Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

judy mikovits

'she is a lead researcher on the 3rd known human retrovirus that can infect humans, she worked on a major breakthrough discovery that was hailed as a top find of 2009, currently she is merged with the page of her current emplyer but this is grossly unfair as she has a career outside of her current employer she cannot be defined by just her current employer, also her peers dr daniel peterson and her current emplyer harvey whittemore both have their own pages, as does a lot of the researchers in the XMRV field which is dr mikovits current field -86.143.164.12 (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done There doesn't appear to have ever been a page at Judy mikovits. There is a page at Judy Mikovits, which redirects to Whittemore Peterson Institute. That redirect was done as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Mikovits. I'd suggest you write a draft of your proposed article at the article incubator (or sign up for a free account and write it at a subpage of your user page). Be sure to add enough quality references that meet the objections brought up at the deletion. When you think it's ready, contact the deleting admin, Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs), and get some feedback before replacing the redirect. HTH --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

yes i meant Judy Mikovits there is no reason for it to redirect to the WPI page, that is the problem, some biased editors have some beef with mikovits and dont want her to have her own page, its a nightmare, the editors in question run the pages with an iron fist, its like a little cabal that outsiders are just bullied out the way, my point is that Judy Mikovits warrants her own page, but its hard when a page is merged when a "consensus" is reached by a couple of editors who have known each other for years

FYI, I have been a regular contributor to these articles and if you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Mikovits AFAIK none of the editors that decided to merge the Judy Mikovits article into the WPI article are regular contributors to the CFS articles. If and when Mikovits' XMRV research is accepted or refuted by secondary MEDRS sources it will be much easier to determine her notability. Ward20 (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Still, this is an editing issue, not a deletion issue, because any editor can see the history and revert back to a prior version. There's nothing we can do for you here at this venue, other than the suggestion I gave above. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Metal Militia (group)

The metal militia is a real organization that is trying to stop Justin Bieber and other artists from ruining music forever. -Devin1012 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done I'd suggest getting some reliable sources showing notability, and making a draft at User:Devin1012/Metal Militia (group). When you think you've shown how the group is notable, make a request at Wikipedia:Rfpp#Current_requests_for_unprotection. HTH --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Viewpath

This page contained no controversial material and was simply an informative page about the company Viewpath. Reasons for deletion were not addressed to the originator. We want to remain within the Wikipedia guidelines but do not know what guidelines we did not adhere to that resulted in this deletion. -Ganttchartking (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done - this page has been deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viewpath, and cannot be undeleted through this process. If you believe that the consensus of the discussion was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Jayjg (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

itnti

either this previously created page has been deleted in error or someone is just playing foul as the information listed was duly apropriate. I am not associated with this article however, i was once upon a time and i know information listed was correct and of public interest. -113.199.198.227 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. This request appears to be ultimately about this page, as moved from the above prior title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC) (UTC)
    • Arguably this is undeletable as an expired prod, but this will be going straight for AFD as its arguably non-notable without sources. To avoid this, can the nom point to any sources that we can add to the article if we were to restore this? Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Siebenberg

The pages appears to have been deleted shortly after it's creation because of a "G12" and/or "unambiguous copyright infringement". After reviewing the "reasons for deletion" page and exploring Wiipedia's criteria for allowance of a new subject, I believe the subject is relevant and does not infringe on any copyrights. -Jessebergometer (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  •  Not done - The bio section appears to have been copied from http://www.myspace.com/jessesiebenberg . If you are the subject of the article, please see the conflict of interest policy - it is asked that you not create articles about yourself even if you are notable. If you are the copyright holder to this text and you wish to release it under a license compatible for use on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. For your (or the copyright holder's) protection, this permission needs to be documented with the Wikimedia Foundation, not merely asserted here. Please note, though, that simply donating the content does not mean that it is appropriate for use in an article. Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view and press releases or other content created by someone with a vested interest in the subject are usually not appropriate. --B (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Spurs Show

It's a groundbreaking podcast, with many famous and historically guests that are important to soccer fans. My guess is that a fan of a rival requested its deletion -87.74.76.186 (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

? There's never been an article of that name. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It was at Spurs show · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]. —Korath (Talk) 20:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 Not done - no evidence or assertion of any notability; just another podcast. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Jumpen

The article was deleted for the following reason : "A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". However, Patrick Jumpen should be notable according to WP:MUSIC because he satisfies the second criteria : "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" (in this case, the Netherlands). Sources are given in the german version de:Patrick Jumpen -Orlodrim (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done The deleted version only stated they are an jump style artist with a youtube link, so there isn't actually anything worth restoring. There is no impediment against recreation. Maybe you want to start it up yourself. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Quizmania

