Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nihaldsouza (talk | contribs) at 11:23, 4 May 2013 (→JusTeach Foundation: new section). 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 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

🙈🙉🙊

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]

Tyler Brown

Please restore edit history for this recently re-created article. -Dolovis (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five Clove Media

reasoning -Anugupta06 (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romio Ndalama

he just discovered the auto dissociation of detegents which was troubling scientists for years-77.246.51.220 (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done. It was Romeo Ndalama with an "e". This article said nothing about discoveries, and did not give any credible indication of importance or significance; moreover, it was an attack article and could have been speedily deleted for that. JohnCD (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MinecraftDman

reasoning -86.144.38.244 (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is popularity isn't a reason, might I ask why SO MANY other Youtubers have a Wikipedia Page? Or Models, Actors and the like? Models don't MAKE clothing, actors don't MAKE movies, there is no reason whatsoever, on why they have a Wikipedia page. My theory is that they pay Wikipedia to be on here, but I can't prove that. Furthermore, if MinecraftDman can't have a Wikipedia page, then why can I have a mention somewhere? Even if it is completely false? MY name has been on here for 2,5 years. With false information, no source and no description at all. It's just there, somewhere on Wikipedia, placed there as a joke, by a friend. Now that is something that shouldn't be here. And here what I wrote earlier: "This page should not be speedy deleted because... First of all, if this isn't 'important' or 'significant' then why are there actors on Wikipedia? What have they done that makes them deserve a page, even if all they have done is being featured in ONE episode of ONE show? And what about other internet 'celebrities'? Totalbiscuit has a page, Huskystarcraft and HDstarcraft hava pages, Smosh has a page, RayWilliamJohnson, Yogscast has a page, and countless more have them. Why are THEY ALLOWED to have one,and MinecraftDman not? Pretty soon (probably within a month), they'll enter the top 100 most subscribed channel on YouTube, if that doesn't warrant a page, then what does? They have arguably helped in the sales of the game Minecraft and Magicka enormously, thanks to their popularity (which is still growing, as evidenced by the fact that their subscriber count on Youtube has risen by 2,000 since yesterday). Not to mention the fact that I myself bought Magicka because I saw them having so much fun. Other then that, they do charity events at times, which by itself should also be enough of a reason. Exactly what reason do YOU (the person who tagged this for speedy deletion) have, to remove this? On a final note, this page isn't complete yet and its my first wiki article, so im asking please let me have my first article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinecraftDman (talk • contribs)

Turntablist transcription methodology

This page describes valid notation/description for the art of turntablisim. TTM is used by notable DJs like QBert, DJ Jazzy Jeff and several others. -72.135.5.160 (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dolovis/Dan Bertram (ice hockey)

Please re-store my userfied article which was apparently unilaterally restored to main-space and then summarily deleted. -Dolovis (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libres y Locos

Every single album discography of El Gran silencio were deleted by users that did not know anything about the band. The band is known through out Latin America and their discography should be in Wikipedia just like any other band that is known though out Latin America. they are known just like Molotov,Cafe Tacuba, Los Fabulosos cadillacs are known in Latin America and other places. The page and including the rest of the discography should be restored thank you. -Subject21 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No article about any of El Gran Silencio's albums has ever been deleted, because there have never been any. The article Libres y Locos that was deleted in 2005 was about a fan-club of the Tigres de la UANL football team. So there is nothing to stop creation of articles about these albums, but read WP:NALBUMS: to have a stand-alone article an album must be independently notable, containing more than just a track listing, and with evidence of "significant coverage (of the album) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isosphere

Hi! My article has been deleted for : A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. I'd like to get back the code of the page. Would it be possible? I could delete the page myself, write a bigger text and host it later. Thanks and have a good day! -ISunr (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I'll put it into your user space. There'll be a note on your user talk page. Peridon (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12Volt-Travel

I would like to have my article replaced into my drafts so that I may continue to improve on it. -Stomp Enterprises (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - promotional article, editor has been spam-username-blocked. JohnCD (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew M. Seaman

Is a national journalist with a global audience and has a substantial social media audience (50,000+ followers on Facebook). -207.172.170.59 (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted after AFD, not subject to undeletion here. Should be discussed with deleting admin and, if still unsatisfied, taken to DRV. Given the thin and cursory AFD discussion, I wouldn't be surprised if a request for a relist were granted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Edward Saunders Reason

reasoning -JESLabour (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Please can you somehow send me back all my hard work that you deleted or put it in my Sandbox?

