Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Liz Meyer: new section
Line 453: Line 453:
The article was originally deleted for "ambiguous advertising". So ambiguous in fact that I, as the writer, did not even know what it was advertising. I took the advice of Sluggo and made it more encyclopedic based on a different wikipedia article re: a significant building.
The article was originally deleted for "ambiguous advertising". So ambiguous in fact that I, as the writer, did not even know what it was advertising. I took the advice of Sluggo and made it more encyclopedic based on a different wikipedia article re: a significant building.


As I was editing NawlinWiki deleted it. He/she noted there were no sources. There were at least 5 different sources referenced correctly with links to the direct media outlets reporting on the building's significance. There was no advertising. I commented back to NawlinWiki that I had posted a {{hang on}}.
As I was editing NawlinWiki deleted it. He/she noted there were no sources. There were at least 5 different sources referenced correctly with links to the direct media outlets reporting on the building's significance. There was no advertising. I commented back to User:NawlinWiki that I had posted a hang on based on the instructions so that I could edit it.


Based on Wikipedia's help, I started the article again in the encyclopedic format with sources specifically listed and linked, yet he/she deleted it AGAIN. While I was editing. There were several sources based specifically on Wikipedia's instructions, so do not understand how he/she could not see that.
Based on Wikipedia's help section, I started the article again in the encyclopedic format with sources specifically listed and linked, yet User:NawlinWiki deleted it '''again''' while I was editing. Even though again there were several sources included and based specifically on Wikipedia's instructions, so do not understand how he/she could not see that.


The article that I spent so much time editing is now completely gone. I am new at this but have just as much right as anyone else to contribute here. It is not self-serving at all and I am following the rules that I see published here.
The article that I spent so much time editing is now completely gone. I am new at this but have just as much right as anyone else to contribute here. It is not self-serving at all and I am following the rules that I see published here.

Revision as of 20:09, 10 September 2010


Note: This page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions nor to address the pending deletion of any page.
Shortcuts

Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion and under certain speedy deletion criteria, such as CSD G6. This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere. This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other XfD processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process.

This page is only for requesting undeletion of articles which have already been deleted. If the article you are concerned about is still visible, but has a warning message (template) at the top, please do not post here, but follow the instructions on the template or on your talk page.

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

float
float
float
float
Enter the page's title to request its undeletion:

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Category: User:LINKELS Josy

all my indicated topics are true and I am calling for a goodwilling undeletion.BEST REGARDS AND THANKS -LINKELS Josy (talk) (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This user does not seem speak English very well and has not responded to communications. He currently has 3 userfied copies of the requested page and they are all a mess, I had to no wiki his talkpage so new messages would appear correctly. The articles look like they have been machine translated from another wiki.- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 02:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to discuss on his talkpage en francais, but he refuses to communicate. See his umpteenth attempt below. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dagon2logo.gif

This is not my image, but it is needed for the article, I will fix the licensing, thank you! -Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RayLawrenceAndHisOrchestra.jpg

OTRS 2010081410006747 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. -Fæ (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Phillip Backus

OTRS 2010082010007252 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. Considering a likely COI (though I have not seen the page yet) a userfication would be sufficient. -Fæ (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the copyright holder has confirmed the release will include the text and supporting photo from the source bio page. Such an article may well be challenged for WP:AUTHOR guidelines but that would be a separate issue from the current rationale for deletion. Fæ (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done to User:Fæ/John Phillip Backus. Move to mainspace if you think appropriate, but there seem to be severe COI/Autobiography/notability problems - author is Tbackus87 (talk · contribs), only source cited is subject's website, two thirds of the text is his spiel about himself. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS this has been tagged and moved for organizational purposes to User:Fæ/Sources/John Phillip Backus with an explanatory notice. This may be used as a source document, it is not a draft article. I make no comment about Tbackus87 due to OTRS guidelines. Fæ (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and

being an UK Fan -LINKELS Josy (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As a patented professional pluridisciplinary painter LINKELS Josy, pseudonym: JOLI is an inhabitant from Luxembourg. Having achieved a countless number of personal applied art exhibitions and participations concerning art competitive exams in Europe and beyond he accomplished the missions as a permanent european Deputy of the Académie Internationale de Lutèce (Paris/France), as an official corresponding of the Encouraging and Educating French Society of Education "L'ELITE" acting also in Paris such as the academic French Society of Education "Arts-Sciences-Lettres".