Quizmania remains a fairly well-known quiz show brand with an active online community, and is referred to on a number of other Wikipedia pages - FremantleMedia, Quizmania (Australia), and several presenters' pages -195.191.86.49 (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. --B (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul V. Kane

The article "Paul V. Kane" was an AfD and was in the midst of debate that had not yet closed, and was summarily wiped out and deleted. Pls restore it and the AfD debate.72.83.107.120 (talk)

Comment - the AfD discussion is here; it appears normally closed. IP poster may want to read WP:SOCK. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Truth in Numbers

The article has been justifiably deleted per WP:CRYSTAL (as vaporware). However, the movie premiere finally happened at last Wikimania, so this rationale doesn't apply anymore. Numerous language versions of Wikipedia already have an article about this film (see interwikis). See also past AfD (which includes pages that have a slightly different name); perhaps choose the best article to restore? -Church of emacs (Talk) 07:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Holy Spirit School - Ilang Ilang

the article does not wish to promote the school but simply contains facts/information, particularly, the school's historical sketch and will be used to make it available online, for people who might be interested to know more about the school. similar articles have already been written on wikipedia about holy spirit school - ilang ilang's sister schools, namely holy spirit school tagbilaran, school of the holy spirit, college of the holy spirit and college of the holy spirit of tarlac. please consider the undeletion of this article. -Fbsarmiento (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done- Wikipedia is not a place to host your personal website. If you need a website domain go somewhere that specializes in that. AKA- not here. Mr. R00t Talk 17:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Róbert Bezák

His biography (in Slovak) is in External links. -TPisuth (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. --B (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

General Purpose Interface

Forget my undeletion request, there already is General Purpose Input/Output that handles this. 14 July 2010

  •  Done - I have created a redirect from this title to the existing article. --B (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Stamps Quartet

reasoning -Gospelquartet (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Reasoning:

My name is Ed Enoch and I am the owner - manager - lead vocalist for the legendary, world-famous Stamps Quartet, Nashville, TN.

I have been a member of the Stamps Quartet for 40 years.

I am the owner of the Stamps Quartet and I was granted the OFFICIAL TRADEMARK to the Stamps Quartet name in August 2003, by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC.

The Stamps Quartet was listed on Wikipedia, for MANY years.

Last week it was brought to my attention that the STAMPS QUARTET was no longer listed on Wikipedia.

When I addressed this problem - I noticed someone by the name of "CactusWriter", deleted the Stamps Quartet from Wikipedia citing "copyright violation" of Forever- Elvis (???) and Frank Stamps.

NO ONE owns the official trademark/ copyright to the Stamps Quartet name except myself.

My question: How could someone by the name of "CactusWriter" think he or she has the right to delete the Stamps Quartet from Wikepedia?

The Stamps Quartet is a legendary - world-famous quartet and this year The Stamps Quartet is celebrating 86 years singing Gospel music.

The Stamps Quartet is the "oldest - professional - Gospel quartet still singing today."

I would like to have the Stamps Quartet placed back on Wikipedia as soon as possible.

The fans of the Stamps Quartet - world-wide - are concerned as I am - about the removal of our information.

If you are unable to reestablish the information that has been deleted - fortunately - I have a copy of everything that was on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your attention and quick response to this matter.

Also, please be aware that "CactusWriter" or anyone else - DOES NOT have any authority to add or delete anything concerning the Stamps Quartet.

Thanks again. Ed Enoch Owner - Manager - Lead Vocalist

The Stamps Quartet "World Famous Gospel Music Legends" Grammy and Dove Awards - "Best Gospel Group" and "Best Gospel Albums" Backup Vocalists for Elvis Presley - 1971 - 1977 Members of the Gospel Music Hall of Fame

www.thestampsquartet.com

P.O. Box 1471 Brentwood, TN. 37024

Telephone: The Office of The Stamps Quartet / Bookings 615-730-5813

"To God Be The Glory".

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization

Large organization with much history -Timpicerilo (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Was there any discussion on this? This organization is filming its own television series to be aired on the major television network Animal Planet. It is the largest and oldest of its kind. I don't understand why it was deleted.--Timpicerilo (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2010 (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 closed the discussion, user Ged UK (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. --B (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

MyEdu

still in the process of adding to the page to make it more notable. The page was flagged for speedy deletion only hours after I put it up. I was planning on finishing the page today. -Wtferguson (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mohsen Emadi

The article has 35 references that describe the notability of the subject, the debate were in the process and an editor removed it without a clear description. I invite editors of Wikipedia for a carefully look at the article and the debate. -Transcelan (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done - this page has been deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohsen_Emadi_(2nd_nomination), and cannot be undeleted through this process. If you believe that the consensus of the discussion was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Spartaz (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.--Tikiwont (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

justin kline

a reliable source has been added to the article -Gathertheforest (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Justin Kline is an American powerpop singer-songwriter solo artist out of Murfreesboro, TN.[1]

Early Years

Born in Okinawa, Japan, Kline's family moved to Waldorf, MD which is where his musical journey began. At the young age of 12, Justin started a pop-punk band called Duckie with his brother Eric Kline and friend Dan Pamer, but only to disband just a few years later.

