Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 36

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Archive 30 ← Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 → Archive 40

Robert Aubie

there was little or no effort to contact anyone in relation to Robert Aubie-- The article cited for the decision that Robert Aubie and/or the award he received was not notable was a one paragraph abstract from the toronto stars archives-- The comments on the deletion log show little or no knowledge of either the award or Mr Aubie himself-- he was not awarded within his district nor was he simple bunched with a groups of teachers. Being someone who has detailed information in regards to both the award and Mr Aubie's accomplishments should prove evidence enough to restore the page!

Please contact me via email llrsf@hotmail.com - 204.187.20.95 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done. The article was deleted after a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Aubie (2nd nomination) so, as stated at the top of this page, it cannot be restored here. If you believe the debate was wrongly decided, or you have new information, you should first contact user Courcelles (talk), the administrator who closed the debate. Then, if you are not satisfied, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

TandM Productions

This is a legit article with no reason to be deleted. Please put this back up if you could, very much appreciated. Thanks. -Md8d4 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done"Their headquarters currently live in Hollywood, California. Their major hits, Dinker and Frederick have got a lot of views."? This is blather, and was properly deleted speedily, as making no credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sakthimicro_System

i understand now your Privacy policy, wikipedia important for students plz next time we will rightway -112.135.4.12 (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done. The problem was not privacy: it was advertisement and lack of references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to show notability. JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

BugNET

BugNET is a issue tracking product that has a community that is growing larger over time and deserves to be mentioned along with the other issue trackers on various pages in Wikipedia such as this #REDIRECT Comparison of issue-tracking systems. I'm not a developer for BugNET nor a user but I am somebody who evaluates various issue tracking software and realizes that BugNET is part of the landscape of available products for the purposes of reporting and tracking defects and features in software and thus is deserves it's place in Wikipedia so that the community can formulate a consensus description of this product for the benefit of others who are looking to learn more about the BugNET product and about it's history and position in the issue tracking software landscape. -Jeffreyhartpierson (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No notable third-party coverage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  Not done - As announced at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and has no applicability to articles deleted after any deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BugNET , 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 Cirt (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. As a general note, being part of some product landscape isn't the same as being notable even though that may not always be clear from some of the lists people create. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Pmstudy

Please undelete the above article . They were work in progress with initial material sourced from their own material. I , the author of the article was planning to write all the content over time to comply with Wikipedias' standards. The speedy deletion was too speedy. In fact, I had not even finished tagging the page. There was no discussion. It is OK even if the revert is to my User page.

Vinay84 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done. This cannot be restored because much of it is copied from http://www.pmstudy.com/aboutus.asp. Wikipedia cannot host copyright material, even in a user page, unless a formal copyright release has been made as described at WP:DCM. Minor re-wording is not enough to avoid a copyright violation - please read Wikipedia :Copy-paste.
In any case this material is much too promotional for an encyclopedia article, being written in the first person ("We also offer very economical and effective... We will very soon be teaching classes in Australia... ") and using "peacock terms" like "economical and effective... quality education... the best 100% Moneyback Guarantee... the leading global institute... " That is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and the WP:Verifiability policy requires that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." JohnCD (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Courier of Forest City, NC

I believe this article should be undeleted because this is the newspaper of record in Rutherford County, NC. The newspaper has been in existence since 1978 and is referenced in another Wikipedia article for Paxton Media Group. Also, the page follows the same layout as The Daily Courier in Arizona. Maybe I'm not understanding the difference, but why would one page be deleted and not the other? -Jvolcsko (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored, as there is a pretty strong presumption of notability for newspapers. I have warned the original poster about his strong conflict of interest, and have begun a cleanup. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Joy_Dawson

The information about Joy Dawson found on this page was accurate and she is a notable missionary of our times. I'm not sure why the article was deleted in the first place. -64.183.63.242 (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user GeorgeLouis (talk), who proposed it, in case he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. The reason for deletion was the lack of references showing the significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources required to establish notability - the only reference cited is Dawson's own website. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

PRAKKADAN KUDUMBAM

This is contain only prakkadan kudumbam family details and its publishing for the our family members residing different countries. so they can read the details of their family history. -Jprakkadan (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Toby Scott Ganger

Toby Scott Ganger is an American actor most well known for his role as Edmond in Don Bluth's film Rock-a-Doodle.

