Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 34

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 → Archive 40

San Jose Diablos

the only deletion review was by the administrator alone -Jeff in CA (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user Soxrock24 (talk), who proposed it, in case he wishes to nominate it at Articles for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This I have done- I did notify you, though. It should be on your talk page. You had ten days to respond before it was deleted. Soxrock24 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dylan Martin

Because I am the creator of the page and I am the subject of the page and it is about me and my writing and my bio. All statements are from me and about me and absolutely true. -Gunshin75219 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. It is not enough to be true; there is a notability requirement to have a Wikipedia article. The standard for authors is explained at WP:AUTHOR, and I have nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Martin, where you are welcome to comment, because I do not believe it meets that standard. Also, writing about oneself is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia, for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Shoreline Hypnosis

This is a helpful group of hypnotists who offer services free of charge to those who cannot afford to pay. Additionally, the money collected from the group goes directly to The Tommy Fund, c/o Yale New Haven Hospital. (albiet annonymously.) I think it's important to the inform the public about the benefits of hynosis and hypnotherapy.

It's not a business ad. -MirandaWrongs (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not done. It certainly looked like a business ad - apart from name, address and phone number, what it said was "Certified Consulting Hypnotist. Specializing in Smoking Cessation, Weight Loss, Stress Reduction, Self Hypnosis. Available by appointment. Free Consultations. Phone sessions available, skype, or group sessions. Active member of The National Guild Of Hypnotists." In any case, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a place for announcements or offers of services, even for good causes. JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

knickerbocka

could you please send me the page by email, I would change it before republishing to respect your laws.

best, AB -Knickaboy (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not done - Text comes directly from the company site which apart form copyright considerations is inappropriate in tone to start with. You may want to start from scratch if you see fit. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not put me on Wikipedia again thanks

Albiology

The religion Albiology was deleted due to "nonsense."

Albiology is a religion that is widely believed in by many Australians and I take great offense at the deletion of this page.

Please reconsider the deletion of this page and thank you for your time. -Albionator (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not done Advised user. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mike Jones (screenwriter/journalist)

I can fix the copyright status for mikejones.jpeg. I own the photo and can clarify. -Meimd (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done Restored as a contested PROD. Checking on the file. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
file restored and retagged for deletion. You have 7 days to provide the licencing information. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarkson on Cars

It's a real book. I'm not sure exactly why it was deleted, but the page should be re-opened and revamped if need be. -JusBer88 (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mike Glicksohn

Article plainly passed A7, since it asserted the subject edited a notable/Hugo Award-winning magazine. Deleting admin userfied to space of original article creator (not me). Mike was clearly notable (Hugo nom on his own as well as 3 for the magazine, including the win, [1] [2] [3]): he died quite recently, and the news of his death is just breaking; and having the article in mainspace ASAP will make it more likely that people who can do a better job than I can will flesh out the stub. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC) -Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can't undelete it twice. The one line stub with all it's history is at User:KConWiki/sandbox. I think adding two or three cites and moving it back should be fine, but you can check back with Richard to be on the sure side.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow the argument. There's no doubt the A7 was wrong. Why not just move the article back into mainspace, since it shouldn't have been deleted to begin with? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
This is isn't deletion review but a board for undeletion. Which has already been done. Anybody can move it as far as i know. If you want a greener light than I hinted above, you either have to ask Richard or go to DRV or AfC. I got edit conflict when I tried to add a cite.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, then I'll just do it. I read the userfication rather than undeletion, in response to my request, as a signal direct restoration wasn't OK. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  Done Beat ya to it, I figured fixing it was faster than explaining. Sorry for the edit conflicts. --joe deckertalk to me 22:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nukoko

We are not using Wikipedia as a webhost for our organization. We created the page to spread the word about our charity. It is a non-profit organization much like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineers_Without_Borders_%28Canada%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_the_children. It is simply an informational page. -Nukoko (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the page in question was User:Nukoko/Nukoko. DS (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  Not done. I have username-blocked this account, invited them to set up an individual one, explained on their talk page about WP:NOBBLE and that we are not here to "spread the word", and given advice. JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Air Ambulance Card, LLC