In Clover

In 2000, Kline went on to form In Clover[2], a 3-piece Indie Rock band who released Sailing the Seas of Forgetfulness EP and The Aurora and the Downfall EP independently, then signed to Nashville, TN Theory 8 Records to release a split EP with Movies With Heroes, and their final full-length release Omniocea[3]. In Clover disbanded in 2004 due to their bassist Dan Wax suffering a severe ping-pong injury. The last surviving member Jamie Mclane went on to form Yimwu and His Dirty Eyelens, and King Cloud.

The Heartstring Band

In 2005, Justin went on to form powerpop quartet The Heartstring Band[4] with Dan Wax, his brother Eric Kline, and Thom Lambert. In 2006, The Heartstring Band disbanded shortly after releasing Aurora Songs Vol. 1 EP due to Justin relocating to the Nashville, TN area.

Solo

After relocating to Murfreesboro, TN, Justin started recording his solo powerpop material in 2008 at The Bookhouse in Nashville, TN with Producer/Engineer Mark Nash. In April of 2008, Kline's Six Songs EP[5] was released digitally receiving favorable reviews from powerpop music websites and blogs. Absolute Powerpop gave Justin Kline's Six Songs EP number 1 on the Top 10 EPs of 2008.[6]

Early 2010, Kline had nearly finished his followup to Six Songs tentatively titled Balance, when the The Bookhouse studio in Nashville was broken into and robbed of recording gear and hard drives. The original recording sessions were stolen and never to be recovered. However, a physical copy of two tracks from the recording sessions were found, which was later released on a 4 song EP titled Triangle[7], with two older songs recording in 2008 during the Six Songs sessions.

  • I have collapsed the text - if you have sections like that, the bot can't archive the request. Nothing you listed in there appears to be a reliable source. In any event, there is nothing particularly useful in the article that was there before, so there's no need to restore the former text. If you can find reliable sources and feel the person is notable, just create the article and move on with life. --B (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hungary: Nationalist Coalition

I think this is an essential aspect of the pre WW 1 HUngarian policty that was governing over a part of Europe and it should be known for research purpose. There is no reason to consider it RACIST - it is more likely to be labeled as Nationalist on excessively pro-Hungarian and anti-non Hungarian. -89.122.145.250 (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The deleted article Nationalist Coalition is about an organization in St. Petersburg, Florida, not one in Hungary. Is that what you want restored or are you looking for something else? --B (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Which means that you are welcome to create a new article on this different topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

EHCP

I believe that EHCP which was originally deleted due to Blatant Advertising as the logs put it, was recreated by a third party and re-deleted due to article not being notable. This page should be undeleted, as it is a software company, and any company has a right to be on here, especially if the page was created by a third party. -97.103.215.16 (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

  • There is not a right to have an article, instead there is WP:CORP that describes what it takes for a company to have an article. If you registered an account it could be userfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dariusz Krzysztof Zawislak

reasoning -89.76.120.12 (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Like U can see from 2009 many people change maind regrding this subject, and they finally agree that is definitelly wiki. In Poland and 

  * Català
  * Español
  * Italiano
  * Português
  * Русский
  * Slovenčina

So please consider recreate this page back, its not a spam. Discusion in english wiki was created by some opportunists and was not necessery stimulated specially by one interwiki antagonist. Now looking form perspective in my opinion is ok. Best M

Graham John McKenzie

provided reference -Rugbyfan1 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

  •  Not done (1) The link you added does not mention the person. (2) The article has not yet been deleted - this process is for articles that have been deleted. If/when you find a reliable source external to the subject (meaning, not merely his team page), you can just remove the blp-prod template. --B (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hideki Shiohira

Hideki Shiohira is a prominent aikido teacher, who is well known in aikido community. The reason "CSD A7" is not valid in this case. Other wikipedia articles refer to Shiohira Sensei. -Victorspm (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeek

reasoning -209.243.105.101 (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC) As broad as wikipedia coverage has come to be, I have no idea why the page on the venerable race of Yeeks was deleted. It should come back.