Ganger also guest starred on Cheers and has appeared in three Disney Sing-Along movies. His most recent appearance was in Black Sheep with David Spade and Chris Farley. He has released two albums with hip hop group Inverse (hip hop group) "So Far (The Collection)" and "So True EP" He is currently working on his first solo album entitled "Evolutionary" slated for a late 2011 release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.238.84 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 April 2011

  Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user JamesBWatson (talk), who proposed it, in case he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. The reason for deletion was the lack of references showing the significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources required to establish notability - the only reference cited is IMDb. JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Has 2 b back

reasoning -Pichu8boy (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what has 2 b back or why, but if it is about a picture, please also review the info on your page. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

File:P3040054.JPG.

reasoning -Sunil Kumar N.S. 06:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. Adding your cv to the comment doesn't address the copyright question but rather makes it look like self-promotion. For more info see the media copyright questions page. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Now deleted, but Wikipedia is not a site like LinkedIn or Facebook for people to write about themselves - see Wikipedia:Autobiography. --JohnCD (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

attana

Attana is a Swedish biotech tools company that has developed a biosensor that enables studies of label-free molecular interactions in real-time, competing with other major players such as Biacore that have their own wikipedia pages. Attana's wiki page got deleted, however, and if possible I'll like to get it reinstated or find out what needs to be changed to get it to do so(the admin who deleted it is currently retired). -Mistertoh (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done - articles about this company have been deleted several times, for being unduly promotional, for not showing that the company met Wikipedia's notability requirement or (on the last occasion) for being a copyright violation. I will give you advice on your talk page later today. JohnCD (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

North Australia Air War

OTRS permission confirmed from Mark Clayton, author of the original article in the Australian War Memorial Journal in 1986; ticket 2011041610010734. -– Adrignola talk 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done - restored by deleting admin. JohnCD (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

LifeShield Security

The article was deleted because of a link to company website - this is not a corporate entry and I would like to fix this error. -Sjzaharuk (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  •   Not done A list of what equipment comes with a system? A list of patent numbers? The statement "LifeShield is the first national, professional grade and professionally monitored wireless security system that provides superior protection and the best value in total home security"? Purely promotional, through and through. Almost all the references are to the company's own website. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

david savage

I apolgise if I am doing this in the incorrect manner. A page about me was created I do not know by whom but it was generally accurate so i left it alone. However I believe that an editor Scott MacDonald has removed the page, I do not know why. I would like the page restored it was accurate relavent and up to date. Can I have some correspondance with someone to address this problem please. Kind regards david savage dbsavage@me.com -Dbsavage (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Άκης Κατσουπάκης

Page is completely different from the time it was "for deletion", it's more neutral and features lots of references to newspapers etc. -Akicats (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


Notes: The article was originally deleted due to my lack of knowledge of WP rules. I didn't put references, intending to add them later , and the article was kind of biographical...
Since the first "for deletion" i learned a great deal about WP . I did spend months of research to find the right references , some of them you can see in the english language page, in the Greek version was a lot more ! Some admins (two especially) kept on deleting the page , no matter what i changed ! , and now it's permanently deleted for no real reason.
I have reasons to believe it's a personal attack, and it has to stop .Akicats (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  •   Not done I see a few major issues. First, this is the English Wikipedia - all articles should be titled and written using English. Second, massive WP:COI. Third, I see zero notability, especially according to WP:BAND. Your band is not notable ... how is this a personal attack? Stop writing about yourself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not writing about myself, i'm writing about Akis Katsoupakis. He is a quite notable Arranger - Producer here in Greece as you can see with 24 albums as an arranger, "two" of them multi-platinum ! You find this "zero notability" ? I'm only writing this to english WP because there are 2 persons in the greek WP that practice severe admin abuse behavior and i cannot do nothing about it .
  • no , it's not about the English one, it's about the (now gone) Greek one : Άκης Κατσουπάκης, having no-one greek to talk about this. You can just be kind enough to read what i'm writing above. Akicats (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, each Wikipedia is independent and has its own rules and standards. We can do nothing here about deletion on the Greek Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Robin Nixon

The description is accurate. -75.16.55.68 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Then why was nobody able to find a morsel of information to back up any of the assertions in this article about a supposedly notable person? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Though it's an expired PROD I have to agree with OM on this one. Aside from WP mirrors, Facebook and Myspace pages I can find no evidence that this person exists. This should stay deleted per WP:V and WP:BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edward Bass (Director)