This page meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability as it relies exclusively on report from highly regarded third party sources, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and US News and World report. Please advise how it might be altered to be acceptable to editors. Thanks. -Atticusrominger (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of this article was copy-and-paste from other websites in violation of copyright law and thus it is unsuitable for userfication. --Diannaa (Talk) 14:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite logarithm

This page was very deep --it was misunderstood as 'a trivial variation of the usual logarithm'-- and should not have been deleted. I would have objected to the deletion if had seen in time, but... I do not check regularly all the articles I find useful! Perhaps the article suffered from of a poor choice of the term 'indefinite'. PS I am not the author of this deleted page, I do not know him, and he is not a member of my family. I just know that his article shows scientific insight. -TAB (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user R.e.b. (talk) who proposed it, in case they wishes to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I think the article's major problem is that, whether or not it's deep, it cites no sources and seems to be original research. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ray William Johnson

i think it's obvious, but you may check the discussion page on the list of famous youtubers, there are plenty of very good and profound arguments. just one thing. wikipedia is mostly used by people who want to find out more about a person or thing or issue they find interessting. if about 4 000 000 people find ray william johnson interessting on youtube, i guess like 1/3 of them try, will try or have tried to find the artikle on wikipedia. yours, jonathan buck, munich, germany -79.231.77.18 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as I see, the issue was what can be written beyond publishing his youtube stats, but it has just been recreated, so we move on from there.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jordan King

reasoning -Skitzo93 (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Me and my recording crew intended on making this Wikipedia page for our friend Jordan King who thought it would be nice to have his own page on the internet. Our school has noticed him as a talented musician and once this page is finished it will be easier for jordan to be noticed by the community.

  Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning music. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning musicians or music groups will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. So its' the other way round, once jordan has really been noticed, there can be an article here. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard Kirkham

I was not aware that anyone was attempting to delete this article or I would have commented at the time. The apparent reason for deletion is not enough notability as a writer. But Kirkham meets the criteria of notability for academics. One of his books is among the best-selling analytic philosophy books of the last 20 years and his ideas are discussed in at least 3 wikipedia topics and his writings cited in several more. It is strange, isn't it, that he is one of the few philosophers discussed by name in the article on the Gettier Problem and the article on Knowledge, and yet there's no article about him. -Yossui (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. The article itself was unreferenced for years, so I'd strongly suggest to add some sources now or it may end up at Articles for deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Psychopsema

My understanding is that this term has been coined by two researchers - Felicita Luna and Nicholas Statholopolous

Another spelling I have seen is Phychopsema (see http://afrafrontpagenews.blogspot.com/2011/03/phychopsema.html ).

I am concerned that the deletion of this page may undermine the growth of documented knowledge in the area of social service economic crimes.

As an avid student and researcher in this area, I would ask that the page be restored and that any concerns about the neologism of the term be dealt with through edits of the page or dialogue with the page's original contributing author(s) rather than through a wholesale deletion of the page, which I suspect the original contributor is unaware of. -99.227.94.201 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. However, I have nominated it for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Psychopsema, because it is not Wikipedia's role to publicise newly-invented terms. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia only reports on things that are already established. As this term has only just been coined, and the only sources for it are its originators, no amount of editing or dialogue with them will make it acceptable. Extracts from the relevant policies are:
  • WP:NOR: Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources.
  • WP:NEO: Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term... To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term... Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia.
  • WP:Notability requires showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
The author of the article was notified of the proposed deletion on 6 March, and has been notified of this deletion debate. The discussion will run for a week, and you are welcome to contribute to it; at the end of that time an uninvolved administrator will decide what to do, basing the decision on the arguments advanced, not on a count of heads. JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention: To the Wikipedia Reviewer:

Psychopsema has the potential to provide relief to victims ravaged by an epidemic c of social service crimes. Yet your concern is what exactly? A number of references and links to well establish sources confirming the existence of “Psychopsema” is perpetually provided for you to read / review then confirm. Yet the Wikipedia gatekeeper keeps deleting them the second they go up… Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicita-Luna (talk • contribs) — Felicita-Luna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. The article has not been deleted.
2. The article is the subject of a properly-formatted AfD discussion right now, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychopsema.
3. Self-published material such as blogs and books from vanity publishers does not constitute "references and links to well establish sources"! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Our concern is explained by the policy extracts above.
The "Wikipedia gatekeeper" is XLinkBot, an automatic system which prevents the addition of links to sources considered unreliable; but I have looked at the three sources it would not let you add. They do nothing to "confirm the existence of psychopsema"; two of them made no mention of the word, and the third was identical to your article and dated the same day. The article states that the word was made up in February; the book references you have added to the article, dated long before that, have no relevance to the question at issue here: whether this neologism is well enough established to satisfy the policies summarised above.
There seems to be a campaign going on here: please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

LOSS ESTIMATES IN REAL TIME FOR EARTHQUAKES WORLDWIDE

This is my own contribution, which I myself have asked to be removed because I could not edit the first paragraph. Since then, I have figured out how to edit the first paragraph and have completed the article. Pleas take it off its status of "considered for removal" -Maxwyss (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to indicate that there was ever an article by this name. That's a good thing anyway, as we NEVER use all-caps in article names. It also sounds like this may be some kind of original research, which has no place in Wikipedia. That does not mean we don't welcome the participation of subject matter specialists like yourself in this project, obviously. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a userspace draft at MfD: User:Maxwyss/LOSS ESTIMATES IN REAL TIME FOR EARTHQUAKES WORLDWIDE. A username change (MaxWyss vs. Maxwyss) confuses the issue. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
To Orangemike: Thank you for looking at this draft for an article. If you look at the references, you will see that there has been much research put into this by various people. I'm sorry that I am one of the leading experts worldwide. -Maxwyss (talk)
It looks like a solid example of original research and synthesis of prior work, complete with thesis statement and "Conclusions" section. Unfortunately, that's not what Wikipedia publishes.
I wish to repeat: there is no reason whatsoever to apologize for being a subject matter expert. We welcome subject matter experts, and only wish we attracted more of them, as long as they understand the parameters and restrictions of Wikipedia. You've fallen afoul of our prohibition on original research and synthesis; doesn't make you any less welcome here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Nothing to do here - draft looks likely to be kept at MfD, author advised of SYNTH problems. For reference, title changed to User:MaxWyss/Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide to follow change of username and sort out capitalisation. JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1 second

I was hoping that this page could be temporarily undeleted; I'm currently trying to break off the powers of seconds sequence into separate articles and there's some information on that page I would like to get back. Serendipodous 19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to do but looking at the AfD, I see no problem in restoring the history under a redirect to Second. Just be sure that you abide by the consensus at not recreate lists of trivia in a different form.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Coffee Party Progressives

I am a member of the Coffee Party Progressives. We are a legitimate group of citizens within the Coffee Party and deserve to have our voices heard. I do not know why the page was deleted, nor do I care. Put it back. Or have your editors contact a CPP representative and write a new one. -99.56.211.100 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Architects' Alliance of Ireland

I have created the article “Architects’ Alliance of Ireland” that was deleted without warning and without starting any discussion. I guess it is called a speedy deletion. The article was online since September last year.

I am trying not to be offended, but I feel that the deletion of the article was inappropriate and not properly justified. I approached the administrator User:Stifle but he refused to give any more details dispite not having any valid reason for deleting the article. his only reply was: "I'm Irish and am well aware of the situation."

Architects' Alliance of Ireland (AAoI) has now a reputation within the architectural world in Ireland. It represents and speaks for many non-registered practitioners as well as its members. Through their website you can access videos of a political debate that their action has helped to induce in the Dail. Many important political figures were present, including newly nominated ministers such as Minister Hogan and Minister Quinn. The deleted article only inlcudes links to half of the related independent newspaper articles about AAoI.

With Reference to WP:COATRACK, the subject of the deleted article is well centered to the association and its actions. There is nothing else behind it. user:stifle is the first and only person to make such a claim.

