Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnCD (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 21 June 2012 (→Eric Metaxas: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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 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:Subway restaurant.svg

To one user, the arrows from S and Y would make them copyrightable. If that's the case, then how is the current logo ineligible for copyrights? -George Ho (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the wrong file. Popups show me an icon for a subway station, not the Subway logo. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As confirmed, Subway logo is ineligible for copyrights; there must be older revisions. If so, then they must be temporarily undeleted for me to copy-and-paste older, larger revisions. --George Ho (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Centre for Ecclesiology and Practical Theology

reasoning -Wahine99 (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine research centre at Ripoon College Cuddesdon, an Anglican theologiical college linked to the University of Oxford. I have twice tried to upload a page on OxCEPT and it has been deleted. My name is Dr Cathy Ross, a tutor at Ripon College Cuddesdon and Director of OxCEPT. All my contact details are below if you need to contact me. I have put up the page to create awareness of the Centre so that people can know what we are researching and get involved. The latest deletion claimed that it was imporper advertising - I do not see this as advertising but as information about our Centre and research interests.

Dr Cathy Ross MTh Coordinator, Tutor in Contextual Theology Director of OxCEPT Ripon College, Cuddesdon OX44 9EX tel: +44 1865 874404 fax: + 44 1865 875431 Direct dial: + 44 1865 877420

Not done but you are welcome to write a non promotional page suitable for an encyclopedia. The deleted one looked like a press release. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj K. Varghese

The upload is not intended to advertise and will give authentic references on the article too. -Manukariyad (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The deleted article was promotional in tone and without references.So you best start from scratch based on the authentic third party sources you have in mind. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOTO&TORRES

I want it moved to my user sandbox so I can revise it and ask help of other admins on improving it before uploading it again. I do want to make the article more viable for wikipedia users. Will change overall tone -Sentimentalstyle (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kameelion (musician)

If it can be restored, there can be a major clean up and he now has released his debut album which got into the Independent UK charts.

Please restore so it can be rectified. -CrackersTeam (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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/Kameelion, 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 Davewild (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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alternative subway logo.svg

This image is now ineligible for copyrights. I wonder if you have older revisions with high resolution. -George Ho (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done restored, but being an svg the size makes no difference to resolution. If you click the 2000px you will get this lafger version: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Alternative_subway_logo.svg/2000px-Alternative_subway_logo.svg.png and even a 4000px version can be pulled out from wikimedia: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Alternative_subway_logo.svg/4000px-Alternative_subway_logo.svg.png. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, putting in that link makes google images think that there is a 4000 pixel wide logo! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLYHT Aerospace Solutions Ltd.

I am not sure what the content was, but if the article was 5 years old, as the contester noted on the talk page (see Talk:FLYHT Aerospace Solutions Ltd.) then maybe the article should have been tagged for improvement. -Svgalbertian (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2008 Commonwealth Youth Games

It appears that User:Intoronto1125 moved this article to his userspace then requested that the page be deleted because it was in his own userspace. I can't remember if the original article was in a useful format or not, though at the time of deletion the user was on a bit of a self-destructive streak. If there is useful information, could this be restored so I can work on it? -SFB 11:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature

This page is for uncontrovertial undeletions only, and clearly this one is not uncontrovertial. Early closes of a PROD is indeed valid in certain cases. Please submit at WP:DRV for review if there are policy-based arguments to be made for its return (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