I believe the page should be re-instated. I work in the film business, and in certain productions, they forget to credit you for your work, so it doesn't go into your imdb page. Everything on there was true, but if you guy's felt differently about it, why don't you just take out what you thought was wrong about the page, but still leave the page up. I think it's a little ridiculous to take the entire page down. I mean, I'm no wikipedia expert, but it is a little more than a job, to put a page together in this website, when in others, it is very simple. So please, will you put the page back up, and just take out, whatever it is you people didn't deem fit. Thanks. -Muvistar (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  •   Not done The things that were taken out were unsubstantiated claims about the individual. Without them, the person fails the notability requirements, and therefore is non deemed encyclopedic enough. The original deletion discussion was in 2010, and none of the repeated attempts to recreate have provided 3rd party reliable sources, and have merely rehashed the same mess. No referenced notability, no article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

greenpeak

If the GreenPeak page has been deleted because it would be too commercial, you can delete ALL company pages. Therea are no sales arguments on the page, just history, background and company vision. GreenPeak has sufficient external sources, referencing GreenPeak's vision of low power RF to motivate the further existence of the Wiki page. -Ellyschietse (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's your efforst to convey a "company vision" that killed the article; "company vision" is marketing-speak for a certain kind of advertisement. Language like "strong synergy", "represents a real need" and "accomplishments as an innovator of the highest caliber, involved in the development of life-changing technology innovation and with the potential for long-term impact on business and society" have no place in a neutral, fact-based article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sreenadh_OG

The article is valid and sources can be added or provided -115.119.165.155 (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done - this apparently autobiography of a non-notable self-taught astrologer, "sourced" to a Yahoo! group and his own website, was deleted as a biography of a living person without reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Coverdale Organisation

Further information to be added -Ean66 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

    •   Not done - could just as well have been speedily deleted as blatant advertising. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

YBR Design

The page was deleted initially under (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). The subject matter which was on the page when deleted was not fully filled out and should not have been submitted to Wikipedia in the first place. A more robust page is ready to be uploaded which should fulfill A7's requirements. The page will not be published until it is robust and relevant. Thank you. -ManBehindTheCurtains (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would very strongly advise you to create a new article in your own sandbox/userspace. Then, when you think it's ready, invite User:RHaworth, who has blocked this article from recreation, to take a look at the new draft (hopefully now both free of spam and replete with sources to establish the subject's actual notability). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DealTaker

this article was a fair description of a company providing a free and valuable service. Others like it continue to exist e.g. CouponMountain -Kstraw17 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin C. Schneider

Martin C. (Marty) Schneider is the host of a well known, successful Christian financial talk radio show, The Word on Wealth. The show is broadcast in San Diego, CA since 2005 and Phoenix, AZ since 2010 on Salem Communications radio stations (which, incidentally each have their own wiki pages). I have researched other similar radio personalities who have articles on wikipedia, and included similar information about him on this page.

The 'speedy deletion' notification said there was no indication of importance, however I clearly included verifiable third party sources, he is well known locally in the markets where his show is broadcast, and the article had a neutral point of view. Please explain why this does not meet the 'important or significant' criteria, or simply restore the page.

http://www.kprz.com/ProgramGuide/ http://www.kpxq1360.com/ProgramGuide/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelafeaster (talk • contribs)


Is anyone planning to address this??? Angelafeaster (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request, user RHaworth (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Word on Wealth

The Word on Wealth is a well known, successful Christian financial talk radio show, hosted by Martin C.(Marty)Schneider. The show is broadcast in San Diego, CA since 2005 and Phoenix, AZ since 2010 on Salem Communications radio stations (which, incidentally each have their own wiki pages). I have researched other similar talk radio shows who have articles on wikipedia, and included similar information about The Word on Wealth on this page.

The 'speedy deletion' notification said there was no indication of importance,and that this was web content, however it is a talk radio show, and I clearly included verifiable third party sources, the show is popular with listeners, receiving several live on-air calls each day, and the article had a neutral point of view. Please explain why this does not meet the 'important or significant' criteria, or simply restore the page.

http://www.kprz.com/ProgramGuide/ http://www.kpxq1360.com/ProgramGuide/

The article was at The word on wealth (capitalization matters here to find the deleted article). You say you "clearly included verifiable third party sources" but I have just looked at the deleted article's content and it did not list a single source, much less cite to any using our reference system. The only thing it contained was an external link, and that was to the show's own website. To be clear, in order to establish notability, topics must be the subject of substantive treatment in reliable third party sources entirely independent of the subject. Whether the article met the criteria it was deleted under or not, we do not undelete articles here that were deleted unless that deletion was on an uncontroversial basis such as through a prod or under CSD G6. If you want, you can request, however, that the article be emailed to you or userfied to a subpage of your userspace so you can work on it there to be more in compliance with our policies before going live, but it will not be simply undeleted here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I included links to the wikipedia articles for both the radio stations and Salem Communications. I modeled the information after other wikepidia articles for similar radio shows. It is NOT web based information, so it was incorrectly categorized, and I followed the protocol as instructed in the message to contest the 'speedy deletion'.