Since 1970 Josy achieved also numerous unpaid artistic, cultural, social, humanitarian, altruistic and philanthropic activities.

He is titular of the "European Merit" as an inhabitant of Luxembourg born in 1943 in Luxembourg-City. Josy is today a qualified Doctor of sc. art. h.c. and as a Doctor of fine arts h.c. (honoris causa), a distinguished Officier de Leopold II,King of the Belgians, Officier de la Couronne du Royaume de Belgique/Officer of Royal Crown of Belgium, Chevalier/Knight de l'Ordre de Mérite du Gr.-D. de Luxembourg and Chevalier de l'0rdre grand-ducal de la Couronne de Chêne/Knight of the grand ducal Order of the Oak Crown,a golden Cross holder of the French Order of Merit and Devotion, gold Medal bearer of the French Courtesy and of the academic Society Arts-Sciences-Letters and so on.

"JOLI" is ambidextrous and able to realize simoultaniously the same drawings, creations and texts a. so on using '''both hands''', the right hand to draw "them" from the right side to the left side and the left hand starting from the left side to bring "them" to the right side and vice versa on all fixed support staying in any position.LINKELS Josy (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I'm not sure how many times we need to say "no". WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:RS, WP:GNG ... especially a category related to this person. You have failed to address or take into account the attempts at discussion on your talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golf by the mayor.jpg

OTRS 2010081910008791 raised with a suitable clarification on copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. -Fæ (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (by Spartaz) JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meld (software)

I am looking for a better description of this software and routinely use Wikiedia as a source of information on software, its features and its comparison to other software. Meld is notable software [1] and I believe worth of mention on Wikipedia [2]. I feel that its article is of value and should be included in Wikipedia. There is very little information available (at least that I could find) as to why the article was deleted nor the deletion process used. -karlwilbur (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

it is not advertising - it is truth and the juvenile project is important. There was NO websites or emails mentioned and no "business" services mentioned. It was not much different than others I've seen on there. I would add verifiable references if I knew how. -68.3.183.172 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slowhill.jpg

OTRS 2010082210004537 raised with a clarification from the second party to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. -Fæ (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reasoning given. -68.3.183.172 (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary; in both cases, the deletion was explained as the removal of blatantly promotional material that had no salvageable content. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William_J._Lashua

I don't mess with wikipedia's pages, but to dispute against the deletion of the article on Joshua J. Lashua that he is indeed a significate person and is related to web content. Joshua J. Lashua is a World War II veteran, and hundreds to thousands of people are attempting to come together from various sources to thank him for his services on his upcoming birthday on September 4th. I understand if he was just another person, but his veteran status for World War II should have significance on allowing a page to exist on him. Fixing template on behalf of 71.200.27.204 (talk · contribs). -Mr. R00t Talk 03:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pentaphobe

Despite limited dispute around 27-28 June, 2009 (on the deletion request page), the artist appears to pass numerous notability requirements at this time.

Although the artist has a minimal online presence, a google search shows hundreds of related videos, reviews, social mentions and they appear closely related to other artists and pages listed on wikipedia Beats Antique, Maduro, Amon Tobin, Ark 21 and Bellydance Superstars.

Perhaps notable that the admin who finalised deletion has dishonourably resigned?. -Visinaut (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider writing an article in your userspace with some specific refs and asking for input from others about whether it's viable (need evidence to see what you're seeing). An AFD "delete" decision is not "and never", just a "not at the time of the discussion". Seems pretty obvious that artists could become notable over time no? I would have closed the AFD the same way given the evidence presented there. DMacks (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. It appeared that there was a fairly even spread of pass/no-pass criteria and that the deletion went ahead regardless - I will read up more on the specific criteria that it didn't pass and address them, rather than staring intently at the ones that did. Visinaut (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dobhar-chu encounter.jpg

  1. File:Dobhar-chu encounter.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  2. File:Dobhar-chu encounter 2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  3. File:Omey Island Map.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

OTRS 2010080210021921 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image pages for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. Fæ (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PySol