Not done - this page has been deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeek, and cannot be undeleted through this process, which is only for pages deleted uncontroversially. Please read what this page is for at the top. If you believe that the consensus of the discussion was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user east718 (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

List of organ scholars at Chelmsford Cathedral

I refute the argument that many of the names listed were not notable. It is of great use to have a concise and clear list of who was organ scholar and when at which cathedral, and whoever petitioned for its deletion had an agenda that does not coincide with the greater good of information dissemination. -79.65.76.129 (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There has never been a page at the title you have requested to be undeleted. It's difficult to fulfill requests when the page a person is here about is not named. After a little sleuthing, I assume your post is about List of Organ Scholars at British Cathedrals and Parish Churches? If so, that page was deleted via a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organ scholars at British cathedrals and parish churches, and cannot be undeleted through this process, which is only for pages deleted uncontroversially. Please read the top of this page which clearly tells you this. Your reason for making your request, in any event, does not address the reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not for free dissemination of information. Lots of information is useful in some context but still does not meet our policies and guidelines for an encyclopedia article. In any event, if you wish to gain undeletion, This is not the right process. You can talk to the admin who deleted it, User:NuclearWarfare and you can go to deletion review but you'll need a much better argument than the one you made here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

jeff brennan

reasoning -Jeffwildstar (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

this is the artist page i was attempting to create

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2037276/

It was removed as non notable. But the Simpsons, Superman, The Nanny, the Rosie O'Donnell Show, The Expendables, Courage the Cowarly Dog, Jumanji. These are all hugely succesful projects that the artist was involved in. He is currently being paid to lecture about his film and television work in China. How is this not notable? The Imdb page can be confirmed. Also I have photos of the artist at his many lectures where 200 to 300 people regularly attend. He is now working on a project that can not be disclosed at this time due to a NDA that was signed. I would request that this page be allowed to be re-instated.

It was not removed as non-notable. It was deleted as failing to indicate it's importance under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Though I would not have deleted this under CSD A7 and do not think it met the criterion, the request to undelete at this page is not doable. This page is only for articles deleted uncontroversially, such as through prod or as housekeeping. However, there is no impediment to recreation of the article by you right now, since it was not deleted after discussion. But when you do so, cite at least one reliable source that verifies the content. This should keep it from being deleted again for the same reason, and is required for content anyway. Alternatively, you can contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Jmlk17 (talk · contribs). If that is not fruitful, you can request that the article be undeleted at deletion review. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

world of lordcraft

i wrote this stub a long time ago and it was speedyed under A7 even trough it meets WP:WEB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.200.244 (talk • contribs)

Na Someshwar

reasoning -Vijeth N Bharadwaj, Mysore (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir, As far my knowledge is concerned, the details provided by me are true. I will soon find some references about this article. So please dont delete this article

This page has nothing to do with addressing the pending deletion of any page anywhere on Wikipedia. It is for articles that have already been deleted, and deleted on an uncontroversial basis. Can I ask you something? Did you read what this page was for at the top before you made your request? Since I think the instructions are rather clear, I'm wondering why such a high number of people post requests here that this page cannot address and which it is patently not for.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Video Monitoring Services

Article was relevant since it was linked to First Amendment/Fair Use Legislation, Article was vandalized, Legal aspect was removed, users initially restored to previous status, then marked for speedy deletion instead of reverting to last known status after repeated vandalism, I thought vandal would be dealt with via staff instead article is removed -Shredthegnar247 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Never established any claim to notability in its own right; see WP:1E. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In its own right it directly partook in litigation which determined using media clips was protected by the first amendment and fair use, when I said linked I meant related to, not simply linked as in via url. See litigation here: http://openjurist.org/940/f2d/1471/cable-news-network-inc-v-video-monitoring-services-of-america-inc See also Stuckey, K:Internet and Online Law, 6.06:6-36 .Law Journal Press, 1996 Found the Google Books link: http://books.google.com/books?id=b2QL54Jp09gC&lpg=SA6-PA36&dq=vms%20vs%20cnn&pg=SA6-PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false Shredthegnar247 (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So? That's just the kind of thing WP:1E is about. They aren't notable; they just happened to be involved in somewhat notable litigation. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, the stub was only a few days old though before it was vandalized and marked for speedy deletion. I don't know much about the company but I figured others could add on- it seems it wasn't even given a chance. When I have time I will do research and see if it's notable for anything else. I guess for now you can deny the request/I will recreate if find anything else that's notable, or you can restore and see if anyone else comes up with anything? (I'm new here, really sorry if I am not following protocol 100%~) Shredthegnar247 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Rajan Bhardwaj

Rajan -Rajabhar (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Page was deleted due to no source I have source of such person as www.rajan007.co.cc & http://aibkf.com/Instructors%20&%20Examiners.html#Uttar%20Pradesh