article was deleted disregarding Wikipedia policies -Anthrophilos (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be against policy to restore to your user space. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not contain any original research (NOR) and all information can be verified by establishing reliable sources (V). Burden of evidence is on my side. The article is a new project and sources will be added. BLP does not apply as this is a list, not a biographical article. If you delete an article next time, please abide by Wikipedia's deletion policies and leave time for a user to challenge a proposed deletion. Thanks. --Anthrophilos (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin - can you please expand on why it is a BLP violation? If it is really a problem then it should not be here, but I don't think that is the problem with the list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that I am not the only one who is having issues with him. --Anthrophilos (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Above post redacted by Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty horrific suggestion, and I suggest you retract. Off-wiki harassment can and will lead to blocks. Looks line a whiner video with no proof. Again, you should retract ASAP. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the understanding that the Nobel committee doesn't publicly announce who alternate candidates were, and that many of the people on this list are still living and fall under BLP, one has to consider that the sourcing must be pristine - absolutely 100% reliable sources that affirm that X was a Nobel prize candidate and not speculation. Reviewing the text, I see nothing anywhere to that sort. There's way too much BLP problems with this list that it is better to avoid it altogether, at least until we have the actual candidates from the committee themselves as evidence. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not post the video on Arthur Rubin on Youtube, but it illustrates the experience I am having with him, and apparently I am not the only one. I have no problem in accepting that the "List of potential Nobel Prize in Literature winners" be deleted IF it cannot be backed up by adequate sources. What bothers me, however, is the extremely rude attitude in deleting articles prior to its PROD deadline so that the proposed deletion can neither be challenged nor factual evidence established in time. --Anthrophilos (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it is better to avoid it altogether, at least until we have the actual candidates from the committee themselves as evidence - there is no reason to believe that the Academy will ever release names of nominees until at least 50 years have passed (currently, lists of nominees up until 1950 are available). So avoiding it altogether is the only sensible suggestion since the article is by default going to be original research (unless every living, published author who has an article on Wikipedia is included). --bonadea contributions talk 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, what effectively boils down to "List of people who failed to win an award" is hardly an encyclopedic topic in my view. Resolute 18:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we knew that they were on a shortlist of potential winners, that is actually useful information, as it would be a notable piece of information on the various biography articles; we don't strip out the losing nominees for Oscars or Emmys just because they didn't win, particularly often that there may be some controversy after the fact. Now, yes, I'm not seeing that similar type of coverage would happen with the Nobels, though I'd suspect that's part of the reasoning for the 50 year period of silence). But, that said, we must have reliable confirmation before even considering this list, so non-restoration still is the right answer. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of what I was thinking Resolute...WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply. Besides, how would one delineate this List? Every notable living author in the world could somehow be deemed a potential winner before a year's awards are announced...this proposed List would never be stable and would be in constant flux. Since, as the creator states, this is a "new project and sources will be added", that sounds like the content was possibly in more of a draft stage than an article ready for Main. Perhaps a workable solution would be to restore (if possible) the content to the creator's userspace so it can be edited according to Wikipedia guidelines and standards. I do, however, find the sentence that Max Semenik posted above (that is apparently from the List) somewhat troubling: "was created with the intention of inviting response and debate among readers and writers everywhere." ...sounds a little too much like WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTFORUM. Shearonink (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now this list has obviously created a lot of response even though not the kind of response I had hoped. I was rather thinking of a response which removes unsourced posts from the list and adds new verifiable "candidates" instead of deleting the list alltogether. The question of how to delineate or limit the list is of course a major issue. --Anthrophilos (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
first, I can't believe you're still asking for favours after both the ridiculous ANI report, AND the completely wrong filing of this REFUND request. Your grasp of AGF, policy, and community leave a lot to be desired. Nevertheless, your potential "list" will be a minimum of 50yrs delayed, and will only list people with a wikipedia article already, becuase being "considered" does not grant notability. So, tell me, is this a remotely useful article? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bwilkins, given your accusations I do not think that you expect a serious answer. But here is my point and I am happy to suggest my critique on your understanding of the word "community". You suggested on my talk page that I "apologize to Arthur directly". I don't think so! I have mentioned that I did not create the video, but that I used it to illustrate my point. Arthur is one of those "tinpot dictators" that Larry Sanger has referred to in one of his blog posts (http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=221). And I echo that "one of the most annoying things about the Wikipedia community is the way that people really do act like each others’ editors, forming their requests as orders and in other ways competing to outdo each other in how condescending they can be". This is not exactly contributing to a productive atmosphere on Wikipedia. I am giving Wikipedia a maximum of ten years. This project is already in decline (member numbers, less edits) and if there are no major changes to resolve these issues, especially the endless edit wars and self-appointed editor-dictators then I doubt that Wikipedia has a fruitful future. But I have not yet given up my hope and will see how this project evolves. --Anthrophilos (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... but you don't consider it condescending to infer that Wikipedia is in decline because people aren't agreeing with you? Ravenswing 00:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about facts, Ravenswing. Do your research! But this is not the place to deal with that. --Anthrophilos (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that this isn't the place for premises, predictions and suppositions? I would agree. I would certainly agree that this is a place solely devoted to discussing this particular request for undeletion, one in which essays as to the future of Wikipedia do not belong. Ravenswing 01:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the discussion at Jimbo's talk page (now archived) it looks as though Anthrophilos's 'facts' aren't accurate. The figures seem more flat than declining. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind the "fact" that this isn't Facebook; it's an encyclopedia. There are quite literally millions of articles about which pretty much everything that's going to be said has been said: long-defunct sports teams, classical Greek playwrights, obscure kings of the dim past. Explosive growth is far more likely to weigh us down with pop culture ephemera and the Internet meme of the day than with substantive, notable fact. Ravenswing 12:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: There are several absolutely valid reasons why this list was deleted. Anthrophilos has tendered not a single valid reason why the deletion was improperly done, nor how the article meets the various applicable policies and guidelines. Beyond that, Anthrophilos' grasp of those policies and guidelines is shaky; one wonders, for instance, how he could have possibly missed in his interpretation of WP:BLP the policy's very first sentence, which holds "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." (emphasis in the original). He would be better off in getting a better handle on those rules, which might mend his confusion as to why - as was the case at ANI as well as here - we keep failing to discuss the things he wants us to discuss on the terms he wants us to employ. Ravenswing 23:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and if he fails to remove his two renditions of the same NPA, he won't be contributing to Wikipedia for all of those 10 years (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Aeon1006/stats