While this article has been deleted since 2007, it is pointed to by a couple other articles, as well as being a notable FOSS game program. Considering all this, I would like to have it undeleted, or if not suitable, either user-fied or emailed. Thanks. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 20:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) -ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 20:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restored. Please note that articles like that one tend to make their way to AfD pretty quickly if sources aren't added. If you don't think you are going to add some soon I'll just move it into your userspace. Also, I think something is wrong with your sig. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FlexRAID

The article was edited by the Author of the software. Issues where raised (I have been told), But the Software author was unavailable to make changes. The Author is now back and ready to make the changes necessary to meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Not sure if email notifications of the any of the issues or the actual deletion have been sent (Are they supposed to be?) -Smurf-IV (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Tedder (talk · contribs) who PRODded it, in case he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. Email notifications are not sent out: you were notified of the PROD on your talk page, and issues with the article have been flagged on its page since April. If the author of the software is editing about it s/he should read the policy on WP:Conflict of interest. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frontcover-web-mockup.jpg

OTRS 2010072910044313 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. -Fæ (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Pica

The article 'Pierre Pica' explicit the mention of 'Pierre Pica' in the article 'mundurucu' - the article was deleted before I could even do links to articles and sites (see the entry 'Pierre Pica' in the French wikipedia. with regards Pierre Pica Pierrepica (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I have userfied the article for you to User:Pierrepica/Pierre Pica, but it has problems which need to be addressed before it can be returned to the mainspace:
When you have a draft which you believe meets the requirements of WP:PROF, you should first approach user Toddst1 (talk · contribs), the admin who deleted it, declaring your interest; if he does not agree, you can take it to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burgess (illustrator)

I believe this page was deleted contrary to the guidelines at WP:PROD. The article, although brief, had one perfectly good reference and the proposed deletion tag had been removed. As the page is linked to from Return to the Hundred Acre Wood it seems reasonable to reinstate the page. Please note that although I am the subject of the page I did not start it. -Marcus civis (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fausto Biloslavo

Fausto Biloslavo was born and raised in Trieste where he was educated. He graduated at Trieste University on Political Sciences / International branch.

Priyanka Singh

I have read about her and she is quite famous in middle east

this will inspire youngesters -59.164.16.141 (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. DMacks (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hristo Stoichkov

HUGE mistake, please *SPEEDY UNDELETE*. It's embarrassing even having to explain why this article should be undeleted. It's like deleting David Beckham or Diego Maradona: Stoichkov is Bulgaria's most famous footballer ever, a Ballon d'Or winner, etc., etc. Someone probably scanned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todor Dankov for links and deleted everything on the page, although this article was only cited as an example of a better quality article. -Todor→Bozhinov 15:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(cross posted on my talk page) My sincere apologies on this one, I searched on the script for everything that shouldn't be there, and I seem to have missed this one. I've restored it now. —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good News Weekly

This is a legitimate business, registered in Canada and British Columbia. It has been operational since May, 30, 2010. The free weekly paper adds value to vancouver because it publishes only good news. Which is something that the world could use a lot more of! Please see www.goodnewsweekly.ca for a sample of what they do. -24.84.36.79 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Nuttah (talk · contribs), who proposed it, in case he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. To have an article it is not enough to be a legitimate business: it is necessary to be notable, which is not a matter of opinion but needs to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scroogle

The article (Scroogle) has been censored by Wikipedia administrators/moderators and no specific reason was provided. The discussion page has been emptied and there is no log available anymore. This isn't acceptable for an open and democratic system which Wikipedia describes itself as. The reason why this specific article is being censored is obvious: the author of Scroogle.org is the same author of Wikipedia-watch.org, which is a website where there are articles talking about the dangerous power of Wikipedia's administrators and moderators. Isn't it funny? Let's prove there're wrong and remove the censorship of the Scroogle article on Wikipedia. -Poulpage42 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The article was deleted as a result of a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scroogle (2nd nomination) and, as it was re-created after that, protected from recreation. The deletion debate has been blanked for privacy reasons, but you can still read it by clicking the "history" tab. If you think the deletion debate was wrongly decided, or that there is more information available now which might affect the outcome, you should first approach user PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs), the administrator who protected it, and if he does not agree you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have already contacted PMDrive1061. My conclusion is that Wikipedia isn't what it says it is, at least not anymore. There was a time when people like you weren't administrators because there wasn't such thing as an administrator on Wikipedia. At least not ones that are completely anonymous and have an underestimated power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poulpage42 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No coherent reason given in this "request". DMacks (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion debate can be read at [3]. Myself I would dispute the blanking as there is no obvious reason for it. However WP:DRV is the place to go to get it back. A userfication could be possible as it was deleted for lack of notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remixes for the Damned

