Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 85

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80 ← Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 87 → Archive 90

American International School of Vienna

supposed copyright infringement is not accurate - the page referenced http://newkai.com/reviews/ais/ does not exist. If there is anyhting copyrighted on the page we will remove it immediately once we can see the page. This is a K-12 school page and is subject to spurious edits from students -194.166.187.156 (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

  •  Not done It's clear based on a simple Google search that the referenced page certainly did exist, and thus the claims of copyright violation are valid - even though the source has now been moved. We cannot under any circumstances undelete copyright violations. A quick read of the article does not show me any form of notability or even reliable sources, so any future version of the article must have those. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Marc Pattison

musician has noteworthy fame and accomplishments, including hundreds of placements in television and cable media, and still active, in Futures End, who also have a wiki page -66.87.119.5 (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Patchy1 (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you would be welcome to contribute. The article needs references to reliable sources, to verify what it says and to establish notability, see WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Jono Lester

Deletion was based on "Expired PROD, concern was: unsourced BLP". This page is valid however perhaps sources were not sufficient or substantiated. Please refer to source 'Official Website of Jono Lester' (http://www.jonolester.com), in particular "Career", regarding the validity of Jono Lester as a professional sportsperson / auto racing driver. Reinstatement of this page would be much appreciated for search engine and general informative purposes. Thank you. -101.98.166.164 (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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. Note that their own website is not a reliable source for the purpose of a biography article on Wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Cupcake Digital

Autism therapy -Michael William Sweeney 11:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


I am the father of an Autistic child and Cupcake Digital's stories work very well with our population of kids. I did not want to identify myself or my son as being part of the Autism world, but now I will in order to write a more "notable" page. ~~MikeSweeneyMV~~

  • As it stands the article had no claims of importance. It may be important to you, or perhaps you know where other independent people have written about it. If that is the case I would suggest that you have a userspace draft to develop it. Let me know if you want this restored as a userspace draft. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Not done (procedural) Lectonar (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust

reasoning -24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just wrong. Sorry if anyone is upset by my not posting this in the right place, but the article should not be deleted. The author worked very hard on it and added substantial image contributions. Really the reasoning behind all of this is ridiculous. Can someone please look at this? I cannot believe that this page was deleted.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And in case any kind person does take a look at this, look at how many pages are LINKED to this deleted page! by clicking the link thingy. I'm just astounded by this.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) This is not the correct venue since the article was deleted via AFD, and userified. As for the number of links, the article was included in a template, and it has been removed now. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Not done Already at DRV. Lectonar (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Dexter

Subject is a notable member of the British Underground -Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

* Admittedly, article needs work. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  •  Not done After 4-1/2 years since deletion, it would need more than just work. The BLP issues alone make it impossible to undelete the last version (Oct 2008). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Understood. I may attempt it from scratch. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Atticus Mitchell

A new article was created that should meet concerns at AfD. Some of the content of the new article is based on old content deleted by the AfD and those deleted revisions should be restored to maintain the required attribution history. -Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done - I have merged the histories, but you need to check with Courcelles (talk), the closing admin, whether he agrees you have overcome the reasons that made the AfD decide delete, or whether he would like it to go through DRV. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
He said no need for DRV. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Fine. It might be a good idea to put a link to that on the article talk page, to prevent it being tagged WP:CSD#G4. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:School crest.jpg

OTRS permission has been received. -Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Please up date the file details. I do not see why this is needed, though, because there is already File:Crest for The Schilling School for Gifted Children.jpg on Commons, which is a slightly larger version of the same crest, and is used in the school's article. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I just realized it is a duplicate, but I was unable to see it based on the information given to me over OTRS. If you want to go ahead and delete it and migrate the OTRS template, go ahead. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, deleted. OTRS permission is already on the Commons one. JohnCD (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ian Kirkby