I've already offered to userfy the article so you can work on it to make it more compliant with our policies; just say the word. I've also already explained that this was not deleted on an uncontroversial basis and so it will not be undeleted through this process, which is only for uncontroversial undeletions. If having an article here on this subject is the result you want, the best thing you can do is fix the article as I've said. Disputing the methodology of the deletion is not the best way. Nevertheless, if you wish to go down that route, you can go to deletion review. But there, even if the speedy deletion is overturned, what will likely happen next is that the article will be tagged for notability, lacking sources, that it was created by a person who likely has a conflict of interest, etc., and if you don't fix the article, then it will likely be taken to articles for deletion and will be deleted after discussion or fixed by adding sources. All this is to say that every road leads to sourcing this article with reliable references or not having an entry here. Reliable, independent, third party sources are not other Wikipedia articles, nor the subject's own website. By the way, you say you say you disputed the deletion but you did not. Clicking on the button takes you to the talk page where you must state a valid ground for not deleting the article. The talk page was never created so ipso facto you never contested the deletion in any effective way. If you ask for userfication and you tell me of reliable sources (if they exist), I will help you source the article properly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Madison Eagles

Madison Eagles current Shimmer Champion & A Australian professional wrestler here is a source that should be able to help source her wikipedia page with information, other wikipedia users delete this page without any formal reason, there are sources out for the page.-Davazchick (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC) http://www.lethalwow.com/bios/madisoneagles.php

The last version of the article that you created was deleted as a blatant copyright violation as you had copied and pasted the text from here. Prior versions were deleted at three separate AfDs, the last of which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (3rd nomination). Any repost of this article needs to address the reason for those past deletions. So, any new article on her must of course not be a copyright violation, but must also show substantive treatment of her in published, reliable, third party sources, beyond what was in previous versions of the article. The source you have posted as establishing further notability (also the source you copied and pasted from) is not an independent, reliable third party source and such lethalwow sources previously made up the bulk of the article's sources when it was deleted at AfD. In any event, we do not undelete articles at this page unless they were deleted on uncontroversial bases, which does not include copyright infringement or article's deleted at AfD. Please read the instructions at the top of this page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

avanza solutions

reasoning -Techwatcher (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

<Text of article removed>
  Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request, user RHaworth (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I want to learn more about him and see what movies and TV shows he played in -24.12.194.183 (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request, user PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

reasoning -Sheentylla (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted on the account of scarce notability even though it had references coming from other sources relevant to the UK music industry such as the NME and God Is in The TV Zine.

  Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request, user NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Buur Ukur.image

reasoning -Kowneyn (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  This file can not be restored until you provide a linkable source for the image so that the actual copyright status can be confirmed. Skier Dude (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Vroom Vroom News

Vroom Vroom News shouldn't be deleted because people of the internet want to know about Vroom Vroom News. They want to know it started and why it started. The Vroom Vroom News wikipedia page will help people know about Vroom Vroom News. -SavannaJ (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done I'm sorry but that's not the way it works. First people have to take note of it and then it gets an article. What you are doing is called advertising and that's not allowed here. Furthermore, you have a conflict of interest as your username suggests that you are closely associated with the subject. If and when Vroom Vroom News becomes notable enough for an article, then it will be written from a neutral point of view by someone not associated with Vroom Vroom News. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cathedral of Faith

reasoning -Tcamic (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


Came across website for this organization and wanted to do background research. It appears there was a Wikipedia article but it is no longer there. There does not seem to be any particularly strong reason to have deleted the page. A church as big as that is sure to have quite a bit of influence in the region it exists. Perhaps, the article was not well-written but in that case, it would make more sense to edit than delete it.