Why would you delete a page describing a band's album? Your reason was 'unremarkable album'. That is a matter of opinion. -Grozo (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Aiken drum (talk · contribs), who PRODded it, in case s/he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. Wikipedia doesn't aim to be a catalogue of every album issued - albums, like other subjects, don't get an article unless they are notable, and to show that you need references to show substantial independent comment about this album. At present the article is no more than a track listing. JohnCD (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unikkatil

-96.251.150.190 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. You do not need to post a whole new article here. I have restored the article that was deleted; please add new information, and particularly references to establish notability, to that, but do not give links directly to music samples. JohnCD (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Brown (Beverly)

I wish to restructure the old content with more research to identify its notability. I need the content that I added to the page in order to work on it -Silivrenion (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - userfied to User:Silivrenion/Moses Brown (Beverly). JohnCD (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfect Harmonies

JzG deleted the article, because he says the album is "not out", which isn't an excuse to delete the article, because there are hundreds, if not thousands of articles already on unreleased albums (take Linkin Park's "A Thousand Suns" as an example). This album comes out tomorrow, so I was restarting the article with the basics, then allowing other users to fill in the blanks, so I'd like the article undeleted, please. -MightyJordan (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The release date is postponed 2 weeks, see http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/news/article/0,,7351945,00.html However I think that the concerns in the AFD were addressed as there is now a known tracklist, album cover and release date. So the G4 delete was inapplicable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not every album is notable ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may actually need to sell copies before it proves itself, however notability was not an issue in the AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoodyBurrett LLP

The proposed article on GoodyBurrett LLP, deleted on 19th June 2009 3rd September 2009 and 7th April 2010, should be undeleted as it meets the guidelines for inclusion. The company operates in Colchester, Essex and plays a key role both within the local economy and as a responsible member of the community. I believe the article should be re-instated firstly as it would add balance to the other Colchester-based solicitors firms that have been allowed wikipedia pages in the past. The most notable example being Birkett Long LLP. Secondly, in light of the companies continued efforts in fundraising through events such as the Three Peaks Challenge for The Anthony Nolan Trustand their involvement in the Colchester Cycle Challenge. Thirdly, in it's field, GoodyBurrett LLP operates a unique, Lexcel accredited practice. It's a member of the GLEAMED mediation providers and several of it's partners hold and have held intresting roles within the community. The company also offer services to Japanese clients in Japanese language. The company also has a long and varied history in the Colchester area, over 250 years, leading me to believe it would be of interest to potential wikipedia viewers. Further, I believe previous articles have not attempted such an in-depth and unbiased view of the company as could now be offered by users such as myself. I look forward to a reply.-Loz1234 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everything else being answered except this??
Everyone here is a volunteer; in my limited time recently I have answered first those that could be done quickly. Yours needs a longer response, and here it is:
 Not done This article has been posted and deleted so many times that the title has been salted - protected against re-creation. It gave no indication of notability - just said that they were a firm of solicitors with offices in Colchester and Great Dunmow, and gave a long list of the things solicitors do. Wikipedia is not a business listing directory. If you want an article, what you should do is
  • Read WP:Notability. Note that it means showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. More detail in WP:Notability (organizations and companies) Think seriously about whether you can show that, because if not you will find that attempting to get this firm into Wikipedia will just be a frustrating waste of your time as well as ours. There are many worthy organizations that do not qualify to be in an encyclopedia, and that is not at all to their discredit.
  • Read the WP:FAQ/Organizations
  • Read WP:My first article
  • If you are connected with the firm, read WP:Conflict of interest and WP:BESTCOI
  • If you then want to go ahead, make a draft in your user space at User:Loz1234/GoodyBurrett LLP. If you ask, I will copy the deleted article there, but you will not find it much help. Make sure that your draft is not promotional in tone, cites independent references, and does not go into great detail of the kind that would be better on the firm's website than in an encyclopedia.
  • Post at WP:Requests for feedback to get advice from other users.
  • When you are ready, make a request at WP:Deletion review for the title to be unprotected. (Normally, the first step would be to contact the administrator who protected the title, but in this case he has retired).
With regard to the other sites you mention, the argument What about article x? is never accepted - each article is considered on its own merits.
JohnCD (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your reply John, i'll edit an article in my personal space as you suggested and then contact you to ensure it meets the notability criteria.