I would like this article userfied at User:The C of E/kirk to see if there is anything worth retrieving from it and to see if I could write a better article than the one that was deleted. - The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, it was deleted via AfD (so can not be undeleted here anyway), and consisted essentially of one line telling us when and where the actor was born, and a list of his televison and film appearances. No sources except ImDB Lectonar (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I could use that info, it might be helpful. I'm not asking for it to be undeleted, just for what was on the page to be userfied so that I can tinker with it to see if the page could be brought back with better sourcing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Done Userfied as requested; sorry, but I had to delete your oneliner already there to make the move. Lectonar (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand, there wasn't much in that oneliner that couldn't be redone anyway but there is definitely something that can be retrieved here. Just needs a rewrite and reffing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Just one more thing: before moving this to mainspace, talk to the deleting admin, Rlendog if he is fine with that. Lectonar (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, will do. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Union of South London Soviet Socialist Republics

reasoning -Gon266 (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I also see micronation like which are fake like Cristiania but this micronation is really exist.
  • This page should not be deleted because it is not a hoax
  • I would collect more information
  • I would also collect photos on it
  • Please do not delete
  • I collect very very hardly
  • This article is written by me only
  • I will correct grammar mistakes

and sentence formation.

  • I hope because of these reasons i think you will recover my article
  • Thanking you!
  • Your faith fully
  • Tanmay Pathak [Gon266]

I know you are correct but there are many micronations in in this wikipedia i have a proof and i gave you this list provided by wikipedia!! and the list is

<Copy of List of micronations removed>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gon266 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 7 March 2013

In order to have a Wikipedia article a "micronation", or any subject, must have WP:Notability. That is not a matter of saying so but has to be demonstrated by references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See WP:ANS for what that means. JohnCD (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Minute to Win It challenges

reasoning -Minutetowinitman (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I want the thing that Secret deleted not Cfred

 Not done. This will not be restored, because it was deleted after a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Minute to Win It challenges, but I will email you a copy if you enable email on your account. Instructions for how to do that on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Lock key

The article was prodded for not being "a real term", but it's used at Template:Keyboard keys as well as three articles that link to it, so it's a likely search term. I want its history restored to determine if a broad concept article can be written, or to turn it into a disambiguation page. -Diego (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. The present article is neither one thing nor the other. A DAB page looks the better option to me, as there are detailed articles about the individual keys, but maybe you can find material for a concept article. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

VPAC

Article stated for deletion under criteria G8 "dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page". However I wish to undelete and set up a redirect to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Partnership_for_Advanced_Computing -101.172.213.64 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Lighthouse Library/ECCRC

reasoning - Lighthouse Library/ECCRC was deleted and was said by the editor to be nonsensical. Lighthouse Library was featured in Hatteberg's People on KAKE TV. Library on Hatteberg's People, KAKE TV, Wichita, Kansas Article from newschannel 10, KAKE TV web page: Story by Larry Hatteberg, KAKE TV, Wichita, KS Larry Hatteberg,KAKE TV, Wichita, KS.

The library has over 21,000 books in its collection. It was built by volunteer labor. A thrift store and a rental cabin on the site are the sustaining projects for the library. Over 300 volunteers built the library. 64.71.115.234 (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Safiel (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. The reason for proposing deletion was not that the subject was nonsensical, but that it did not appear to be "notable", Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion, which requires references to show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - see also WP:ANS. I have added the kake.com reference you give here, but it needs more. Youtube is not considered a reliable source. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Justin Wilkes

reasoning -92.19.150.2 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 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/Justin Wilkes, 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←✎) 22:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Carphone Warehouse logo.svg

If this logo image is restored, it could be used within the Carphone Warehouse to show the logo of the main retail side of the business. -Cloudbound (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Please add it to the article before it gets zapped again. JohnCD (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added it back in. Cloudbound (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Howard Earl Partridge

working on to improve -Marianamcnulty (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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. Lectonar (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:George Ho/Frasier Crane

Can you undelete all revisions and then rename it to Frasier Crane/version 2? -George Ho (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I presume you wanted it as a user page, so I've put it at User:George Ho/Frasier Crane (version 2). JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sudhir Raj

Becaise this page contains all the information about me true and correct to my consign, if any certificate of scanned document needed i can provide to wiki. -SudhirRaj1990 (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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. Lectonar (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Casino (rapper)

page is now properly done -Damiansebastian (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedball Textbook

The page author, User:CalligRick, would like the page available to him in his userspace. I will be assisting him with further development of the material so that it can be included at a later time. -dci | TALK 02:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Done I don't envy you that task... however, I've now userfied the page to User:CalligRick/Speedball Textbook. I'd be surprised if you can use anything that's there, but I wish you luck nevertheless. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cold Meat Industry