Deleted via prod. Concern: Useless user subpage. -Captaincollect1970 (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web fraud detection

PROD reason was Advertisement for hybridsec.com. Undelete = any advert content can/will be removed and notable topic should not be deleted -Widefox (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you write this again. It reads like the introduction to a promotion by a company, building up a scare story and legislative requirement. It does not cover the topic at all Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm, rethink...with respect, I just wanted to fix a redlink to it, my feedback is that PROD undelete should be quicker than AfD/CSD where I'm used to getting a look myself via userfy. Widefox (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would restore a prod on request, but this would have been deleted as a G11 in it's earlier state. If you had email enabled I would send it to you. Any other admin can restore this if they want. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm, OK, I understand now I know its a CSD, thanks for bearing with me. Leaving that article aside, my feedback continues on Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion Widefox (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BmiRegional-Logo.png

Requesting undeletion of original version of this file which is the logo used by the airline at present. -Cloudbound (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: It appears that none of the versions actually match the version on their website now [1] linked from BMI Regional. Shouldn't the current one be uploaded as a new version instead? Skier Dude (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BMI Regional and British Midland International are two separate airlines that currently share the same website. Cloudbound (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Chetcuti

there was a source entered- IMDB, is that not acceptable? Also her website, her name was also already in wikipedia through two of the films mentioned in the article -Sarah27mix (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither IMDB nor someone's personal website (nor, in fact, Wikipedia itself) are acceptable as reliable sources affirming notability. As far as someone being mentioned on Wikipedia goes, that doesn't mean someone passes WP:GNG or other notability criteria. For instance, my own name is in a couple of articles concerning books I've written, but I neither qualify under the GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The bar - say - set up WP:NACTOR is quite high, and someone whose sole film credits are as "Actress #1" and a minor part in an indie film doesn't come remotely close. Ravenswing 05:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canyons Aquatic Club

The Canyons Aquatic Club is relevant in the USA Swimming world in that it is a top 20 team in the National Rankings. Furthermore, 2000 Olympic Gold Medalist Anthony Ervin grew up as a member of this club and is relevant again as he is making a comeback and has a legitimate chance of being a 2012 Olympian.

Mention of his comeback can be found in several places but most notably in Sports Illustrated here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/nick_zaccardi/05/11/anthony.ervin/index.html -Santaclaritaswimmer (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Neutrality (talk), who proposed it, and who may wish to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you could contribute. What the article needs is references about the club that establish WP:Notability by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As an Olympic medallist, Anthony Ervin is undoubtedly notable, but that notability is not inherited by the club. JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael David Crawford

reasoning I would like this to be restored to User:Ryan Vesey/Michael David Crawford so that I can review the information and see if more sources exist so that it can be created. This is in response to User talk:MichaelCrawford#Who Do I Have To Blow Around Here To Be Considered Notable Enough For A Wikipedia Article? (Not exactly excited about the section heading). If desired, I will go to Deletion Review prior to moving the article to the article space once the problems are addressed.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC) - Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Congratulations, I think, on taking up that rather uninviting challenge. As this was deleted after a messy AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael David Crawford you need to go through DRV before restoring it to the mainspace, unless you get agreement from Scientizzle (talk) who closed the AfD. As you can see from the AfD, his fan club wasted a lot of energy trying to show notability by piling up trivial references, mainly to things he wrote - you will need to do a good deal of trimming. WP:AMOUNT is a useful essay you may find you need to point to. JohnCD (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I hope that my work here will go to some use. It appears to be a difficult project. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinterest

I would like a copy of the deleted version of this page emailed to me. This was an article I re-created afterword. -Marcus Qwertyus 18:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot there, but  Done. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go Rollerblading Day

To copy/save text artical for re-write -Bakerized (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nigri