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. See WP:POLITICIAN, especially. If you enable emailing on your userpage and send me an email, I will email the contents to you. But this should not be restored, even to your sandbox. Just read all the (good) advice that has been given to you on various pages. Lectonar (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:: there is no prospect that this will be suitable for Wikipedia, but if you have not kept a copy the text can be emailed to you. If you want that, you need to enable email on your account: click on "Preferences" at the top of the screen, and at the bottom of the "User profile" tab fill in your email address (which will not be visible to anyone) and check the box marked "Enable email from other users". JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoniel Montilla

reasoning -Ottoniel Blanco 19:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

 Comment:: The article have been restored by the author, incredible redirecting to a Dominican Republic city. Osplace 01:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least that is kind of a creative attempt. Deleted and salted. Lectonar (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kokomo Bros

A7 deletion -GCDprog (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to have the "Kokomo Bros" page emailed to me and/or have it userfied to my account the deleted page, so I can see why it was deleted? The article was on a band that was somewhat prominent in central Indiana from ~1975-1979. One of the members recently passed away and was featured in a tribute by Cary Fields on Redbud Radio, aired on WICR (Indpls.) a while back. Thanks for any info you can provide.

Done. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyuki Do

reasoning -75.137.9.117 (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyuki Do

The Kyuki Do page was not mine, and I have not seen it (because it was deleted). Kyuki Do is a legitimate Martial Art and a page should exist for it. Please see the American Kyuki Do Federation website for validation.

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/Kyuki Do, 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 postdlf (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 09:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dealdevil - Tasmanian Deals

reasoning -Deal555 (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The article fails our policy regarding Wikipedia:Notability (web), also your username points to a conflict of interest. The advertising intent in creating the article is rather obvious, btw. Lectonar (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Bedran-Russo

expert professor in her field -69.209.203.222 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew M. Seaman

National journalist for Reuters -167.206.210.222 (talk) 18:25, 29 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 M. Seaman, 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 Drmies (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. Lectonar (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted Empire

I was still working on the article, I own and operate Haunted Empire LLC. and I do not understand why it was deleted. Many other Haunted Attractions have wiki pages and ours was no different than theirs. -Hauntedempire (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done and will not be done Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of your business. We have a zero-tolerance policy for spammers. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

the article was biographical article and was with proper guidelines, let me know the reasons while it was deleted so that i can correct mistakes -202.88.154.70 (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Dénis

I need to recreate the article and improve it to it's best for acceptance on Wikipedia. Thank You -Leviticus Mac (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Quack? Lectonar (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Perspective Design, Inc

I am not requesting that the page be undeleted, but I was hoping to have a copy of my edits sent to me as I made my contributions for a class -Jgardeck (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not kept a copy the text can be emailed to you. If you want that, you need to enable email on your account: click on "Preferences" at the top of the screen, and at the bottom of the "User profile" tab fill in your email address (which will not be visible to anyone) and check the box marked "Enable email from other users". Lectonar (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done See below, procedural. Lectonar (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soul of the Qur'an

reasoning -Ibrahimkk.1990 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page is a copyright violation of http://www.straightpathonline.com/‎. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consuelo Vanderbilt Earl

she was an important and unusual Vanderbilt whose public life was of great interest to New Yorkers -71.3.57.64 (talk) 20:44, 30 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Huang

Please restore to my userspace. Will try to see if I can salvage and add additional sources to prove notability. -Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, this page has had it's history fully revision-deleted, as well as being deleted as a page. I'll ask the deleting admin (DS) for some input. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not done and will not be done Sorry, but there's a good reason this page was oversighted as well as deleted; the text will not be restored. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hmm - what was the reason? Could you restore a redacted version or send by email? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you read the "will not be done" part: any admin who sent the contents of a wholly RevDel'd article would be desysopped on the spot. RevDel is done for a reason (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a mop and I don't understand all of the rules - so can you explain a bit more? The explanation for deletion by the closing admin was around notability; I assume it was hence revdel'ed because of something else in the edit history that went beyond that (for example, maybe someone posted her address or something). But to me, that doesn't mean that every word of the article is thus polluted. Is it thus not possible to redact - e.g. delete fully without trace, anything that would cause the revdel - and restore the article to my userspace so I can improve? I'd just like to start with something, rather than starting from scratch, and I find it hard to believe that every word of the article in question must be iced from the universe - but I never saw it. There's a lot of information hiding going on here...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For good reason. You would need to contact a member of the oversight committee to get at the deleted content in any case; regular admins can't see or restore it even if they wanted to. WP:UND is therefore the wrong venue for this discussion. Sorry, but that's how it is; please don't belabour the issue. If sources do exist, you would need to write the article based entirely on their content anyway; a prior unsourced page wouldn't be much help. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks - like I said I don't have a mop and there are many corners of this place I don't understand yet. Consider this dropped.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:143.231.249.141/Archive1

It's generally against Wikipedia policy to delete talkpages. The reason given in the log was "Archive of ancient IP talk page messages", which is not a valid reason. -— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Power Index

reasoning -76.249.28.226 (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very relevant, significant information. No valid reason for deletion.