This page should contain information about an small, obscure, but influential record label. It appears to have been deleted without contest using the criteria of a band. It was also cited that there were no reliable third party sources, I am not entirely sure what would qualify as a reliable third party source for a record label that services a small global audience that is not a website. Searching Wikipedia for this text string will show a list of bands associated with this label. -64.121.230.24 (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. It is, however, severely lacking in sources, and would probably not survive an AFD. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

E3G

This is still a fully functioning not for profit company, working to combat climate change and I wish to update the page, to help promote their work. -94.30.101.175 (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Please see WP:NOBLECAUSE and WP:PROMOTION. Your stated reasons are totally the wrong motivations for editing an article here; that's not what we are about. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Invincible (rapper)

I wanted to learn more about Invincible and need the article undeleted, and perhaps added to, so I can find out more about this artist -Kstnsea (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

BMW 2 Series

reasoning -31.126.109.193 (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

i didn't write the page, neither have i read it. However the PROD system is likely to have been misused in this case, as BMW are re-organising the bottom end of their range; with the introduction of FWD models and RWD models with the 1 and 2 series monikers in the near future. I would have to read the deleted article and do some research to verify . The use of CRYSTAL may then be premature and 7 days an unrealistic timeframe before a deletion takes place. Certainly there is a page missing now. Sorry I was just passing through, you have your systems; but why would you not delete the offending crystal gazing part of the page rather than the whole page? doesn't make much sense to me.

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Darkwind (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. Five months have gone by, so maybe there are now reliable sources, but as you can see, the whole thing is WP:CRYSTAL with no sources at all. Wikipedia doesn't do rumours, WP:Verifiability is a fundamental policy. JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Beverly Hills Chairs

I would like to retrieve my article so that I can rewrite it to the standards that wikipedia allows to have published -RachelLauren124 (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. That was far too promotional, a blatant advertisement: "fast increasing success... legendary... luxurious seating at affordable prices... wide variety of luxurious CEO chairs... " You need to start with a clean sheet and write for Wikipedia, not for the company, no glowing adjectives, just plain facts cited to reliable sources, and references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability. Read WP:Your first article, and if you are connected with the company, read WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI. JohnCD (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Had added the reference for this article to address the concern of deletion -Pon.ramesh.k (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done. The text of the article was copied from the source book, so it has been deleted as a copyright violation. You must write in your own words. Please read Wikipedia:Copy-paste. JohnCD (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

