Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
DangerousPanda (talk | contribs)
38,827 edits
Line 399: Line 399:
<i></i>reasoning -[[User:Head of Communications|Head of Communications]] ([[User talk:Head of Communications|talk]]) 14:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
<i></i>reasoning -[[User:Head of Communications|Head of Communications]] ([[User talk:Head of Communications|talk]]) 14:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
:<!-- Begin Template:UND -->[[File:X mark.svg|18px]] '''Not done''' - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our [[WP:CORP|guidelines for inclusion of articles about companies]]. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be [[WP:N|notable]] if there exist multiple [[WP:RS|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 [[WP:CSD#G11|unambiguous advertising or promotion]], or if they [[WP:CSD#A7|do not contain a credible assertion of the significance]] of the subject.<!-- End Template:UND - ndc --> Written like an advertisement to boot, and your username leads me to provide this link to our policy regarding [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 14:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
:<!-- Begin Template:UND -->[[File:X mark.svg|18px]] '''Not done''' - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our [[WP:CORP|guidelines for inclusion of articles about companies]]. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be [[WP:N|notable]] if there exist multiple [[WP:RS|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 [[WP:CSD#G11|unambiguous advertising or promotion]], or if they [[WP:CSD#A7|do not contain a credible assertion of the significance]] of the subject.<!-- End Template:UND - ndc --> Written like an advertisement to boot, and your username leads me to provide this link to our policy regarding [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 14:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

== Universal Greeting Time ==

*{{revisions|Universal Greeting Time}}
<i></i>This is a fairly widespread phenomenon on Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and some other forms of online chat. It was established as a way to prevent the the lines of text generated every time a user entered a chatroom with some form of day-time greeting, and every other user in a different time-zone pointed this out. -[[Special:Contributions/213.57.140.57|213.57.140.57]] ([[User talk:213.57.140.57|talk]]) 18:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:25, 23 April 2013


Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions nor to address the pending deletion of any page.
Shortcuts

Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process.

This page is only for requesting undeletion of articles or files which have already been deleted. If the article you are concerned about is still visible, but has a warning message (template) at the top, please do not post here, but follow the instructions on the template or on your talk page.

Note that requests for undeletion is not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.

float
float
float
float
Please enter the page's title to request its undeletion:

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

File:Total eclipse film.jpg

Is this image similar to File:Total eclipse poster.jpg? -George Ho (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

list of school cheating scandals

reasoning -Cinnamon colbert (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The page has already been userfied, and can be found at User:Cinnamon colbert/List of School Cheating Scandals. The page in its present form is not ready for mainspace. Lectonar (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burnpur cement

the article has been written by me, so it does not violate any copyrights. Secondaly, the company is a leading manufacturer of cement in india and hence is of importance to the public(a proof of this is that many people have searched for the wiki page of the company on google) this was the reason that prompted me to create this article -Rishabhgutgutia (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. Lectonar (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aneuch

The reason given for the page being deleted is that the software was "only" created 7 months ago, and doesn't "seem" to have any notability. The 7 month comment notwithstanding, the latter part seems woefully subjective. I'm the developer of the application the page covered, and can assure you I'm quite actively working on it. I see no reason why the page should be excluded from the community. -Cajunman4life (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Let me point you to our policy about conflict of interest, though. Lectonar (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will review COI. I didn't intend it to be an advertisement, merely information. I'll do what I can to insure I'm not self-promoting, I only wanted information about it to be available on the source I most use myself for info (wikipedia). Thanks.--Cajunman4life (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is more: even if not intended as advertising, results from Wikipedia usually show in the first 10 results, so what you get is: unpaid advertising. Better to let someone else write articles about something I am (professionally) related to, imho. Almost no one is that altruistic ....but we have our policies, and so the article is restored. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebegoose

reasoning -178.16.14.246 (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Should you be blocked for even asking that this little piece of nonsense-vandalism be restored and thereby wasting more of our time? Nah, but the playground is thataway.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certain(horse)