Done Generally this is not the appropriate forum to request undeletion for a page deleted via AFD; however in this instance the AFD discussion was closed with minimal participation as soft delete. As such, I'm treating this as a contested PROD and restoring on request. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telos Publishing

Award winning independent publisher with many references elsewhere in Wikipedia. Feel the deletion is part of some sort of campaign against us! -DavidHowe (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Yes, there is always a conspiracy. Please, read WP:COI. Lectonar (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sayoc Kali

I would like to un-delete, revise and resubmit the article using additional third party sources. The page was originally deleted for having no sources and no notability. -173.55.147.205 (talk) 15:05, 1 May 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/Sayoc Kali, 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 Joe Decker (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. Lectonar (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Perspective Design, Inc

I am requesting an e-mail of my edits for personal records -Jgardeck (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lectonar (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Jain

Because it's the genuine article. Please do see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maniksh/Rajiv_Jain and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajiv_Jain -Maniksh 17:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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/Rajiv Jain, 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 J04n (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. Btw, I have deleted your 2 pages as G4, reposts of a page via AfD. Lectonar (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SiMPLE

SiMPLE is a valid programming language that is being used all over the world. It has been around since the 1990s. If programming languages like "Scratch" are allowed to appear in Wikipedia, then so should "SiMPLE -- the programming language for kids". I don't understand why it was deleted. -63.207.227.38 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. You say "I don't understand why it was deleted". It was deleted because an editor suggested it should be deleted as non-notable, and nobody expressed disagreement. Since you have now expressed disagreement, I have restored it. It's as simple as that. However, I don't see any evidence of notability, so the article may well be deleted if it is taken to WIkipedia:Articles for deletion. As for "Scratch", I know nothing about it, and have no idea whether it is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. That is, however, irrelevant to the deletion of SiMPLE. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arties children

reasoning -The spanish wizard (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Arties Children is an educational institution, and therefore is exepted from deletion for being a company under Article A7.[reply]

Not done and will not be done We do not restore hoaxes. Lectonar (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And "educational institutions" (whatever you mean by that) are not necessarily exempt from A7, if they are not schools. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers' Deficit Theories

I am a grad student at a university studying multicultural education. Teachers' deficit theories is a real thing! If you know anything about stereotypes and education than you would understand. I have professors and PhD's helping me with the information as well as other grad students. This is not spam, or advertising, this is for all purposes to educate people about deficit theories in education and how it effects student academics. -Teachers' Deficit Theories (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done and will not be done There is absolutely no doubt whatever that this article was written to promote a point of view. It contained such language as:

"The idea that ... is simply ignorant" - This is clearly promoting a point of view, and dismissing other views as "ignorant";
"This article is based on students perspectives" - A Wikipedia article must be neutral, and must not give priority to the perspective of any person or group;
"Some suggestions for solutions include educating yourself as a teacher and becoming ESL certified. Be supportive and get to know each of your students." - Here we have the author of the article telling others what to do.

Those are just three examples to illustrate the point, but the whole article, from start to finish, was clearly written to promote a particular view. You are perfectly welcome to write an article to try to publicise the views that you hold, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marathonbet

Dear Wikipedia editors, the 'Marathonbet' page I created was deleted as it was flagged up for advertising. I also got a message which read "spam warn". I can confirm that the page was not spam, and was not intended for advertising purposes. I wanted to contribute this page to document Marathonbet, as it is a large, reputable organisation and its competitors have their own Wikipedia pages. I am in no way affiliated with Marathonbet - other than as a customer. I worked very hard in compiling the information I used the article and spent a long time adding references. Please could you undelete the article. I always thought that Wikipedia was unbiased and neutral, so why should Marathonbet's competitors such as Pinnacle Sports and Unibet have pages, yet Marathonbet go without? I thank you for your help and co-operation, and I look forward to adding more Wikipedia articles in the future. Yours faithfully, Shaun Simmonds -Shaunsimmonds (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. You may try again, but you need to start from a clean sheet. You may not have intended this as spam, but it certainly read that way, full of glowing adjectives: "one of the most comprehensive sportsbooks online... a solid reputation as a reliable and trustworthy bookmaker... great odds and very fast payouts... extensive markets on a vast range of sports... the great odds on offer... impressive sportsbook... " etc. etc. That is not an encyclopedia article, it is ad-speak, very far from "unbiased and neutral", and anything like that is deleted at sight. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: don't be discouraged, you did a good job of finding references, but when writing you must put out of your mind any idea that you are writing for Marathonbet, or helping them catch up with or get an edge on their competitors. You are writing for Wikipedia about Marathonbet, no opinions, no glowing adjectives, plain facts only. The reader should have no idea whether the author thinks the subject is good or bad. If you have not kept a copy, I will userfy the article for you if you wish, to save retyping all the refs, but you should write new text from scratch. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East Hills Mall

Belated contesting of PROD. I seem to recall the article having sources, and precedent is that malls are generally notable. -Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. (I am not aware of any "precedent" that malls are generally notable, and I have certainly seen articles on malls go at AfD.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Donkeys (band)

reasoning -Benhur44 (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just created this page and was in the process of adding relevant info.