With reference to WP:CSD#G10, the article never threaten anyone. Architects’ Alliance has a critical approach on the registration procedure in Ireland, it is critical of the RIAI, it denunciates wrong doing and injustice, but it does not threaten. Legal procedure were started but the article only states that they were started it does not threaten to start a procedure.

I have started a deletion review, as for now only two neutral administrators have expressed their !vote, both in in favor of undeleting the article. I hope that someone will be able to help me retrieve this article. --Christophe Krief (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If the matter is at Deletion Review, there is nothing to do here, and no need to keep this section updated. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Smurfs and communism

May I please request that you "userfy" this article for me? It would be helpful for a student. Many thanks, -Prof.G.R.G.-S. (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  • The most recent revision had only:
The [[smurfs]] were pictured as happy blue skinned people. But the creator [[Peyo]] use them as a source of [[Communism]]. 

== society ==

The smurf society is mostly consisted of all male populations. [[Smurfette ]] is attractive to most of the smurfs, including 
[[Papa Smurf]] which led to [[gender segregation]] and [[Womens rights|unfair treatment to her]]
  • If you think this is helpful for a student then I'm happy to userify it for you, but I can't see how it would be meaningful in any way. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Motive Motion

References and citations exists but were not added to the article in time. Please allow restoration to page so these can be added. -Teelo (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Tim101/Motive Motion. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact NawlinWiki (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space. Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and the relevant notability guidelines - articles that are not in compliance will be deleted. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Izzone

Pages on student sections at Duke, Illinois, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin, and Northwestern remain. If the Izzone page isn't good enough, then that can be changed. However, it seems short-sighted to delete the page entirely. -72.241.214.102 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Personally I think those articles should be merged, though.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

05FALL07 10 21 07.jpg

photo taken by submitter -Pauljoffe (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored this to allow for any problems to be fixed, but also dropped the deleting admin a note in case he can advise you better on what to do.. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris Cantell

This article has provided significant coverage in reliable sources (more can be made available). Some of the sources are in French as some of the person's activities where located in Europe, but they are from reliable third party sources (major national French magazine). The article was not written as a promotional piece and simply states facts. -Telecomguru (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. It seems to be part of a walled garden with little independent references, though. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Frederic Artru

This article has provided significant coverage in reliable sources (more can be made available). Some of the sources are in French as some of the person's activities where located in Europe, but they are from reliable third party sources (major national French magazine). The article was not written as a promotional piece and simply states facts -Telecomguru (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. It seems to be part of a walled garden with little independent references, though. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh

AIB is 1st aeronautical institute in Bangladesh So people have to know it and other-hand Its a very important for Bangladesh education system & Aviation Sector -rafiaman 11:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not done - As announced at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and has no applicability to articles deleted after any deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeronautical Institute of Bangladesh, it cannot be undeleted through this process. Nevertheless, if you believe that the consensus found at the discussion was in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Ron Ritzman (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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually he did ask me about it and I'm sorry I was late in responding, I just did. I have gone over the history of this article and I have to agree with the participants in the AFD. It was an advertisement and it had WP:COI and copyvio issues. If we ever have an article about this subject it would have to be written by somebody other then rafiaman. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Current Publishing Files

OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011011810009953 -Adrignola (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011011810009953 -Adrignola (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011011810009953 -Adrignola (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011011810009953 -Adrignola (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  •   Done All restored. Please add the appropriate information and templates to the image pages. Protonk (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Images by Professor Eshel Ben-Jacob

OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011031410008476 -Adrignola (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011031410008476 -Adrignola (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  •   Done All restored. Please add the appropriate information and templates to the image pages. Protonk (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Russi mody.jpg

Bad transwiki: the page on Commons got the wrong author (the Commons uploader), it got the wrong license tag claiming that the last editor here on Wikipedia released the rights, it does not mention the original author and the original license. Please temporarily restore to allow running commonshelper and correct the bad transwiki. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dick and Dee Dee photos

OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011020910015667 -Adrignola (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011020910015667 -Adrignola (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Issamar1.JPG

OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011021610011844 -Adrignola (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Nick Fiedler.jpg

OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011022010008868 -Adrignola (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Karin Ahlbäck in 2010.jpg

the image is not mine, but I started the article it was in, I'd like a chance to save the license et.al. if I can, thanks! -Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  •   Done Restored. If you can't find a license just ping my talk page or post again here and we'll re-delete it. Protonk (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Seeing the composition and the user contributions, I'm certain the uploader took the photo. I've asked him to contact me, but he doesn't have his account connected to e-mail. I can't tag this PDself, it's not mine, what's my next option?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:DizinIran.jpeg

OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011022210002941 Adrignola (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

File:132810 F.jpg

OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011022810001378 Adrignola (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Raya

OTRS ticket ID 2011031010015466 comes from Raymond Raya at rayalaw.com releasing the text of the email and likely the deleted page under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" and GNU Free Documentation License. This would be a self-written biography, most likely. If the subject is not fit for inclusion, please let me know and I will forward that on. -Adrignola (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This one really is not an encyclopedia article. It's in two parts: a promotional intro full of WP:PEACOCK terms - "prestigious" "high-profile cases" "Mr. Raya turns each case into a life changing experience" ending "Contact Mr. Raya today for your free consultation." The second part is a report from his website of a "high-profile case" where he got someone off a charge of criminal disorderly conduct.
It was in fact taken to AfD, but the AfD was aborted when it was found to be copyvio. I am surprised it wasn't speedy-deleted as an advertisement, and if restored I think it likely that it would be. Are you able to explain to him that Wikipedia is not a place for him to advertise, or shall we restore it and let nature take its course? JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I will attempt to do so. If the article is recreated, well, then things play out as they would have in a parallel universe where it wasn't deleted. Adrignola (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Foundry School

This school is not an enterprise, it was covered and quoted many times when setting up in Pau, France as the only foreign entity supporting Pau's 30 million euro Broadband Country initiative. References are provided and more are available. -Telecomguru (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Avinash vasanth

this is an article about a person who is not popular.i kindly rquest you to please allow me to publish this article -Avinash vasanth (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    • Is this article about you? If so add your writing to Avinash vasanth instead. If not it may be possible to userfy the page so that you work on it to show importance. It was deleted under the A7 no indication of importance criterion, though I don's quite see why. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mega Genius

The bureaucrat/administrator/editor, King Turtle, suggested that I submit my proposed article to replace the deleted article and my analysis of the article to the “Requests for un-deletion.” The revised article and analysis follows below.