No, the page was not deleted. The page has been BLP prodded and still exists. That means this page and the process it is for has no applicability whatsoever to what's going on with the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

BUTCH LEAKE

NON COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT -VENTURA11 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ventura. This page cannot be undeleted through this process since it was indeed a copy and paste of the content of the copyrighted material of the external website noted in the deletion summary. You coming here and shouting in all caps that it is not a copyright violation tells us nothing about why you think that's so, and so it's completely ineffective. The only thing you might say is that you are the owner of the content. If that is the case, we still can't use it until you release it into the public domain or freely license the copyright using a license compatible with ours, and do so in a verifiable manner such as changing the copyright notice on the external website to a free license, or emailing the Volunteer response team from a domain name clearly associated with the external link stating your release. For more on these matters, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and pay special attention to the section under the heading Granting us permission to copy material already online. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nigel Harris (actor)

This article (which is about me) is entirely accurate and does not violate any copyright. References to film and television work can be authenticated by comparison with my Internet Movie dataBase page. -86.1.182.36 (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this was deleted upon a prod, I have restored. However, as an article on a living person, you, it cannot remain unless it contains at least one reliable source which is cited in the article. I have prodded it again, this time under BLP Prod.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I have added a source myself. It's still woefully undersourced but it's a start.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sound Healing

Page was removed because it was thought to be copied from another website. But Simon Heather who wrote the sound healing page for wikipedia is the author of the text that appears in the other website. his text is used without his permission. we'd really like the Sound Healing page to be reviewed for undeletion please. there is no breach of copyright on our part. Simon heather is the author of a book on sound healing and the other website has used his work without permission. thanks. he wrote to the page adminstrator but never got a response. -81.107.132.86 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This page cannot be undeleted through this process since it was indeed a copy and paste of the content of the copyrighted material of the external website noted in the deletion summary. If it was pasted by the copyright holder, we would need it to be released into the public domain or freely license using a license compatible with ours, and that that be done in a verifiable manner such as changing the copyright notice on the external website to a free license, or emailing the Volunteer response team from a domain name clearly associated with the external link stating the release. We cannot use any copyrighted material by permission, because our licenses requires that material here be able to be reused by our readership, so it has to have a compatible license to ours. For more on these matters, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and pay special attention to the section under the heading Granting us permission to copy material already online. By the way, even if these steps are taken, the material does not appear suitable for our use in its present form. The material was entirely unsourced, and might very well have been deleted for other reasons if the copyvio was not noted. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

schitz

Was considered hoax, however, as a philosophical concept it cannot be proven either way and was only deleted because those who supported the deletion were unaware of its existence prior to reading the article -24.128.39.16 (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

- not done. Your interpretation of the deletion discussion rationale is completely off target. We have an entire policy that forbids what you sought there and here, no original research. You cannot introduce new concepts on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and properly only contains articles on topics, including philosophical concepts and arguments, that have already been published about in the real world in independent, reliable, secondary sources, and which sources we can cite in the article to verify its information. You also might read the notice and introduction at the top of this page which makes it abundantly clear that articles deleted through discussion, as this article was, are never undeleted through this page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Barmoor

am not a Wikipedia expert or even a regular user, but find the arbitrary deletion of webpages by people who do not know the subject of the webpage quite distasteful and arrogant. In this instance Barmoor is a retreat / holiday home owned and run by a charitable trust linked to the Society of Friends (The Quakers). It's history is as follows:

Extended content

Barmoor was built in 1908 by William and Anna Maria Harvey, Quakers from Leeds. They had holidayed at the farmhouse next door and loved the area, so when the fields known as The Barmers came on the market they bought them and employed a Leeds architect to build a large family house, as a second home. From the beginning Barmoor was enjoyed by their seven already adult children and by a growing tribe of fourteen grandchildren. It was also a holiday haven for many other folk from Leeds and elsewhere invited out to enjoy peaceful times of recuperation or retreat. During the First World War it housed a group of refugees from Belgium.


The eldest son, Ted Harvey, inherited the house and continued its use by family and friends, particularly by Quaker educational groups. During the Second World War it became for a time a training camp for the women’s section of the Friends Ambulance Unit. Having no children, in 1947 he set up a Family Trust to run the house as a holiday place for religious, educational and philanthropic groups. In 1982 a Charitable Trust was established to continue to manage Barmoor in this way. The Managers are drawn from members of the family (now in the third and fourth generations from the “founders”) and from Quakers from the Kirkbymoorside and York areas.