When looking at wiki Arkansas Derby winners over the past 100 years, the yea 1999 Certain has + by his name. the only refence that Wiki gives is Valhol was the winner. So why not explain the + on this horse. It is the most important black mark in horse racing history. Valhol's jockey Billy Patin was caught cheating by using a electical device to make his horse run faster. This info needs to be told somewhere in wiki. So we should just let cheaters not get noticed. The winning jockey for this race would have recieved a paycheck for 10% of the winning purse or $30,000 would have been his part of the winning purse money. Dont let cheats get away with it let the story be told. -Certain99 (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. Lectonar (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certain(horse)

Wiki admin says the info is to short and not notible. Here is my take on that. Then lets delete most of the racehorses from the database becasuse they are all to short. Certain that competed against Cat Thief has twice the info and is just as important as Cat Thief. If you turn on the TV and cheating is brought up in horse racing the 2 horses brought up everytime is the 1999 Arkansas Derby where jockey Billy Patin is accused of using or caring a electical stimulating device during the race. The +++++++ sign next to Certain name in 1999 Arkansas Derby needs to be explained -Certain99 (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. Lectonar (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nakedmates

reasoning -Longtimecoming (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

I want to retain it for future reference as and when it meets your noteworthy requirements.

Not done This is not a reason for undeletion. An article can always be written when the requirements are met (at some undisclosed point in the future). Lectonar (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wen Yann Shih

reasoning -69.108.100.35 (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Lectonar (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WPTHEMOVIE

It was a redirect to User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie. It was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion R2, as a cross-namespace redirect from mainspace. But this redirect wasn't in the mainspace. Looks like the speedy deletion was an error. -211.234.196.147 (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also restore Wikipedia:USERSSTRIKEBACK for the same reason. -211.234.199.37 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Insulations (India) Limited

Lloyd Insulations (India) Limited page is about Lloyd Insulations, which is 55+ year old company and Turnover is more than $150Millions.Insulation Product manufacturer in India. Need some time to update more information to others -LIIL-AGS (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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.. And the deleted article(s) included much advertising speech, not to talk about your obvious conflict of interest. Just read the information provided on your talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thejackalbe

people have complained about my article and I have attempted to fix it, but people still seem to have a problem. I have now completely redone the article and fixed all problems, but can't seem to edit it as it was deleted. Also I am a very new user as I only joined a day ago, so I need to learn from my mistakes TheJackoboy (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC) -TheJackoboy (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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.
Try submitting it at articles for creation, and you will get a step-by step guide on how to write an article; btw, if the article should be about yourself (one never knows ;)), mind our policy regarding conflict of interest. Lectonar (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRUNK TANK

This is, (DRUNK TANK), a Vancouver local band of nearly 8 years with many notable live shows with acts like The Sunhumans and doa, snfu and ron reyes of black flag...one relase is out with songs featured on a number of punk rock compilations and the first full length album is being indie released this summer...we are just supporting indie music!!! and my local scene...the band does have a following...and is not the same band as the u.s.a. "Drunktank"....hence the title difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis rotting (talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Society for Muslim Advancement

I don't remember this article, but it might make sense to merge its material to the articles about the co-founders, then redirect to founder page. Because the article has already been deleted, I have no way of knowing what it contained. I'm surprised it went through the speedy deletion process rather than the normal deletion process if there was a notability question. - Flatterworld (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done "a New-York based nonprofit organization founded in 1997 to elevate the discourse on Islam and foster environments in which Muslims thrive. The organization is dedicated to strengthening an authentic expression of Islam based on cultural and religious harmony through interfaith collaboration, youth and women’s empowerment, and arts and cultural exchange" ... nothing much worth merging anywhere, pretty much WP:PUFFERY (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NY/NJ Snowflake Youth Foundation

In addition to trying to salvage what we created, this is a document created for work. Thanks. -JasonCan2 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Envita