Zishan Engineers

reasoning The website for Zishan Engineers is there and shows the list of projects that have been done till 2004 and the website up-gradation has started and would be completed with a couple of weeks time. Ottawa mentioned in his discussion that the website of the organization doesnt serve as a secondary source and only a primary source, then please check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nespak - Nespak Pakistan which only presents two references that are of its own site (no secondary sources). There are also many statements in that article that need citations for e.g the last sentence. This is common for numerous articles concerning pakistani companies (I can give you the article names too if you want) With these emerging pakistani companies and organizations its very hard to find secondary sources since the primary sources themselves (their own websites) are rare. I believe it is for this very reason why wikipedia launched WikiProject Pakistan to improve wikipedias coverage of pakistan realising the need to promote pakistan and that it is new into the internet world.

In all fairness, I feel that ZEL's article has more secondary sources and more notability ( even in its un updated website) than NESPAK(that article doesnt even have one) if you need a comparision, one can google both organizations and compare its notability. I dont see how ZEL is not as notable like NESPAK or other articles on pakistani organizations. I would request you to kindly restore the article please. -Uzairsyedahmed (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - As announced prominently at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and has no applicability to articles deleted after any deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zishan Engineers (2nd nomination), asking here for any action is a waste of your time as it will not be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the consensus found at the discussion was in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Cirt (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.. Every article must stand or fall on its own merits, regardless of what other pages may exist and any problems they may have. DMacks (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beena Sarwar

this page may have been deleted in error -Fahd (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify users Stormbay (talk · contribs) and Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) who proposed it, in case they wish to nominate it at Articles for deletion. The article needs references from independent sources to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Pearson

Lars Pearson is a notable publisher, editor, and writer, who has been producing media-tie in reference books and essay books for over a decade. One of the books from his press, Chicks Dig Time Lords, was featured on IO9.com this past week. He has worked with notable, Award-winning SF/F authors in his essay books, as well as numerous writers associated with Doctor Who, from both the classic and new series, and tie-in novels. You can find out more information about his publishing company Mad Norwegian Press at their website: www.madnorwegian.com. -Caitlinpapa (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Kenilworth Terrace (talk · contribs), who proposed it, in case s/he wishes to take it to Articles for deletion. The article has a long list of books by Mr. Pearson, but what is needed to establish notability is references about him, showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Tree

Genuinely useful article deleted

I have been using Wikipedia as a resource for many years, but this is the first time I've been motivated to contribute back.

This deleted data compression article is useful and interesting to anyone practicing the art. I have created data compression codecs that have shipped in tens of millions of products on Xbox 360/PS3/PS2/PC (and this is easily verified, as I am in the public credits for these titles) since 1993. Polar Coding is extremely useful - it is simpler to implement, results in less code, and is extremely fast. I cannot find a reference to the technique anywhere else. It's as least as useful and relevant as (say) these Wikipedia articles on ROLZ or Truncated binary coding:

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

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

I feel the Wikipedia deletion process has gone off the rails if these two articles stay, but an article on a useful technique such as this is deleted.

Rich Geldreich - Bellevue, WA 

 * http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,190072/
 * http://www.giantbomb.com/rich-geldreich/72-55326/
 * http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1568544&trk=tab_pro

-Richgel999 (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - As announced prominently at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and not for articles deleted after a deletion discussion. This article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Tree. However, if you believe that the consensus found at the discussion was in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Cirt (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. With regard to the other articles you mention, each article is considered on its own merits - see What about article x?. JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manmeet Singh

I dont know why this article is deleted or by whom, all the information was correct. Myself actor model from India. Check details at IMDB profile http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2082701 or my official blog http://www.mankameet.blogspot.com. Thank you -Mankameet (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counsel and Care

Originator asking for userfication. See User talk:Care4elderly. -Fæ (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done to User:Care4elderly/Counsel and Care. JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Youth Systems

My page was deleted by an admin called Kuru.

I would suggest he gets his administrator status removed immediately as I obviously has no idea what he is doing. I am writing an article about a company of importance called Nu Youth Systems and an important subject as well as adding viable references.