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. However, you will not be blinded by the richness of the content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Chambersburg Cardinals

The article was the history of a sports team that dates back to 1946 and is still currently in operation. Nothing strange or odd about the purpose of the article. -Zigbert (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


--Zigbert (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done as a contested proposed deletion. Please note that this won't prevent another editor from nominating the article for deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Go_Kan_Ryu_karate

The Go_kan_ryu_karate page is regularly vandalised, however it did have useful and appropriate information. It appears the deletion was immediately after a substantial vandalisation campaign, thus perhaps protection rather than deletion may be considered? Thanks, -Jyukumite (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done Are you thinking of a different article? That article was created on 11:50, 19 January 2011 and deleted 24 minutes later. There was never a good version in history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The article I am referring to might be GKR_Karate, which is also deleted along with backlinks. Thanks.--Jyukumite (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a third candidate? GKR Karate was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GKR Karate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks, I was looking for that detail in the wrong place. Can you possibly give me a userspace/sandbox copy of GKR_Karate that I can work on turning into a worthy article with correct citations rather than the newsreel it might have been? --Jyukumite (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Don't know if this will be any use, but I had a look at the history of several articles on this subject at the request of another editor a while ago. (Thanks for the note Moonriddengirl!) --Kateshortforbob talk 12:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Jyukumite/GKR Karate. Please be sure to thoroughly address notability concerns before restoring it to the article space, or it is likely to be deleted under WP:CSD#G4. I would recommend requesting feedback at WP:RFF or another venue first. Please make sure that you move the article, not copy it, so that all attribution is retained. Also, move the talk page along with the article when you do move it back so we can keep the record of development intact with the content. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:1869 in baseball

Main article was removed from category, leaving the cat. empty, and cat. was CSD'd because of it. I restored the main article to this category. -64.85.214.234 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done Skier Dude (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Avanza Solutions

Because article has authentic references and external links -Farazriaz (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you are the same person who made the request yesterday but the answer still applies.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Graham Bowers

Hello, it has just been brought to my attention that the Wikipedia pages relating to myself, Red Wharf, my Published Albums, and Short Films have been deleted. It would appear that the reason for all of them is, non-notable. I have no delusions of grandeur, I am not someone who thinks of myself as special, I don’t think that my work is 'earth-shatteringly innovative' ... but it has qualities of originality, and according to many 'notability'. All the information that was entered on the respective pages is absolutely genuine. The information was originally put together on Wikipedia by a journalist, Arthur Hughes, and when there were queries regarding the copyright of images, it was easier to answer these problems by signing up to Wikipedia, myself.

I noted that there is mention of unverifiable claims ... all claims can be verified but not necessarily by on-line documentation. With regard to the non-notable description of my published albums, how is notability quantified, by sales or reviews? ... there are many reviews on the Red Wharf website www.red-wharf.com that substantiate some degree of notability ... I'm not sure how much detail to go into with regard to this message, but am more than happy to provide answers to any queries. I won't lose any sleep if you decide not to undelete the pages, I'm too old and weary to bother about such things, but if you do decide to undelete the pages on the basis that non-notable just about creeps above the line of nearly-notable to notable it would be very much appreciated.

Thanking you.

Graham Bowers 

 -86.167.122.230 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Graham. Notability has a specific meaning here. It does not mean lacking in merit, that the subject is unimportant, or is not valuable. It means that in order to warrant encyclopedic entry, a topic (in this case you), has to have been the subject of substantive treatment in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Please see WIkipedia:Notability. The reason for this guideline is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, that properly only has articles on topics that have already been significantly published about—that the world has taken "note" of, and from which published material an article can be written with verifiable information. Thus, if a subject has not been sufficiently recognized by mainstream, reliable sources (books, magazines, etc.) by their publication of significant content about that subject, Wikipedia should not have an article about the subject.

In any event, the article on you was deleted at a deletion discussion which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Bowers. If the necessary reliable sources to sustain an article exist, they weren't in the article when it was deleted and were not found by those who discussed the content. Note that this page is not for undeletion of articles that were deleted after discussion, but only for requested undeletion of articles deleted uncontroversially. If you can supply the reliable published sources that weren't in the article, that would be a start, and if you can't, well then you are like the vast majority of people: worthy, valuable, unique but not a proper topic for an encyclopedia article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Karpantschof