Done I suggest adding some evidence of notability as soon as possible, to avoid another deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Spitzer

Article was nominated for speedy deletion under the pretense that it didn't meet notability guidelines. I was unable to contest the deletion and/or improve the article. I would like a copy of the text to be able to examine it and improve upon it, before potentially resubmitting it. Thanks --DrCruse (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC) -DrCruse (talk) 22:36, 2 May 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. There was nothing in that which would make any kind of assertion of notability; see our standards for notability of musicians. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, each subject must have assertion of notability on its own merits (in this case notability for musicians requirements) as having a famous father does not confer notability. -- Alexf(talk) 11:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Busted Wings & Rusted Halos ( album )

I am right in the middle of trying to get the Somehow Hollow band page up and running, information for their album Busted Wings & Rusted Halos will be relevant once it is up. Can I please have the information back so I can use it once the band page is up? Thank you. -Mike Casarin 13:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done As your are working on the article of the band (of which you are a member, so let me point you to our policy regarding conflict of interest, it would be somewhat premature to restore the article about the album. The information is not lost and can be retrieved at any time. Lectonar (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And a little pointer: without proper reliable sources, as mentioned on the articles for creation page, the article for the band will not fly. Lectonar (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanota

reasoning -Sainidhanota (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi_Nakamoto

Bitcoin is the hotest new development on the internet this decade and the man who did it gets deleted from wikipedia, seemingly largely because he's using a Nom de Plume and so not much is known biographically. The works of the mind are 90% of your experience on the Internet, so it can not diminish recognition of the technical accomplishment that the author chose to use a Nom de Plume, and not reveal his True Name. There are many significant technical and literary works that were published under Nom de Plumes or anonymously, including for example some of he founding documents of the USA. The page as I recall what it said contained plenty of interesting information, and the question of "who is satoshi nakamoto" is even the subject of an upcoming documentary film, dozens of prominent media articles, and the question will likely remain of historical interest in perpetuity. I presume you realize the bitcoin currency has a coins in circulation in excess of $1billion as of may 2013. The innovations in bitcoin relative to the state of the cryptographic art are significant, and the implementation itself has been recognized as a work of security coding in its own right. This is not a trivial implementation, and the cryptographic ideas that were invented by Nakamoto and incorporated into it are new, innovative and significant. -Adam2us (talk) 21:54, 3 May 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/Satoshi Nakamoto, 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←✎) 22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Rajman AMR

This article is not in violation because it is about the person and his works and achievements, further more the information is 100% accurate and verifiable this information is important because this is an amateur/promoter who may be going to the professional level soon and there is already and will be more media coverage. Atrical was deleated because it does not have to do with the persons works and accomplishments when clearly it does indeed. http://www.amr-mma.com as well as http://www.fightabc.com/ -GlobeTekInc (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caia Mei

Unfair deletion when I had until May 9th to edit and show verifiable info. Englishyankee (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC) -Englishyankee (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

the women was a extremely important person in history and this page could represent the legacy of the duke of gandia and she was pregnant when the duke was killed the duke was the son to the Borgia pope this is the legacy of the most controversial pope of rome -124.190.146.131 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JusTeach Foundation

reasoning -Nihaldsouza (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I do understand that Wikipedia has a strict non promotion policy, and that this is essential to maintain the credibility of Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia is making a huge difference.

As Co-Founder of JusTeach an organisation which provides education to children in Mysore city, I believe that we also try to make a difference, and it is critical that potential volunteers who will be teaching these kids know about us.

I find it unfair that wikipedia only permits huge corporate bodies to have a wiki-page but that organisations such as ours who genuinely strive to make a change are blocked. I believe that this is not what wikipedia is about.

Please do find below a link to newspaper article in Si Lankas leading newspaper which speaks of the veracity of the work we do

http://www.dailynews.lk/2013/04/30/fea31.aspw

Also the link to our webpage: www.justeach.in

If you find any material in our wikipage which you believe must be removed, you could inform us about it before deletion, this makes the process more Just. I hope you do consider restoring our page to its original position

Thanks for your time,

Nihal D'Souza

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=553473432"