Could you please re-evaluate the proposed article to recreate it over the deleted article? If you disagree with the recreation please explain your view point for each article requirement in better detail and the specific sentence or words that violate a neutral point of view so that I can understand your viewpoint. If there are additional questions please provide me with a sufficient amount of time to respond as a live a very busy life, thank you.68.62.178.98 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to develop a new article. If you are going to post an article, you will need to register an account, if you don't have one already. Please do that, then post here what your account name is. If you have an account already, log in and post a message here. Then we can move your draft into your user space where you can get comments on it and develop it.
I wrote the above before checking the history. You are evidently the indefinitely-blocked user Deadalus821 (talk), and so I take back my advice to create an account, which would be block evasion. I do not see how we can proceed if you cannot persuade someone to unblock you, but I will consult Kingturtle to see if he has any suggestion. JohnCD (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
At a first glance, most of your references, particularly the first one you cite under "Analysis for inclusion of the Article", derive from press releases. That prnewswire one, for instance, ends "SOURCE The Mega Genius(R) Company". You need independent sources, both for notability and to verify claims like "Jim Diamond has the highest level of intelligence measurable on the Wechsler." The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy "requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source." The company's own press releases are not a reliable source for verification of its claims. JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Now that I have read through the history and done my own checks, I have to agree with everyone who has advised you before: there is not enough here to be the basis of a Wikipedia article. It is now about the company rather than the man, but the problem is the same: lack of independent cover. The company exists, it make spectacular claims about its principal's intelligence, he is a member of various organizations, it sells lectures, it publishes the annual "Stupidest Statements" lists and it puts out press releases; but all the cover derives from those press releases. There is not the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required to establish notability in Wikipedia's terms. I'm sorry, but in my opinion there is not an article here, and my only suggestion is that you should accept that. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The news companies are independent from the Mega Genius® Company, but I understand what you’re getting at.
The requirement to use independent sources is to ensure the article topic is written from a neutral point of view and does not contain original research simply to assure that the information is reliable, but merely being independent does not guarantee that a source is reliable for a given purpose.
While all information that is communicated evidently comes from an original source, if independent sources are using self published material the question we should ask; are the independent sources reputable enough to warrant that the information is reliable?
If the news companies put a disclaimer stating that they are not responsible for the press releases content, I would agree with that we cannot use them. Since they have not, they have demonstrated that they are responsible for the communicating the content and have indicated that it was worthy of notice, which has been done through multiple news sites over multiple years.
No news company has to communicate press releases or the entirety of the press releases content as they have reputations to uphold. News companies do have reputations for fact checking with their own editorial independence, which they can choose to communicate information through their own ability to judge the reliability of the information, which is important to this matter.
The individual does hold a membership in Hall Of The Ancients, a high-IQ society of some 30 members, which has an admission requirement of intelligence in the 99.99 percentile and an IQ of 160 or greater. http://halloftheancients.weebly.com/ancients.html (see member ID # 29). This provides additional verification of the Jim Diamonds’ intellectual ability if his level of intelligence was ever questionable.
To state it in one sentence, it is the news companies’ judgment of what they consider to be a reliable source for verification not personal opinion.
To conclude the news companies are 1) Independent from the source 2) They considered the self-published information note worthy by communicating it. 3) There are no content disclaimers on the press releases. 4) The question we need to conclude; are these news companies reputable enough to ensure that the self-published information they are communicating is reliable? I think so.
http://www.bnet.com http://www.prnewswire.com http://www.australianwomenonline.com http://www.starpulse.com http://www.clubfemina.com http://newsblaze.com http://www.breitbart.com http://yubanet.com http://www.mlive.com/ http://www.nydailynews.com
I see no concrete reason why Wikipedia cannot have an article on the Mega Genius® Company, if there is please communicate otherwise. I am also fine with removing the statement from the article; "Jim Diamond has the highest level of intelligence measurable on the Wechsler, the most modern and accurate intelligence test of the twenty-first century."68.62.178.98 (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Meredith maran blue.jpeg

OTRS permission confirmed; ID 2011030310018075 Adrignola (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It is stated by the subject that the subject's friend took it with her camera. I based the confirmation on the following on the OTRS wiki (paraphrased): In the strictest sense, photos from family members or friends don't legally belong to a subject, but they are accepted as a convenience. Similarly, photos taken by strangers on one's own camera don't necessarily legally belong to a subject either (the key is, who makes the creative choices, not whose equipment it is), but those are accepted as well. - From a default response in the photosubmissions system [4]. I cannot view the picture, however, so if it appears to be a professional picture, then this would not apply. Adrignola (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I just viewed the deletion comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Meredith_maran_blue.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1 . A personal attack is wholly inappropriate for an administrator at Wikipedia: "ignore the incompetent person from OTRS". I've provided my reasoning above. Thanks to a photo submission in a later ticket that was merged into the above one, File:Meredith Maran.jpg has now been uploaded to Commons. Adrignola (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Ishita Bhaduri is an Indian poet and writer of contemporary India. -Harinja (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not done - As announced at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and has no applicability to articles deleted after any deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishita Bhaduri, it cannot be undeleted through this process. Nevertheless, if you believe that the consensus found at the discussion was in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Wizardman (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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

program in question is not non-notable as stated -120.142.67.5 (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the deletion log as of 6 November 2008, "Article is on the verge of spam and is about a non-notable local cable access program."