Barmoor was built in 1908. A few years later an addition was made, comprising a Nursery room (now the Quiet Room) and the bedroom above. Until the early 1950s the house had no electricity or mains water. Lighting was by paraffin lamps and candles; water had to be pumped by hand and the drinking water had to be fetched daily from a pure spring on the moor. Since the establishment of the Charity in 1982 gradual improvements have been made to furniture and fittings to increase the comfort of visitors without spoiling the atmosphere of a much loved family house. The garden and grounds can no longer be kept as they used to be, but provide a welcome play area with rough lawns and trees around. The house looks out over the Trust’s two fields, now farmed organically, to further views beyond.

I am personally not a Quaker but I feel sure that the history and current use of the house is of interest to may people.

I am not a Wikipedia expert or even a regular user, but find the arbitrary deletion of webpages by people who do not know the subject of the webpage quite distasteful and arrogant. In this instance Barmoor is a retreat / holiday home owned and run by a charitable trust linked to the Society of Friends (The Quakers). It's history is as follows:

Barmoor was built in 1908 by William and Anna Maria Harvey, Quakers from Leeds. They had holidayed at the farmhouse next door and loved the area, so when the fields known as The Barmers came on the market they bought them and employed a Leeds architect to build a large family house, as a second home. From the beginning Barmoor was enjoyed by their seven already adult children and by a growing tribe of fourteen grandchildren. It was also a holiday haven for many other folk from Leeds and elsewhere invited out to enjoy peaceful times of recuperation or retreat. During the First World War it housed a group of refugees from Belgium.


The eldest son, Ted Harvey, inherited the house and continued its use by family and friends, particularly by Quaker educational groups. During the Second World War it became for a time a training camp for the women’s section of the Friends Ambulance Unit. Having no children, in 1947 he set up a Family Trust to run the house as a holiday place for religious, educational and philanthropic groups. In 1982 a Charitable Trust was established to continue to manage Barmoor in this way. The Managers are drawn from members of the family (now in the third and fourth generations from the “founders”) and from Quakers from the Kirkbymoorside and York areas.


Barmoor was built in 1908. A few years later an addition was made, comprising a Nursery room (now the Quiet Room) and the bedroom above. Until the early 1950s the house had no electricity or mains water. Lighting was by paraffin lamps and candles; water had to be pumped by hand and the drinking water had to be fetched daily from a pure spring on the moor. Since the establishment of the Charity in 1982 gradual improvements have been made to furniture and fittings to increase the comfort of visitors without spoiling the atmosphere of a much loved family house. The garden and grounds can no longer be kept as they used to be, but provide a welcome play area with rough lawns and trees around. The house looks out over the Trust’s two fields, now farmed organically, to further views beyond.

I am personally not a Quaker but I feel sure that the history and current use of the house is of interest to may people. -91.85.138.52 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be interesting, but lots of things that are interesting to people do not meet the notability standard to have an article here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Is this site part of a larger museum or other tourism/historical group? Could put a sentence or two about it there if this specific item isn't itself notable neough for a stand-alone article.
Your point that we (other editors) don't know much about it is actually part of the problem...verifiability policy means the article itself must actually state what's important so that others can figure it out. DMacks (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I am a Friend, and can tell thee that the deletion was soundly based. Why not create a new article, incorporating sufficient information to meet the site's standards? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pacific Paranormal Investigations

Would like a longer grace period to understand and address the reasons for its deletion; make necessary changes or convince administrators of the validity of its content. -Agora19 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. The article had already been tagged since April, though, and still needs better sourcing to withstand a deletion discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dybuster

It was G-11'ed but I don't remember it being that bad. I was going to fix it anyway. -Marcus Qwertyus (signs his posts) 19:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Marcus Qwertyus/Dybuster.. There is indeed worse, but it still needs a lot of improvement before moving it another time to mainspace. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the Sagas

there was nothing wrong with it, it was a relevant page. Now this artist is missing an album in his discography.[1]

04:34, 9 July 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "Back to the Sagas" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Either needs content or deletion.)

if someone has to pick at something, i would rather they asked the creator of the page to update/sort the issue rather than just deleting it..

thanks wiki -89.206.189.167 (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Nevertheless, this is a mere track listing, so I've redirected it to Klashnekoff#Discography. Please also see WP:MUSIC for more info on when to have separate articles on albums or songs.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Benjiwolf

I wish to review the talk page of this user, back to 2006-2007. He created a promotional article that I have just nominated for deletion. He is blocked for sockpuppetry. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I have restored the pages, please let us know when you are done so we can delete them again. Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephano Barberis