John B. Kimble

The article was removed contrary to wikipedia guidelines. There have been numerous news sources that made this subject notable such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Today Show, Daily Show, etc and the deletion review seemed to be only by a certain group of people that may have been from a certain clique or group that did not act according to wikipedia consensus review guidelines or notability principles. Therefore, I am requesting the previous decision vacated. -Badpuppy99 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Not done this has now gone through 2 AFDs and a deletion review process. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: when considering accusations of a clique, it should be noted that at the AfD discussion those giving delete opinions were established Wikipedia editors with long records, whereas keep opinions came from single-purpose accounts some of which were considered to be sockpuppets (see the SPI), and this pattern was repeated at the DRV. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • CommentFrom reading wikipedia consensus on wikipedia and the comments from the alleged "editors" it does appear that a "clique" from England may have existed to remove the article. Was the article notable? Yes. Were some users single purpose accounts? Yes. Does it matter in an argument of facts? No. What matters is right and wrong and the deletion was wrong. I supposed that I have to make time and make my time available to remove articles that truly are not of notable people and see what happens on them. But I do appreciate your time in reviewing this matter even thouhg it does appear that there is nefarious actions by some wild and crazy deleters. Badpuppy99 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC).
  • Comment I have argued for years that in a 2-party system the candidate of a major party who loses in the election for a national level office such as Representative in Congress can and should be presumed to have enough sources available, and be an automatic keep. This was the situation here; I continue to think so--the difference in importance is minor and it would add only a few hundred articles per year. However, consensus has consistently been against me; I did not comment in the AfD1, AfD2, or even the deletion review, because I consider this hopeless for the present, though I may try again in 2 or 3 years. I suggest the editor realize that sometimes a person can be right and all the world wrong, and yet nothing can be done about it. Of course, he could always actually win an election. or take up one of the activities where WP seems to consider everyone notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have left Badpuppy a warning about the ad hom attacks and slurs in their statements. It would be nice as a mark of good faith for them to redact their commentary to remove the personal attacks. Spartaz Humbug! 07:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone is attacking anyone or making slurs etc except to say the truth about what appears to be a move that was not done properly and appears to be possible skulldrudgery by some editors who listed that they/he is from London. When I looked at the 2011 dlr it showed that a man from London was the original nominator for deletion and that he used two names to post and he was the same man. That combined with the wikipedia summary on consensus review which states that most deletions are carried out by a "few" editors makes it seem that this article was removed improperly. I don't think badpuppy has ill will towards anyone if his comments were misconstrued but from what he wrote it does appear to be accurate or give the impression of being accurate in that if the editor from 2011 has changed his name and written the same arguments again it looks strange to most of us.. I will request the article to be replaced again in a few days and see what happens then. Thanks for making time for Wikipedia. From what I read the article still meets general notability guidelines and should be replaced 2001:558:6020:192:78BE:D5:281D:41AA (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)2001:558:6020:192:78BE:D5:281D:41AA (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello, so can different users request undeletion or what is the next appeal process? I read the article and find it to be notable and I believe the article deletion was contrary to consensus guidelines. 204.14.79.70 (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The place to appeal is WP:Deletion review, but if you have no further arguments except WP:ILIKEIT and allegations that many experienced Wikipedia users have repeatedly given their opinion that this is not notable only because of "possible skulldrudgery" by "a certain clique or group" and "nefarious actions by some wild and crazy deleters" you will not get far. Also, be aware that there are technical means to tell whether edits purporting to come from different users or IPs are in fact from the same person. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • What people are talking about is that JZG and Guy were the admin/editor that was the main people involved in the dlr of 2011 and the names could be the same person again. There is sufficient notability for the article to be kept other that just liking it. To me having only three so called "senior members" of wikipedia claiming to remove the article does not make a consensus. Look at all the news outlets that covered the subject, New York times, Washington Post, BBC, Today Show, Hard Copy etc. It is one thing to be collegiate but bnot giving credit to arguments that have merit is just not kosher.2001:558:6020:192:78BE:D5:281D:41AA (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not done and will not be done Period. The fact that you're having discussion proves that this board is not the correct place - this board is for uncontrovertial undeletions only. If you honestly believe you can overrule 2 AFD's and a DRV, then go back to DRV and try again. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

FM4 Sound Selection 11

I am interested in its content -178.250.212.225 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done No valid reason for undeletion provided. If you have an account with email enabled, I am willing to email you the deleted content. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

FM4 Sound Selection 10

I am interested in its content -178.250.212.225 (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done No valid reason for undeletion provided. If you have an account with email enabled, I am willing to email you the deleted content. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Greene

asking that the history be emailed to me. I have information on the topic but unsure if any different than what had been deleted -Mjeromee (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Done I've sent you the content of the page as requested. Since it was deleted under PROD, you can also request undeletion here if you wish. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

John B. Kimble

This article in my opinion was deleted contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and the deletion did not have a consensus. The subject was notable because of his exploits running for office which gave him nationwide coverage and even overseas coverage. In 1996 he volunteered to pose for Playgirl magazine to raise money and this caused quite a stir. In 2000 in he had his opponent's wife as his campaugn manager and this caused even more of a stir. They also had signs and a radio message talking about the opponent leaving his wife for a woman of a different race. The man was very provocative and notable becuse of these exploits. Sometimes notability is different for people running for office and this is an exception to a politician article because of the man's exploits and provocative nature. The article should be replaced. - 68.50.111.217 (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Not done and will not be done See the instructions for this page AND see the full discussion in what's currently the 3rd section of this very page (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • So we must ask under deletion review? Thank you Mr Wilkins. 68.50.111.217 (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but read WP:DRVPURPOSE and note in particular that DRV requests which "attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias" may be speedily closed. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Celframe Office

reasoning -210.19.213.209 (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

JCCSG ~ Jewish Crohn's & Colitis Support Group

reasoning -JCCGS (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC) The article was speedily deleted for lacking any claim of notability; and, in any case, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion.  Not done. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Arise, Tricia Lourdes Juanita Aguirres