The article was not done, and I was still working on citations. It was wrongfully claimed that Google News provides Danish sources, which was the primary reason for deletion. Google News does _not_ check Danish sources, why citations and sources are hard to find, but not impossible. -Pjhansson (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and has no applicability to articles deleted after any deletion discussion such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Karpantschof. 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 Sandstein (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. If you want I can restore the article to your userspace, where you can work on it and maybe add some of the citations before following up. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would love that. thank you very much (: --Peter Hansson (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review is the right place for this issue not here. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Pjhansson/Daniel Karpantschof. As already said, the idea is that you improve it there, then contact Sandstein before moving it back, and if necessary bring to deletion review, where chances might be the better the more we can move form the general Gnews argument to a draft with actual references, which actually do not always have to be online.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

William Nix

OTRS permission received for content; ticket 2011042010010502 -– Adrignola talk 18:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I just got another email asking when this will be restored and was surprised to see this wasn't handled. The deletion stated copyright infringement, not blatant advertising, so it didn't seem to me that there'd be a problem with restoring it. – Adrignola talk 20:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  Done --Tikiwont (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Pavitra Punia

important -Skepta123 (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Was deleted as blprod, but you've recreated it removing another blpprod tag on the basis of IMO thin references, so nothing to undelete, but rather to improve sourcing.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

ateeq hussain khan bandanawazi

sir actually its my mistake as i was unable to give inline citations about ateeq hussain khan bandanawzi properly and created many times the page is deleted but the talent and praise of ateeq hussain khan has been done by all the major news papers of India. he has bee praised as a true Classical Sufi Qawwal by times of India, Hindustan Times, Hitavada Daily & Hindi, Urdu & BengaLi News Papers. During a Program Sacred Music Dalia Lama Praised His Talent.-Ssabdulhaq (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As you noticed due to repeated postings including copyrighted text and version that didn't say much about the artist, the title has been protected. What you need to do know is first of all relax as there is no deadline, then get familiar with Wikipedia, maybe by doing some small edits elsewhere and thirdly prepare a draft - from scratch and based on sources without lifting them, say at User:Ssabdulhaq/Draft and then ask the protecting admin, User:Amatulic, whether it is fit for being published.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Requests for userify

If anyone has a few spare minutes, can I please get these deleted pages placed in my userspace so I can work on them?

No rush. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done At User:Mathewignash/* --Tikiwont (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Barge1983_001.JPG

Picture taken by a passer by and then was given to the owner of the barge, Gren Middleton -SoledadZarate (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This file has not yet been deleted. You need to follow the instructions on your page on how to add that info to the file. I've reset the date for you. In case of further need check the Media copyright questions page.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Kane and The Big Show

I was directed here from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 25 and they suggested that I have it userfied. I think this page should be undeleted because the reasons given at the AFD at the time were that the team didn't do a lot together and were only together from October 2005 - April 2006 along with the fact that they only won 1 World Tag Team Championship together. Well they have since reformed and won the WWE Tag Team Championship which would make the original AFD reasons void as since then the team have come together for a longer period of time and won more than 1 tag team title. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:The C of E/Kane and The Big Show. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Undelete Website: Dr.Frank_Beckles

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr.Frank_Beckles. Dr. Frank Beckles is definately a notable person. Dr. Beckles has been on national TV. References was backed up and listed on the website. It was not an administrator who deleted the article.(at least we are not sure)The fact is whoever did was a malicious person and incorrect. We followed the wikipedia rules. We sited references that backed up what we wrote . There was not a reason for the deletion, if there was it was incorrect. Other people that are less notable are still listed on wikipedia. Even if they were deleted it was discovered that they were undeleted. And the administrators who deleted it corrected the problem themselves instead of just deleting it. People shouldn't be treated that way. If some of the information is not referenced just delete the information not the whole website, which has been done many times ( For ex. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Williams ?). That's like a doctor treating a wound on a arm. Instead of treating the wound he cuts off the whole arm. Wikipedia should not be allowing volunteers or othet people to delete other people's websites. Dr. Beckles is a noteable christian preacher and firefighter. Who has appeared on tv numerous times. For example: WBPI Watchman Broadcasting(christian tv channel that appears world wide). He also appeared on Extrme Makeover Home Edition tv show (2010). which the references was noted on his website. He is one of the most recognizable preachers on the internet, he is all over the internet, which references also documented that on the website. We can provide further references if needed. The information that we just stated can be backed up by just looking on the internet. Dr. Beckles is not just a famous minister but a firefighter that has helped a lot of people. Fans want to see his wikipedia site back online,please do not allow for deletionof his wkipedia website again, thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.199.121 (talk • contribs)