Deletion review discussion questioned Barberis's notability. Recently, Barberis was incorporated into the University of Toronto Press's Canadian Who's Who of 2010. According to the CWW wikipedia page, "CWW is a comprehensive source of biographical information on leading and influential Canadians and is used by researchers, the media and other interested parties to obtain background information on such individuals." Canadian Who's Who This information was not available at the time of the deletion discussion. Further, sources will be added to the page. Also, the writing can be put into NPOV. Request for undeletion was put forth to the deleting administrator but no response was provided. -Kanis103 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Note that requests for undeletion is not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion, and you are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephano Barberis. This page is not for deletion review!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

wafflepwn

since there is a page titled "Greatest_freak-out_ever_(series)", why not just have "wafflepwn" redirect to this page? -whodhu (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The target is currently proposed for deletion and will probably go to Articles for deletion if contested. If it eventually stays in, drop a note to me or at WP:RFUP.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Alex Maine

This article has was deleted several times in 2008 due to feelings that it was not of a notable person. I am confident that i am now able to write a suitable article. I sit on the Advisory Board for one of Mr Maine's Canadian projects known as the Haliwards. It's a municipality wide awards project that recently took a leap across the Atlantic Ocean. I'd like the opportunity to rectify this. -24.89.195.135 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  •  Not done for several reasons. The article was deleted in accordance with our speedy deletion policy and this can only be reviewed at deletion review. Also, please see our conflict of interest policy - in general, users are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves or their employer. --B (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nick Beams

Please move this article in my user-namespace for further work on it. -Korcur (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephanie Black

I have referenced article from NYT verifying information posted. Thank you. -Syladalar (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 19:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Jagtag, please userfy

Please convey to us what needs to be done in order to userfy this wiki page. Jagtag is not trying to advertise here, just provide a factual reference for people unfamiliar with he company and our unique technology. -Muzikman2787 (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  •  Question answered Please see our conflict of interest guideline — it is not generally appropriate for you to create an article about yourself or your employer. Please see also our guideline for inclusion of articles about companies &mash; this article should answer your question. The short version is that a topic is appropriate for inclusion if there are reliable sources (eg newspapers) independent of the subject itself that provide non-trivial coverage of the subject. This does not include merely repeating your press releases or a one-off "human interest story". As of this particular moment, the article has not been deleted, so there is nothing to do. If the article is, at some point after I type this, deleted in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion, then the appropriate forum for reviewing that decision will be deletion review, but again, it is STRONGLY suggested that an article about your company be written by someone not affiliated with your company. --B (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Decision Architecture

Should not have been deleted -Dnazip (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The page was properly deleted under the proposed deletion process but such deletions are are typically restored as uncontroversial, upon request. I cannot do so here. The article was blatantly promotional—so promotional sounding, so full of empty corporate ad-speak and peacock language, that it was a poster child for speedy deletion under CSD G11. As such, I am unwilling to restore since I would simply be undeleting to delete it in the next moment under the speedy deletion criterion which also applied. I will, however, provide the content to you if you ask, so that you can attempt to reform it, but this does not belong in the mainspace while it continues to read like a corporate infomercial.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, The founder of Decision Architecture asked me to submit the following appeal:


Dr. Sand, I appreciate all your work and effort to publish Decision Architecture on Wikipedia as part of your continuing role and mission in life to provide education at Duke University and to your client companies around the world in the areas of decision making and business strategy of which Decision Architecture is a critical part.

For the last 30+ years my colleagues and I in education, management consulting, and corporations at Wharton, Harvard, U of California, Andersen Consulting, Coopers Lybrand, IBM and dozens more around the world have provided education and guidance to thousands of executives and practitioners in the areas of strategic planning, business development, business and competitive intelligence, knowledge management and information systems applications.

Decision Architecture is one of the unique decision analysis and business intelligence processes and techniques taught and used in thousands of small to medium size companies over the last 30 years.

Until now, no one has documented in a public domain the definition and details of Decision Architecture because it was always considered to offer a competitive advantage by its users. I appreciate your efforts as an university educator to do so.

I wish Mr. Fuhghettaboutit would reconsider his erroneous claim and position that the posting of Decision Architecture is strictly a commercial. It certainly is not. I would him to allow me to explain that your intention of including Decision Architecture in Wikipedia is impartial and objective and offers the entire business, education, nonprofit and government agency communities the opportunity to learn, understand and use this bit of knowledge, apply it to their own organizations for improved outcomes and performance, and help to expand and improve the Decision Architecture process as it exists and you defined it. I believe you want to contribute in such a way to society and I too support your efforts to do so.