Deleting this page was unnecessary. It was not an advertisement. I tried to write it as objective as possible and was working to improve it. There was a "notability" deletion warning, but I was working to prove the notability. Envita is just as notable as MAYO Clinic or Cancer Treatment Centers of America, but at least the page for CTCA was given a warning. I was given until Saturday to prove that (which I believe I did a sufficient job of, using multiple sources outside of the website and remaining objective) but this speedy deletion request came out of left field. Please reverse this deletion so I can instead improve the article. -Blatantly Evil (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. A paid interview (look carefully at 4:30) on a local network affiliate, hardly satisfies either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. I agree that the article is not advertising, but there isn't a hint of importance asserted, so it might as well have been deleted under WP:CSD#A7. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I can try to find more proof of importance, but I'm glad you at least agreed it wasn't an advertisement. I personally value objectivity very highly and my only goal was to improve on that. Blatantly Evil (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Transport for London Forum

There is no reason for deletion, there wasn't a discussion on the reasons for deletion it just simply disappeared. It's a genuine and helpful article which has a right to be included on Wikipedia. -Kylesw555 (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Lievano

reasoning -Tonbo0422 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I request that the deletion of the start of my page for musician Joaquin Lievano be un-deleted.

I did not put the page up for my own edification and further, knowing it was probably going to be deleted by your zealous axe-wielders probably before the last letter had been typed, I did not go into detailed linking or any other information other than to wonder aloud WHY no page had been created for Mr Lievano.

Apparently, your deletors do not even do even a bare minimum of checking (say, typing "Joaqin Lievano" into a Google search box -- perhaps it would waste a valuable 12.86 microseconds from your busy deletion schedule) or they would have quickly discovered that Lievano is not an 18-year-old wannabe musician acting on his heart's desire to see himself on *gasp* WIKIPEDIA! but is a seasoned professional musician, as mentioned in my brief blurb, who not only has put out a significant number of commercial musical CDs but has performed live on stage with such jazz greats as Jean-Luc Ponty, Andy West and many, many others.

Please take the time out to visit the following links:

http://guitargear.org/2007/07/17/yet-another-incredible-guitarist-joaquin-lievano/ http://www.amazon.com/Joaquin-Lievano/e/B000APVN5G http://grooveshark.com/#!/artist/Joaquin+Lievano/1865705 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Messenger (note guitar player in the credits) http://www.allmusic.com/album/one-mind-mw0000198220

I am not a friend of Lievano's but as lover of jazz and guitar i couldn't help but be appalled that Lievano does not even rate a sentence on Wikpedia.The least you could have done was email me at the email address provided and at least asked why this guy deserved his own page, but let me tell you -- he's more deserving of his own Wikipedia page than is Joaquin Phoenix.

Obviously your job is not to question anything, merely robot-like, delete anything about anyone who doesn't come with a begging bowl in hand. Pretty shoddy treatment of a very fine musician. I can almost guarantee that Justin Bieber's Wikipedia monument is at least 17 printed pages long where he deserves prompt and unquestioning deletion as opposed to Lievano, who DOES NOT deserve such dismissive attitudes.

However, from what I know of Wikipedia's "moderators" the futility of such protests matches the futility of trying to outwit the Borg.

Sleep well and don't let the air escaping from your inflatable Madonna doll disturb you overmuch.

birote

I liked that article it was about my native village birote and i found lot of new incredible information.I personally don't think the content of the article was a nonsense.It was interesting for the residents of birote and for those people who have had some relation with Birote. Only part of the content is present and lot of valuable content has been deleted. Anyhow, I am requesting you that if it is possible kindly restore the content of the article Birote. i shall be thankful. -Candicell (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sekai no Owari

restore disambiguation page. I'd like the disambiguation page restored (moved to Sekai no Owari (disambiguation) on restoration), since there are multiple topics for that term, and there should be a dismabiguation page, not deleting all the disambiguation information to move the band page. -70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Sekai no Owari (band)

I'd like to keep the redirect to the band page with the restoration of the disambiguation page -70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Grayham Doe

I'm requesting that the former page "Andrew Grayham Doe" be userfied as I am willing to take the groundwork developed and add further references and reliable sources before moving it back into the mainspace. The writer in question is comparable to someone like Alan W. Pollack and has been used as a reference by a myriad of authors distributed by a range of publishers. Though an argument for the delete was the use of liner note essays in the sourcing of content, they were published by Capitol Records and as such are officially sanctioned by the record label of the band and exhibit his ties to the organisation. -Jamekae (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - As announced at the top of the page, this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Grayham Doe, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Courcelles (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, ignore that: User:King of Hearts pointed out that a userfication request isn't the same as a straight undeletion, so I've userfied it instead; it's now at User:Jamekae /Andrew Grayham Doe. My bad, sorry for being over-hasty. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason May