Undelete the page immediately -Aske Jeppesen (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George T. Yang

sources to back-up statements found -J (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually George_T._Yang ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah! And I couldn't find it in the requesters deleted edits anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..and it has been deleted twice as blatantly promotional, and salted by admin Kinu (talk · contribs), who should be approached for any permission to recreate. Also, it appears to be autobiography. which is strongly discouraged, being by user GeorgeTYang (talk · contribs). JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The requesting editor then chose to recreate the article at George tan yang, which I deleted as WP:CSD#G11 (again) as having the same spammy tone. Trying to assume good faith, but there might be some meatpuppetry going on; the text was essentially identical. Wow. --Kinu t/c 17:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfume genius

relevance, artist reviewed on international columns -Memory hunter (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been an article by this name. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was Perfume genius. Protonk (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dagons

The original article was deleted under guideline A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The current article is completely different and follows Wikipedia guidelines -Rizmagnusson (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I have moved the page from your user page into the mainspace. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval David

reasoning -Etepr (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval David is an accomplished actor. His page was deleted, and should be undeleted. Should his page be in a different format to remain up on Wikipedia? Please undelete his page. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Etepr (talk • contribs) — Etepr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


Yuval David is been a professional actor of note. You can view the Internet Movie Database and Broadway World for more information on him, verifying his career. He has acted on television, film, and theater. Why was the article removed. Was it too verbose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etepr (talk • contribs) — Etepr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note that I have been getting e-mail from what appears to be the same person, a J. Alexander who works for Extreme Talent Entertainment PR (i.e., etepr). It also appears that User:ArtsAndCulture may be a sockpuppet of User:Etepr. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No emails, but have had talk from ArtsAndCulture. Seem to be going a long way in trying to "convince" previous deleting admins from over a year ago! – B.hotep •talk• 19:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Los Lobos Goes Disney

Deletion cites A9: Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article. This is false. This work is part of the band's catalogue, why is no reference made? Without seeing the page, I can't judge whether it was worthwhile. -75.146.224.18 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that this was not a valid A9; however, the entire text of the article was "This album won Album of the Day on Rhapsody on June 30, 2010" with a blog link to http://blog.rhapsody.com/2010/06/aotd0630.html. That is hardly worth restoring: suggest you write a properly-sourced article linking to the band's article. JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eight queens puzzle solutions

First, deletion was conducted with enormous haste - like 7 days ? for material which wasn't actually disputed or subject to any copyright claims. I suspect that the whole thing was pushed fast by people who either don't know much about computer programming or had some private agenda.

There has to be a long process for something like this to happen and very strong justification - no one has the time to patrol around when is someone who didn't like some code going to orchestrate a quick deletion.

Arguments for blanket deletion were bogus at best. Reasonably small sections of "code" in several very well known computer languages are well recognized representations of algorithms and are commonly used to explain directly many details and subtleties which are either not visible at all or hard to follow in a mere textual or even worse "mathematical" description. Disproportionately larger number of people can read and understand algorithm presented as a concrete code in a well known language and deleting them is a rough equivalent of saying that all medical articles should be only in Latin and for ultra specialist.

Concrete code for an algorithm is every bit as encyclopedic as a plain English explanation of a medical or legal term or exact formula to calculate something without wading through pages of text - provides usable information to much wider audience. For example every high-school student who know programming can follow C or Java code but not mathematical descriptions. A thing like eight queens is for many programmers the first entrance into different kind of programming and for them having straight code, on the spot is vital to having a fair chance to understand it at all. Programming is not math - don't usurp the right to pass a judgment on its nature from the position of some other discipline.

Small number of lines of code from published books and articles is always exempt from any claims under the fair use doctrine, especially for well known algorithms where even the notion of code autorship is mute (all or most implementations are isomorphic up to renaming of variables and invariant code reordering).

We can debate latter which programming languages are widely known and accepted for certain kinds of algorithms. Always C and at Java/C# (when expression is substantially different from C) and for many things 1 or 2 scripting languages. For example if there's no Java code, JavaScript will be equally understandable. The "pseudo code" is the talk from 20+ yr before universally known programming languages exist. For simple algorithms code expressions in C/Java/C# (even JavaScript) are virtually indistinguishable. For more complex things usually both C and Java/C# are needed for wider reachability.