Who is this "we"? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
A few things. First, please read the top of this page. This process is not for undeletion of articles such as this, which was not deleted through an uncontroversial process such as proposed deletion or routine housekeeping (though one can request userfication). The article was not deleted on notability grounds, or at least that was just a side note: it was deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion as blatantly promotional, and indeed that is how it read. Wikipedia is not for advertising, no one has a right to an article, and the proper path to an article is an independent person writing it because they are interested in topic and know about it because reliable sources exist on the topic—not because someone who is self-interested in the subject writes the article, which so often, naturally, results in a panegyric, as this one appeared to be. On the notability issue, Mr. Beckles may very well be notable but that was not evident from the single source included which did not verify any of the content. As for "Other people that are less notable are still listed on wikipedia", please see What about article x?. If you want to get anywhere, tone down the entitled attitude and accusations and take some time to learn our policies.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:NatsukiMari.jpg

not my image, I will fix licensing, thank you as always! -Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done Tag reset. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Tokimonsta

She is a significant artist with multiple albums, radio play and concert appearances including Coachella 2011 -Orlox (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case but it seems this article still needs to be written, there is nothing to restore under this title. You may want to check Wikipedia:Articles for creation. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Second American Revolution Flag

reasoning -75.144.65.133 (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This flag is not just a marketing ploy or symbol. It has been recognized, published and displayed in many mainstream media. References:

1) January 20, 2010 front pages of the Wall Street Journal and Boston Globe 2) April 15, 2010 front page of Boston Globe 3) August 29, 2010 front page The Washington Post 4) Pulitzer Prize winning write, Kate Zernike's book entitled: "Boiling Mad - Inside Tea Party America" New York Times Publishing (Back Cover) 5) Displayed regularly on FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, BBC and NHK-Japan when covering Tea Party events. 6) Senator Scott Brown's victory rally January 19, 2011 (200 flags first appeared nationally/globally). 7) Tea Party Express I, II and III across America. 8) Behind Congresswoman Bachman at her national "Housecall" against Obamacare. 9) Behind Actor Jon Voight at the 912 March on Washington in 2010. 10) Next to Judge Andew Napolitano at the Ohio Liberty Council Rally at the State House in Columbus, Ohio 2009. 11) Showtime's latest season (episode 7) of Weeds.

  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 seems to be Second Revolution flag which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Revolution flag (2nd nomination), 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 Ironholds (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. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Universal Kickboxing Council

Universal Kickboxing Council's page was flagged and deleted for apparently the reason of not saying its importance when in multiple instances in the article it states the importance including what it does as a charity and the difference in the judging system. This should be reversed right away as this was deleted for a reason that made no sence if the article was read. Some of the other pages in the same subject areas have less information than what was on Universal Kickboxing Council's page. This should be reversed right away as this was deleted for a reason that made no sence if the article was read.

  •  I have deleted it yet again because of showing no claim of importance. Google hits show only 15 hits against this name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:LIVING_WELL_cover_plain.jpg

I am requesting that this page be undeleted. This is the second time it has been deleted. The first time I understood, it didn't have permission details. This time I have no idea why it was deleted but the same reason was given. I had already updated it with the permissions. Also, the page it belongs on LIVING WELL Magazine has been sitting in the pending queue for several weeks now with no action. Why is this page not being posted? I have not been informed of any problems with the page. I'm just trying to get some information. Thank You. -Cawpin (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  DoneI've restored it so you can fix the license. Unfortunately we can neither take the uploaders word for it, nor is a simple 'publisher permission' sufficient. Beyond the links on your page, see also Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. The other option might be fair use, but as you say the page is still a userpage draft and I'm not sure how other volunteers are following up on that type of request. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

EMBL campus Heidelberg

the photo you deleted belongs to the EMBL photolab where I work. The EMBL photolab have given permission for use of this photo on wikipedia. I did not provide license information due to lack of knowledge of what you actually required, and lack of time (not being around to see the deletion warning notice). Many apologies, and hope it is not too late to restore this -Heidelberg0909 (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Heidelberg0909 (talk) 10:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

the photo you deleted belongs to the EMBL photolab where I work. The EMBL photolab have given permission for use of this photo on wikipedia. I did not provide license information due to lack of knowledge of what you actually required, and lack of time (not being around to see the deletion warning notice). Many apologies, and hope it is not too late to restore this.Heidelberg0909 (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC) -Heidelberg0909 (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  Awaiting permission via OTRS: This user also used a {{helpme}} request on their talk page, so I have asked them to arrange to send permission to OTRS. See User_talk:Heidelberg0909#Help with licencing question.  Chzz  ►  11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Beawar.ogg

reasoning -Crunchyheart (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done I've restored it so you can fix the license as explained on your talk page. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Xombie (flash cartoon)