Page was deleted by Yunshui, under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I fail to see how a person who presumably knows nothing about Welsh actors is qualified to decide whether or not Jason May is notable. I have a vested interest in Welsh films, and can state, for the record, that Jason May is a prominent professional Welsh actor, and most definitely a notable personality. The page consisted of a brief precis, and was acknowledged as such, being marked as a stub. I would like the page replaced. At the very least, I would like access to the template, so I can add the relevant sources. -Cromanology (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Cromanology (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Cromanology/Jason May. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chunqiu Institute

I'm not by any means trying to promote it, and I believe I have written it in an encyclopedic fashion, please allow me to modify it further -Liebeistkaelteralsdertod (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. Even if not deleted as advertising, it still does not pass the notaility threshold. The other problem really is the tone in which it was written: talking about "missions" is advertising-like. Incidentally, let me also point you to our policy regarding conflict of interest. Lectonar (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KingSheharyarMirza(Singer)

reasoning -118.103.224.11 (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Lory Vanderbeek

reasoning -216.165.236.16 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valid candidate for governor of Nevada. Ran in state race two years before, won 49,000 votes.

Poecilotheria rajaei

Article was deleted because "it was created by a sock or a blocked user", however the article should stand on its own merit, not how it was created. This article is about a new species of tarantula that is notable in itself and had reliable references, and multiple editors. -Martin451 (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has now created this as a redirect to the generic page for Poecilotheria, however I still request the undeletion. The speedy criteria template:db-g5 should not apply as the article had enough subtantial edits.Martin451 (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Ospina

Review, in order to add sources for Verifiability of subject and content -Iospin (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cycen fjodr

Undeletion would be optimal so that Cycen Fjodr page could be updated to reflect the importance of the organization. Administrator(s) for the article stated there there was no proof of significance of the organization due to a lack of web searchable sources. Physical Sources in the SMU library which reflect the significance of the organization have since been found confirming importance of the organization.. -Goodoleboy1920 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodoleboy1920 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)goodoleboy1920[reply]

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Goodoleboy1920/Cycen Fjodr. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact Peridon (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. Student organizations cannot often show independent notability, which requires references showing coverage from outside the University environment, and are usually better covered by a mention in the University article. Read Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines, especially the section Student life. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Union J (The X Factor)

reasoning -CALauraPalmer (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove this article, as I am continuing to add content and references. Other finalists of The X Factor who have not yet released any music have their own Wikipedia page, so I feel that Union J should have an article based around their band too.

The Gurdjieff Journal

Originally this article was deleted because of the two following automated reasonings: 1. It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. 2. It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. The Gurdjieff Journal is published trianually and has been in continuous publication since it's establishment in 1992. It is the first journal devoted to G.I. Gurdjieff and The Fourth Way. Included in every issue are timely feature articles, essays, interviews and book and film reviews expounding and applying the principles, perspectives and practices of the teaching to everyday living. It is a mature journal standing on it's own as do similar journals like Parabola (magazine), Christianity Today, etc, yet carries no advertising which tends to influence what is written to appease advertisers. Also, I have an expanded version to fill out the article notating all the issues, images of critical issues, etc. -Waterman12 (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article does read as spam. It needs to be written from a neutral point of view and requires referencing to independent third-party reliable sources to both show notability and verify the information content. That being said, the article has never been deleted and so there's nothing to ask for here. The article has only been redirected.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe of Frog

This is a notable organization in Bristol, I am sure that I can improve it's sourcing to become a reasonable article and was not given time to due to an accidental block. -TheGreenPhantom talk 13:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie kit

This is a very popular term now with several major manufacturers like Gerber producing Zombie kits. -TheGreenPhantom talk 13:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jewcake

Not an attack page. Just a pastry. Can improve sourcing. -TheGreenPhantom talk 13:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filopateer Maged

This page should not be deleted because it discusses an important person in Egypt who is a young musician -Filo 17198 (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

reasoning -Georgeanton (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This is a message from George Anton for the wikipedia editors:

Do you really believe this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/George_Anton some idiot

is more relevant than I?

