutes. Hu (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be good also to see the history of edits on the article. Hu (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no discussion and no chance to contest anything for the very reason that it was speedily deleted which requires no discussion and no chance for anyone to contest anything. Your response reads as if you failed to take in that both I and Bwilkins above offered to userfy the article if you wanted it to work on rehabilitation. You didn't ask but your protests about trusting our "allegations" while you can't see the article (very frustratingly, as if there's' some adversarial court process in the offing and you need to see the evidence) I take as an implicit request for userfication. See User:Hu/YoungBlood Services. Please do not move back to the article mainspace until the reasons for its speedy deletion are addressed, i.e., at the very least add content showing the significance of the subject matter. Keeping out any promotional tone and adding reliable sources is of course the proper way to make an article that will not be ultimately deleted through some process, and you should be focusing on that rather than the process of how it was deleted, which you seem to be.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As a long time editor at Wikipedia, I understand that any article, even the article on Iron could be speedily deleted just because speedy deletion is speedy, and then the pieces picked up afterwards. Though I know it will never happen to Iron, I think a more refined policy would be that if an article has lasted some amount of time (say a year?) it would have to go through AfD. Clearly some important exceptions would be made, such as some cases of Biographies of Living People, and clearly any complex system has to be managed by people who are chosen to exercise judgement. Hu (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The version I created 20 Nov. 2006 would meet the standards you have set (notability, references, absence of advertising puffery), wouldn't it? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hu/YoungBlood_Services&oldid=88994331 Since then the article has gotten clobbered. If the version I created would meet the standards, I would like it restored to article space. If you give me permission I would like to do that in such a way that preserves the history.

Speedy deletion is a blunt instrument, a big hammer that obliterates the article. In this case I think that a simple reversion would have been much more effective. I understand that busy Admins don't have time for inspecting articles, but if they moved four year old articles from speedy deletion to AfD, then people who do have time could figure out what the problem was with what may have been a fundamentally sound article to save with a simple reversion.

Possibly it would save Admin time in the long run. Hu (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Tomwolff52/Patent Information Users Group

Draft for pending publication -Tomwolff52 (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I was preparing the subject page in my user space in advance of copying it under the page with the same title. There already was a placeholder for this organization on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_organization under "Think tanks, committees, institutes, non-profit and professional organizations." I thought it was appropriate to create a draft in my user space, and I was soliciting input from colleagues to make sure it was accurate and appropriate.

I was using many of the other pages as models and I had at least three refereed articles as references (those from the World Patent Information journal published by Elsevier Ltd.), as well as two other articles from professional magazines (Searcher. The Magazine for Database Professionals; and Database Searcher), which is far more than most other organizations' articles. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Competitive_Intelligence_Professionals is a similar kind of organization and its page is tagged for inadequate references and verification. Mine dealt with these issues by providing multiple references. I had expected that my draft article would make it clear that this 22 year-old, international, non-profit organization of information professionals was an appropriate candidate for inclusion on the Intellectual Property Organization page.

I would like the draft page restored so that I can take advantage of the time I spent creating it in advance of copying it to the main Wikipedia space under the organization's page. If Wikipedia is for some reason going to deny this page, I might as well discuss the matter with the proper authorities before spending yet more time. If it is likely to be allowed, please restore my draft page so I don't have to go through all the page creation work again.

Thanks for your consideration.

Tom

Tom, just a few notes: first, it was very promotional, right down to a copyright or registered symbol in the lede! The history and location of its conferences? Pure spam. The organization does not appear to have specific notability, although it might. (PS: don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done Tom followed up on my talkpage. I have restored it to userspace, nowiki'd out the categories, and removed some of the more offending material from the draft. I'll try and work with the user on some of the items. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nightcore

I feel that the Nightcore page was deleted unfairly, the reasons of it being deleted were that it depended on a previously deleted page, and that it didn't indicate importance or significance to the group. To put it bluntly, the second reason is a load of crap. I wish to expand upon the page, as the band has multiple albums and a large fan base both in America and overseas. Having the original page undeleted would help me greatly in creating a better page. -Raine342 (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning music. 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 musicians or music groups will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. The content of the article before it was deleted twice for lack of notability were only a single sentence that did not assert why Nightcore is notable. You're free to recreate it if you can address the aforementioned concerns. — ξxplicit 19:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_16&oldid=1138663819"