I don't think it can be PROD as it went through a request for deletion but was returned after a deletion review [[1]] -Simonkoldyk (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  •   Done as a contested proposed deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnny forzani

Why is Johnny forzani page deleted. He is a pro football player with the Calgary Stampeders cfl. And tied the ncaa longest touchdown at Washington state university -66.222.249.22 (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done as a contested prod. There is enough assertion of notability (fully professional athlete) to prevent speedy deletion. However, there are no sources, so the WP:BLPPROD clock has been reset, and the article is subject for deletion again in ten days if sources are not added. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Elon University Student Government Association

This organization has had a significant effect on the university community and the town that surrounds it. The organization also has had several scandals that have been well documented in the news media. Citations from local newspapers must be added to verify. Upon undeletion I will provide such citations. -Joslo820 (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not simply put it into the University article? That's what is usually done. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Harmon Leon

improper deletion -Harmonleon (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Hello-

My Wikipedia page has suddenly become delated:

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

The page has been on the web for roughly 5 years and today I click on it and got this message:

<<This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 23:11, 27 April 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted "Harmon Leon" ‎ (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection: reason was "Fails WP:Notability (people), uncited.")>>

Can you please restore my page: I link to it on a frequent basis.

Much thanks, Harmon Leon

  Done First, the deletion was proper: nobody challenged the proposed deletion within seven days. This message effectively challenges the deletion. I don't see the article being eligible for speedy deletion, so I've restored the article. Of course, it's subject to nomination for deletion and community discussion.
Second, I've advised Harmonleon (talk · contribs) about his apparent conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

zoom business simulation

will add citations -LyndaJones (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

would like help to make it acceptable -LyndaJones (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you like the article userfied and restored to your user space? —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  Not done User has already started a version in user space at User:LyndaJones/Zoom business simulation, which appears to be the last version of Zoom Business Simulation before deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigma Chi Omega

Sigma Chi Omega • ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) • [revisions] reasoning -Rudyryan (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was originally deleted by a member of a national fraternity. They believe that newer, multicultural fraternities, aren't "real" fraternities. Sigma chi Omega has shown over 17 years of community service and devotion to academia and deserves to have its page on wikipedia. Other fraternity members are malicious and want to hinder the growth of new orginizations who are more diverse and who are gaining more respect than even the century old national fraternities. I have been commisioned by the fraternity to create a new wikipedia page and have already done so under the name Sigma Chi Omega, Multicultural Fraternity, Inc.. However, we would prefer the article just be named Sigma Chi Omega.

Thank you,

RudyRyan AM #1

  • That's not accurate. It was originally deleted because you cut and pasted much of the text from elsewhere, which is illegal. The article was then recreated, again with substantial copyright violations, and was deleted again. You can try again, however the article must have multiple reliable third party sources, and be completely your own prose. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

J2K-Codec

The page was deleted with G11 reason, but there was no advertisement. Here's the quote from Wikipedia:SPEEDY "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." -Alex saveliev (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First, I agree with you that G11 did not apply. Arguably however, the article was a proper candidate for speedy deletion underCSD A7. I say "arguably" because I'm not sure it meets the definition of "web content". In any event, you did not get great advice to come here by the deleting admin, because this page is not for undeletion of articles that were not deleted on uncontroversial grounds. Basically, this page is for requesting userfication, or undeletion of articles deleted via proposed deletion or as routine housekeeping under CSD G6. We don't reverse other admin's decision unilaterally but only after discussion (even if we disagree). To have the deletion overturned, the route is deletion review, where the community decides through open discussion. However I don't think you should go down that route. The better road is to create the article with proper sourcing, which would not be to any websites you are involved with, as the article previously contained, but with citations to entirely independent, third-party, reliable sources included that discuss the subject in some detail, while of course keeping the neutral tone that you say you strived for. If those sources don't exist, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic at all. Even better would be to abandon trying to promote yourself entirely by writing an article on a subject in which you are obviously self-interested. We don't bar users from self-aggrandizement, but we strongly discourage it, dislike it, and look on it with suspicion and scrutiny it deserves. I personally would be embarrassed to even try and would delete all such articles on sight if the community's norms allowed it, but that's just me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Last-minute rescue

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_36&oldid=1086091077"