2 verifiable references have now been added -EvenHappier (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) EvenHappier (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

MaxxCAT Corporation

Requesting article be Userfied to address issues pointed out by deleting administrator -Cwhissen (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  •  Not done You are the "Director of Marketing and Sales" at MaxxCat. You should never be writing articles about your company or your products. Articles about these products themselves have no place on Wikipedia - it does not even appear that your company meets the notability required to be included in an encyclopedia. Besides, the 2 lines of straight-from-the-brochure text you have tried to include in these articles is not worth undeleting (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed there is an option for having the articles emailed to me. May I request that please? Much work was put into attempting to craft a neutral article and I would not like to see all that effort wasted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwhissen (talk • contribs) 13:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Veronica Khosa

I would like to find more reliable sources and have a second chance at thei article. -Marcela Zabala (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Marcela Zabala/Veronica Khosa. The text needs to be majorly reworded to meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy; please don't move it back into article space without first checking with either myself, User:NawlinWiki or another administrator. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Dog Brothers

Page was apparently deleted for being a minor topic, but Dog Brothers is a well-known modern escrima group. Wikipedia should have a page on the organisation! -69.178.146.194 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Jakejr (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. What the article needs is references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Luao Luka

this is for the database for the players that are in the national team but i haven't had any lead of confirming references. -Lwayz (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luao Luka and that is where you should comment. JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Dialectical monism

Article was deleted as WP:PROD due to an WP:OR claim. A search of books.google.com shows the phrase has been used in numerous high profile philosophy texts. It shouldn't be too hard to add in the appropriate references to make the article properly sourced. -Xtraeme (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Lectonar (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

J-Pimp

The reason why im writing you is to request an undeletion on the page by J-Pimp (rapper) in Florida, with great creditability in recording and producing music with his own label D-Ploy Records. -208.54.85.226 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. The page deleted several times in April 2011 will not be restored, because it made ridiculous claims. If you wish to make a page about him, you will need either to register an account, which is easy and free, or use the WP:Articles for creation process. Read WP:Your first article before you start, and realise that you will need to give references that show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish WP:Notability to the standard of WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Joe Swan (London Ontario)

reasoning -99.249.118.119 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Joe Swan was deleted by the following person: 23:12, 6 November 2010 Wizardman (talk | contribs) deleted page Joe Swan (Expired PROD, concern was: London politician, I find no sources providing significant coverage, fails WP:POLITICIAN. No assertion of notability.)

Joe Swan is a local politician and has received several awards including the 1867-1992 medal from the provincial government and the Queen Elizabeth gold jubilee award in 2012. He also received a volunteer award from the United Nations He was the chairperson who build the Budweiser Gardens in London, and was the chair or vice-chair associated with re-building our local market and many libraries. He moved out of his home, so that it could become the first aids hospice in London , when they could not get anyone else to rent to them. He has made significant contributions to our local community - and continues to do so. Swan is currently the Executive Director of Orchestra London - and has just received approval to begin to build a new concert hall for the orchestra. I think he passes the notible criteria. Please reinstate the page - and I will add to it.

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Nuujinn (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. If the page is to be kept it needs references to verify what it says and to show the significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources needed to establish WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Beatfreak Bohemia

Every other Bassnectar album has a Wikipedia page. It is therefore arbitrary to delete only this album but not delete the other eight. Reason for deletion: "Not a notable album as required by WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG". -50.44.156.202 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Lectonar (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Godalming International tournament

I feel that the deletion was hasty. Whilst the 2012 tournament appears to have been a one off match, there is evidence on the NF board blog site that a second, larger tournament is set for 2013 including a number of non Fifa nations.[1] -85.210.134.117 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. The underlying problems are still there, though. Lectonar (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Gb