There are algorithms that have to be presented in 1-2 languages which are not universally known (Haskell and F# in particular) if they are not representable in C/Java/C# in a reasonably simple form and there will always be time and place to debate adequacy of particular code in particular article (and review and editing, like other material), but not blanket deletions in haste. Only minor/specialized languages with "devotee" followings would be immediate candidates for removal (like Python, Ruby, Scheme, Lisp) but only if they are not the sole code in the article (better something than nothing).

So I'm asking for immediate restoration of deleted page and that no further blanked deletions should be allowed for code representations of algorithms of reasonable sizes without a reasonably long due process and a fair attempt at editing.

-ZeeXy (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - As announced prominently at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and has no applicability to articles deleted after any deletion discussion. This article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight queens puzzle solutions after the normal seven-day debate, at which five users plus the nominator argued for deletion, two for a selective merge, and no-one argued for keep. However, if you believe that the consensus found at the discussion was in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user King_of_Hearts (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Rebecca Blackwelder

the aticle Ami Rebecca Blackwelder was deleted because of refernce. I believe I did not do it correctly. Please undelete so that I may correct and do the referece on the article. It is the first article I write.

Thank you. -Igvaru (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe de Ortego y Gasca

Inquiring why the above article was deleted. Unable to find reasons for deletion.

Felipe de Ortego y Gasca [email protected] -198.187.251.27 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RAID Admin

Need to export revisions to wikiasite:apple. I think it would help the wiki. -—I-20the highway 02:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Gerace

OTRS 2010090810001387 raised with an offer to release copyright of the text biography on the source page http://www.mickgerace.com. I can add a notice to that effect on the talk page of the article once undeleted. This does not preclude the possibility of re-deletion if the article has serious issues outside of copyright infringement of this source text. -Fæ (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Nackord

OTRS 2010091010001462 raised with a note that http://www.nackordkarate.com/MrNackordBio.asp is the original source for the text and now has a CC-BY-SA & GFDL release statement at the bottom. Consequently the original rationale for deletion (G12) has been addressed. -Fæ (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OriBase Pharma

The article was apparently deleted with the reasoning of promoting a company. The article was not even published, thus still under construction to be sure to fulfill the requirements of Wikipedia. Moreover, this article describes a pharmaceutical company, just like for example "Merck" and "Sanofi-Aventis". The article about OriBase Pharma does not differ from these similar articles. -Kristinakrogh (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ensa Machine Bouw b.v. (producer of cigar rolling machinery)

I would like to make alterations by which significance of company to industry becomes clear and also explain more about the history of machine made cigars -80.127.63.140 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Florence House

this is an important building in Portland and should be included in Wikipedia. It's the first of its kind building for HOMELESS people. It is not advertising anything or anyone. -Feetplanted (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Notes:

The article was originally deleted for "ambiguous advertising". So ambiguous in fact that I, as the writer, did not even know what it was advertising. I took the advice of Sluggo and made it more encyclopedic based on a different wikipedia article re: a significant building.

As I was editing NawlinWiki deleted it. He/she noted there were no sources. There were at least 5 different sources referenced correctly with links to the direct media outlets reporting on the building's significance. There was no advertising. I commented back to User:NawlinWiki that I had posted a hang on based on the instructions so that I could edit it.

Based on Wikipedia's help section, I started the article again in the encyclopedic format with sources specifically listed and linked, yet User:NawlinWiki deleted it again while I was editing. Even though again there were several sources included and based specifically on Wikipedia's instructions, so do not understand how he/she could not see that.

The article that I spent so much time editing is now completely gone. I am new at this but have just as much right as anyone else to contribute here. It is not self-serving at all and I am following the rules that I see published here.

Liz Meyer

WARNING: you did not submit your request correctly!

You need to replace the "PageName" parameter of the template with the name of the page that you would like restored, spelled correctly, with proper case. Please click the "[edit]" link to the right, and replace the contents of this section with:

{{subst:refund|The name of the requested page|your reasoning for asking to undelete it}}

reasoning -143.231.249.137 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I was notified that my page was going to be deleted in 10 days, and I'm not sure why. I'm a successful public figure in Europe, and have music released in the US as well. YouTube, Google, and MySpace are full of my work. Please let me know what I can do to ensure this page stays up. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=384079725"