Bullshit!

I'm #1 and the FIRST YouTube Movie Producer IN THE WORLD

Show me another one.

oh, you can't hahahaha

because there is none but me I SHAPE PUBLICS OPINION


George Anton Hollywood Film Director <email redacted>

www.YouTube.com/AntonPictures

Not done - Wikipedia is not a place for you to shape public opinion about yourself, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reason is that it is about a person which has given me rights to copy paste details from his website & it is about that person who is Dj famous in Queens NY -m^-_eema**S 08:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. Favonian (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_D._Christenbury

personal records -IvanB85 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


IvanB85 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to be emailed the content of the deleted article? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Florida Georgia Line.png

Falsely tagged as unfree. Flickr linked showed that it was clearly licensed per Creative Commons, thus making it acceptable for use. -Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Randy Houser.png

Falsely tagged as unfree. Flickr linked showed that it was clearly licensed per Creative Commons, thus making it acceptable for use. -Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Gerencser

Creator is making a good faith attempt to secure sources. (I am the guy who called for the speedy delete; creator is User:kengilmour.) please userfy to him. -Nat Gertler (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Kengilmour/Bruce Gerencser. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact RHaworth (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; also, read carefuly the important policies WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:Neutral point of view. JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. I see the deleting admin has emailed the text but declined to userfy, and re-reading the article I can see why. Will explain on Kengilmour's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Coleman

deleted because subject was non-notable because subject is not the subject of source articles. The standard for notability, though, specifically states that that the subject need not be the main topic of the source material. Even so, sources included a profile of the subject in a major newspaper as well as interviews with the subject in high profile media - WIRED, CNN.com etc. -198.84.235.45 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Doctorspectronic (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) 09:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Frank

Curious as to why this page was deleted. I am not associated with Mr. Frank, but am an avid reader of his work and the site he edits, CounterPunch, which is also a monthly magazine. The site is one of the most popular left-wing political magazines in the United States. As such, this alone is notable as Frank's place in this spectrum is significant. Please visit's CounterPunch's page for verification of this assessment. Additionally, Frank has been awarded journalism awards and is often cited as a significant environmental journalist. I believe the references I used as well as the external articles I linked verify this. Please review. reasoning -Counterp (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done - As announced at the top of the page, this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Frank_(4th_nomination), it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William J. McCormack (businessman)

This article is of an historical biography and contains original as well as properly sourced information. Any photographs assoicated with the article are either linked from existing wikipedia pages or is noninfringing fair use. -Smarticvs (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:. This page is for requests about articles which have been deleted, and this one has not. The notices on your talk page about the unclear copyright status of two images give a link to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and that is where you should explain why you believe these images are copyright-free or fulfil all the ten requirements of WP:NFCCP. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

🙈🙉🙊

Deleted under R3, which is for typos and misnomers, but this was an alternative spelling, not a typo or misnomer. That is, R3 is for titles that people use in error, not for accurate titles, however rare or unusual. (For those who can't see, this was a redirect to three wise monkeys. — The Great Redirector 19:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkinsons...The Opticians

I have no idea why it was banned I don't work for them and people should know about the brand it offers a little bit of history and some interesting facts. It is unfair to segregate smaller chains like that when you are working towards an infinite database of knowledge. -Dreppi (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - As announced at the top of the page, this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilkinsons...the Opticians, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Bbb23 (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) 22:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaseurope

reasoning -Head of Communications (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. Written like an advertisement to boot, and your username leads me to provide this link to our policy regarding conflict of interest. Lectonar (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Greeting Time

This is a fairly widespread phenomenon on Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and some other forms of online chat. It was established as a way to prevent the the lines of text generated every time a user entered a chatroom with some form of day-time greeting, and every other user in a different time-zone pointed this out. -213.57.140.57 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=551834991"