Out of process speedy deletion of user talk page. See discussion here[1] for recent confirmation of the principle that user talk pages are not subject to speedy deletion by user request. Includes otherwise unavailable criticism (by Jimbo Wales, among others) of use of administrative authority regarding a dispute in which I was involved, if anyone cares about my purpose. This request applies to the original talk page, not the vandalous creation that was properly deleted a few months later. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC) -Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I have asked Dweller (talk), the deleting admin, to comment here. JohnCD (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This was an WP:RTV deletion, done by me in my capacity as a bureaucrat. The RTV policy at the time was looser than it is now regarding user talk page deletion. Even now, it gives bureaucrats a mandate to delete on occasion. Either way, the proper way for this to be discussed is, as spelled out in the current policy, at DRV, but I would recommend that unless there is a pressing need for material deleted four years ago and not missed since to be brought back, doing so is not beneficial to the RTVd user and even opening the DRV is heading into Streisand effect territory. --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that the not missed since statement is inaccurate, since I objected to User:Dweller at the ime (roughly) of the initial deletion. Allowing the talk page to remain deleted merely allows the damage done by the resigned admin to remain place while concealing the criticism of their damaging actions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
"pressing need for material deleted four years ago and not missed since" -- the missing material appears to now be missed. you have every right to hold strong personal feelings about the rtv, but unless there is some valid reason for maintaining "privacy" (because of something specific on or about the user's talkpage?), transparency & openness of the record is more important. & one is left wondering about the reasons why you would resist undeletion of something as unimportant as you have claimed this item is? (i.e.: you are in danger of generating the "streisand effect" you cite, by your own actions). for that matter, why would a non-controversial rtv *talk-page deletion require attention in your capacity as a "bureaucrat"? *(my understanding, upon reading the relevant help info is that a "bureaucrat" is only needed to do the official-rename (-vanished); the rest of the work being admin-level?) o__0 respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
in case the point was unclear in the above, i favour undeletion; for whatever that's worth, in this process. the cited reasons by the requesting user (hasty deletion process & usefulness for citation) seem perfectly valid (which is what i meant re: transparency & openness of the record) Lx 121 (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Without commenting on the merits of the case, I believe the discussion above shows that this is controversial and hence belongs on DRV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Temisquare.jpg

This photo was used in an article that was recently restored. The photo seems to have been deleted after the article was restored: I think I saw it after the restoration but I'm not certain.

Although the restored article is in AfD, I've merged its text into Temiskaming Shores and it would be nice to have the photo too. The photo was on Wikipedia for over six years and doesn't show any people.

Its deletion was requested for the reason "Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use" but I'd like to use it in another article.

—rybec 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Vizact in Action.jpg

This image was incorrectly removed from the article Microsoft Vizact and subsequently deleted as an orphaned fair use image. -Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Jamie Bloom

reasoning -Natasha1974 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Jamie Bloom is my step-father, I have written this article with his assistance. All the content is true and accurate, all events are true

  • The article was only nominated for deletion, and it didn't qualify for summary removal. However, unless you can provide reliable, independent sources for the claims you make, it's likely to be deleted through regular processes. See WP:BLP and WP:RS for detailed information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have userfied the article and explained about notability, COI and autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Natasha1974/Jamie Bloom. By JohnCD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I seek restoration....

Hello! I am an artist who has worked with slate for over a decade. I want to share with the public that slate can be used as a material for art. On the Wiki page, I have added other uses for slate, "as a material for art," and this was deleted. I included an image of one of my slate relief carvings as an example of art and this was also deleted. I believe my entry is expanding the knowledge base regarding the many uses of slate in today's contemporary world. Not many people today are using slate for relief carving and because this is unique I think my reference and image will be of interest to your readers. -Kofurlani (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The place to take this up is at Talk:Slate, not here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Not done - There is a difference between deleting a page and merely removing content from it. Since the latter is what happened in your case, this is not the correct venue. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Self-control(behavior_analysis)

there was no discussion, it was deleted in less than 24hrs, the page has distinctly different content than the other page; i'm happy to merge it all back if you want a nice deletion/edit fight; it's akin to merging "behaviorism" and "psychology"; there are distinct pages on those topics -florkle (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done - this page is a copyright violation of http://valuesofyou.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-is-self-control.html. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Zee Launch Pad

i do not understand why it is considered advertising, please ellaborate so i can fix it. since i did follow the guidlines -194.165.153.10 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done I have looked at the deleted piece from AFC; let me quote a comment of the last reviewer: "This is a corporate promotional piece. The Youtube videos are blatant corporate hype. This has been declined by three other editors for good reason. The amendments to this article have not addressed the underlying issue, it is not an encyclopedic article.It is full of peacock phrases. The use of exclaimation marks shows how far this is from a neutral tone that is required by an encyclopedic article. The youtube videos are patently crass corporate hype. Is there any redeeming merit? Perhaps it can be cleaned up but the author will have to carefully consider the Wikipedia policies, format and purposes. It is not the role of Wikipedia to be a forum for corproate(sic!) promotion". I agree with this evaluation wholeheartedly. Lectonar (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