Think the article can meet WP:People with some sources added to it, such as:

http://kotaku.com/5900134/skimpy-outfit-gets-lollipop-chainsaw-cosplayer-asked-to-leave-pax http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/06/01/talking-to-jessica-nigri-about-cosplay/ http://www.complex.com/video-games/2012/06/interview-jessica-nigri-talks-life-as-juliet-starling

I'd like to try and salvage what was there as a basis for sourcing her bio. --- Norvy (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable-energy economy

not my article but useful topic, can this be userfied to me so I can work on it? -Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Thom Huge

The Thom Huge article is now no longer a redirect to Garfield and Friends, because the user TenPoundHammer dumbly thought, like a serious blockhead, that Garfield and Friends was Thom Huge's only role. To tell the truth it was actually NOT his only role, and that's a FACT. -Interlude 65 18:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Talk page restored, but I have placed on your user talk page a formal warning for this blatant and uncalled-for personal attack. JohnCD (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Ceci

Expired PROD. Contesting deletion of notable hockey player. -Nitalake (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Sveinsson

While the entry was just a stub (so far), he is notable having designed a number of Icelandic lighthouses, including the Knarraros lighthouse. If in fact he does not qualify for an article, then we should un-wikify his name in Knarraros lighthouse. Thanks --Ira -Ira Goldstein (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radek Faksa

Expired PROD. Requesting undeletion of notable hockey player -Nitalake (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olli Määttä

Expired PROD. Requesting undeletion of notable hockey player -Nitalake (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Trouba

Expired PROD. Requesting undeletion of notable hockey player -Nitalake (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Vasilevski

Expired PROD. Requesting undeletion of notable hockey player -Nitalake (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Lutton

Matthew Lutton is a well known and esteemed individual. He is a prolific theatre and opera director in Australia with an extremely high profile and many notable directing credits to his name. He is represented by HLA Management Pty a theatrical agency in Sydney Australia, who are the company requesting that this article not be deleted. His Agent can be contacted on (Redacted) should this matter wish to be discussed or any information verified. -Hla123 (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Admins do not undelete articles based on the request of the subject or people associated with him - Wikipedia is not free advertising. In any case, A7s will not be overturned here. In order to be included in Wikipedia, a subject MUST be proven notable, by way of having multiple reliable sources discussing him. This is not negotiable in the slightest. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 07:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Bazley.jpg

Richard Bazley, who is pictured in the image, and who owns the copyright has now been kind enough to email Wikipedia using one of the Wikipedia templates to release the image under a creative commons license. Unfortunatel;y it took a few days to arrange this, in which time the image was deleted due to lack of licensing information. -Dave.m.houghton (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For this sort of thing we usually will await for the OTRS volunteer to confirm the email. Otherwise if you have an OTRS number we can proceed from there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aemulor

PROD reason from 2007 was A fairly clear-cut example of a piece of software that doesn't pass WP:N. No secondary sources are given per WP:RS. I have retreived a number of sources which I believe establish notability. The software is under continuing development. --- Trevj (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you It's the same piece of software, so I can now import my content. -- Trevj (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May this be a message from jesus christ

reasoning -74.192.38.129 (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)  Not done, for me the page has not yet been created, so forget it's deletion :) Dipankan (Have a chat?) 09:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to give us the exact title of the page you mean, including the same capitalisation, or else the username of the account that created it. JohnCD (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

plantuml

I believe the reason for the delete (quoted: "No indications of notability. Non-notable software. Unreferenced.") was incorrect. PlantUML is refrenced in at least 2 places ( List_of_Unified_Modeling_Language_tools and Graphviz) and does have some notable features (which I would be happy to spell out). I have found this software to be very useful and to fill a niche which is otherwise only filled in a limited fashion by a few online pay services. As a GPL alternative to those services, it seems to me that it deserves a bit of explanation. -Shdwjk (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This article was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlantUML so, as stated at the top of this page, it will not be undeleted here. If you believe that the discussion was wrongly decided, or you have new information, you should first approach user Ron Ritzman (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion. Then, if you concerns are not addressed, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Metaxas

This page was apparently deleted according to the noteworthy criterion in 2010. However, Metaxas is a noted author whose book on Bonhoeffer was the #4 NYT nonfiction bestseller on Sept. 25, 2011. He is referred to in 17 Wikipedia articles. He gained a new audience as the speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year (the only such speaker to not have a Wikipedia page). I am actually not a fan and came to Wikipedia looking for a NPOV on him. -Hugetim (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. It was in fact only deleted last month. I will notify user Mfhiller (talk), who proposed it, and who may decide to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you could contribute. Any references to comment about him in reliable sources that you can add will help. JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=498690767"