According to my research On Wikipedia, there are several other related processes like Decision Architecture in the area of decision support such as the following:

  • Business plan
  • Business Strategy Mapping
  • Integrated business planning
  • Marketing strategies
  • Strategic planning
  • Strategy visualization


Fred Retired Consultant—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnazip (talk • contribs)

I've taken an independent look at the article, and I concur with Fuhghettaboutit's decision. Basically, the article needs to be completely rewritten from scratch, because it reads exactly like a marketing piece for the company. If you would like to take a stab at it, you might want to do so at User:Dnazip/Decision Architecture. This will give you plenty of time to get it into a shape that resembles an encyclopedia article, not a promo piece. Before moving it into main space, get someone to look it over at WP:FEED, or you run the risk of having it deleted again. HTH.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 22 July 2010

(UTC)

Fabrictramp,

Thank you. I'll ask Fred to address the marketing verbiage of the article, and we'll submit to WP Feed for a look over. BTW, it would be valuable to receive an email about such deletions as the creator. That would have saved us from some embarrassment with organizations that know us. dnazip.

Category:Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

reasoning: Deleted by a bot that didn't know what it was doing. If you want this deleted, execute an AFD; don't have a bot do it. Claimed redundant to Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame. Much different: whereas a lesser-known actor can get it as a "minor" honor, only a handful of fictional characters have been chosen, making it a much greater honor. -Purplebackpack89 01:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted after the decision to do so was reached by human beings at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23#Category:Hollywood Walk of Fame. The bot simply implemented that deletion decision. You can contact the administrator who close the deletion discussion, User:Kbdank71, and once you've done so and if that is not fruitful, you can make a well thought out case for overturning the discussion at deletion review, but the page will not be undeleted through this process. As announced at the top of this page, this process is only addressed to uncontroversial deletions, and is completely inapplicable to articles deleted through any discussion process, such as AfD, MfD, or in this case, CfD.
But they're not the same category; the same arguments don't apply Purplebackpack89 01:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, now I see what you're talking about. Let me look into it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. I studied the CfD logs and can't find any mention of this category and the discussion does not clearly rope in this material. Let me see if I can hunt down the bot instruction to delete and see if I can figure out how this got included.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I've restored. I'm going to drop a note at the bot's talk page about this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#Category:Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Clayton Point

My name is Caleb Corpening and I am staff here at Cedar Fair Entertainment Company. I created a wikipedia page about one of our 12 parks and it has been deleted. The page was posted to be edited when there was time. There was no reason for this delete! I would be very happy if you could restore the page or I will have sued your company. My manager is very upset because of this! - InformationNC (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This was properly deleted as obvious promotion, even though the deleting editor didn't know your conflict of interest in this matter. In addition, your account has been indefinitely blocked due to your unacceptable threat of legal action. Your manager will have to calm down. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The_X_Factor_Fan_Site

speedy delete tag, was followed up by hangon tags and major revisions. The page was deleted within an hour, without time to make corrections. Admins whom deleted the page where contacted through their talk pages. No response by admins, followed by author placing the page back online, using the delrev tag to appeal the deletion. According to wikipedia: Deletion review, closing reviews: A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. The page did not make it after this lengthy process, as within 1 or 2 hours, it was once again deleted. Without discussion, or responses from admins, this continued attack appears to be vandalism on the part of power hungry admins. -Robtencer (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  • My first glance at the article leads me to believe that it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. None of the linked sources (in the section titled "Gripes investigated by Ofcom") seem to mention the website in anything but a passing fashion. And the material added after the first deletion seems to be proving the existence of the subject, not offering evidence of any outside coverage by news organizations or other reliable sources. Do you know of any detailed coverage in reliable sources for this organization? Until I can see some evidence of that I'm not inclined to unilaterally overturn a speed deletion as the article did not give an indication that the subject was a great deal more than a fansite for a relatively popular TV show. If you would like to formally request that the deletion be overturned, you can make a post at deletion review. In the meantime I can email you a copy of the most recent revision of the article or I can move the article into a user sub-page for you to work on while all this is sorted out. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I hasten to add that if you want help with any of that stuff; figuring out which sources are reliable, having the inclusion criteria explained or adding a request to deletion review I am happy to help. Just ask here or on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Evolution

There was no error on violation in my page -119.152.142.172 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

? There is no record of this account having made any contribution to the article Cosmic evolution. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.justinkline.com/
  2. ^ http://www.theory8records.com/artists/in-clover/
  3. ^ http://www.theory8records.com/releases/omniocea/
  4. ^ http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/TheHeartstringBand
  5. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Six-Songs/dp/B001CKPQ42/ref=dm_ap_alb1?ie=UTF8&qid=1279238607&sr=8-2
  6. ^ http://absolutepowerpop.blogspot.com/2008/12/absolute-powerpop-top-10-eps-of-2008.html
  7. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Triangle/dp/B003U39AUU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1279238607&sr=8-2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_14&oldid=1142568696"