okay great thanks, but can i have access to the old articled so i can edit it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishfahem (talk • contribs) 07:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

fundamental right of villagers indian

reasoning -News02012 (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  •  Not done I will assume you meant the promotional and unencyclopedic User:News02012 - which appears to merely be a premise for a possible political party. No thanks - it's not yet encyclopedic (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

TD Canada Trust (Green Machine)

reasoning -Bmrulz11 (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. How could telling people about TD Canada Trusts green machine be advertising. Everyone knows that TD uses the Green Machine. Some people would like to know the history behind it. How is that advertising... I work so hard to provide this and one of your CRAZY admins delete it for NO reason. Tell me why you let just ANYONE become an admin. The admin who did this does not know what they are doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmrulz11 (talk • contribs)

 Not done I just read the entry and it reads as pure advertising; advocacy for the product, with statements such as: "...greatly enhancing the customer service capabilities"; You can do X, Y and Z "and much more"(!); "visit [website] or Call them. Need to log into Easy Web NO PROBLEM..." Whatever this was, whatever you intended, it was no encyclopedia entry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Word windowism

I was in the process of creating it when it got deleted. It got deleted because I pressed save before I was turning it into a stub when there was only one word on it. I was planning just to see How the title looked then re-edit it. Please let me know your decision on my talk page. --Liberalufp (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC) -Liberalufp (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Left a message on your talk-page. For the time being, Done Lectonar (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

View from Nowhere

deleted because: "Expired PROD, concern was: Neologism with no real noteworthiness. One philosopher uses the term in a different context which was borrowed by one political professor and not widely adopted." Undeletion requested to review and maybe expand article, e.g. by combining with Daniel_Okrent#Okrent.27s_law. Because it was PROD-deleted, "It may be undeleted upon request." -EllenCT (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Lectonar (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Becca Stockton and George Komsky

I have legal proof this is a relevant vocal group. Why was the article deleted? Everything posted is factual. I can't reach Daniel (the admin) for comment. Please help. -KS 23:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you have posted to Daniels talk-page 16 minutes after the request here, I advise you to have some patience; he will be around. Let me point you to WP:COI, and talking about legal proof is not cutting much hay here. This is not a court. I am sure Daniel will respond. For now, I will not restore this. Lectonar (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me Lectonar. I've read the article on COI & I'm aware of its policies. I am a neutral party with verifiable proof of the validity of this article. I still await Daniels response - I will wait till I hear from him. Thanks again for your timely response. (KS 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komskystockton (talk • contribs)
Well, your choice of username let me believe otherwise....a bit of an unhappy choice, really. Lectonar (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll reply here rather than on my talk page to keep everything centralised.
The article lacked any references which actually said what the article claimed - a photo of the two together and a passing mention that they collaborated. One member of the two people quoted in the article emailed OTRS pointing out that the duet is nowhere near notable enough (as a duet) to be included in Wikipedia, as they have barely collaborated together. I agreed, and thought that it was a misrepresentation to allow the article to stand. Per their request, I deleted the article for the pair. I won't be undoing it and will be deleting any recreations. I also strongly agree with the block for the username, although I'd argue that the account could have been blocked on promotion/'unapproved and unverified representation of a public figure' grounds anyways. Daniel (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Not done Lectonar (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Front page of paper March 07.JPG

front page of Farmers Guardian paper for paper article infobox; rationale will be added as required. 198.24.31.118 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC) -198.24.31.118 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - Please do so as soon as possible. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Word windowism

The reason for deleting Word windowism is that it is about a club or organization and that it does not state why it is important, but in-fact it is a subculture-a scientific concept of the culture the popular world calls outcasts, and it is also a very large subculture found everywhere across the entire USA but was founded in Austin. And I did say why it is important when I wrote: word windowism is an anthropological subculture -Liberalufp (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC) --Liberalufp (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://nonfifafootball.blogspot.co.uk/p/fixtures.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_85&oldid=1142568352"