Whether the "non-notable" claim was valid in 2008, I cannot say, but the claim is certainly no longer valid. Though the program started as a local cable access program, it now has a global audience. It is watched and debated internationally, due to weekly live streams via ustream, podcast, and youtube. Check my IP, I am in Korea and I watch this show regularly. Any viewing of the show itself will show that those who call into the live show are doing so from all over the United States and often times from overseas.

I highly doubt that any "non-notable" cable access program would result in over a quarter of a million hits on Google.

The show has become an indelible part of the ongoing global dialogue regarding belief. It would be strange for Wikipedia to continue to deny it a page. Please reverse this decision and undelete.

Independent of the merits of the program, 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/The Atheist Experience, it cannot be undeleted through this process. As 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.
If you have an account, I could userfy the draft, since someone has to go through the Ghits and extract reliable sources that back-up above claims. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Tikiyaki Orchestra

significats not properly stated -Yavaz (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  •   Not done Not stating significance is a reason for deletion not undeletion. Spartaz Humbug! 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Corre (2011)

I think that the corre deserve an article. It has been nearly three months since the group has been created. The group has done notable achievements. They have won Tag Team Championship twice. They are having a seperate fan page and profile. They have been a continuous member of SmackDown since their debut. It means that WWE itself wants to prompote the group. Also, corre member Wade Barret is the current Intercontinental Champion. I think that these achievements are enough. -Mr.ankit97 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not done - As announced at the top of the page, this process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially and has no applicability to articles deleted after any deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Corre (professional wrestling), it cannot be undeleted through this process. Nevertheless, if you believe that the consensus found at the discussion was in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Ironholds (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America

Could someone restore the archives? Since the article is undeleted and all. -LiteralKa (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  •   Done but good luck finding anything useful there. Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There was also

Cheers! LiteralKa (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

RouterTech

The article was nominated for speedy deletion, which was inappropriate, and was deleted without the knowledge of the author. -Chewbaca75 (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  Not done. No, it was not speedy-deleted, it was deleted after a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RouterTech. You should have been notified of that discussion, and I apologise that you were not. If you believe that discussion was wrongly decided, or you have new information, your first step should be to contact user King of Hearts (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion; then, if you are not satisfied, you can go to WP:Deletion review, which you should do by following the instructions at that page. The speedy-deletion notice on your talk page refers to what seems to be a failed attempt to start a deletion review; if you need help to do that, ask on my talk page, but talk to King of Hearts first. 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)JohnCD (talk)
Note: article restored and relisted at AfD by closing admin. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Sgilogo.png

Link to this image was removed from Silicon Graphics article, and it was thus auto-deleted as unused non-free media; would like to use it elsewhere in the same article. -NapoliRoma (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done. JohnCD (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Anestis Antoniadis

I don't ask the page to be restored, but I would like to know what has been put on the page before it was deleted. -77.202.163.110 (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It said he was a French statistician; then a second edit added him to some (overlapping) categories. That's it. That was all. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

habib_essid

the article iss about the prime minister of tunisia and one of wikipedia admin have delteted it for unknown reason -41.225.127.166 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  •   Not done - a deleted page with this name does not appear to exist. There is simply nothing there under that name - with or without caps.. Just go make a page... Spartaz Humbug! 20:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC) .... Which I have now done... Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Veena Sood 2010.jpg

Per OTRS ID 2011032110010753. Image was a work for hire by Veena Sood's photographer Ross Den Otter. -Adrignola (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Restored. Please update the image description page w/ this information. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pokeware

This article was recently deleted because of the following abbreviations: A7, G12, and G11. The problem with the previous content is the content writer for the organization did not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines when writing the article. Pokeware has written new copy that does adhere to Wikipedia standards, and will not portray itself as a means for advertisement on this website. -71.89.24.105 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  •   Not done and will not be done Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. Spartaz Humbug! 02:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

File:St_Judes.jpg

wrong Commons transfer. please undelete temporarily (I will check back here tomorrow and place the nowCommons template when done) or do a correct Commons transfer (e.g. using Commons Helper). Thank you. -Saibo (Δ) 02:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

David Choi

Do not delete Choi. He is my favourite singer, and being on iTunes certify him as a true artiste. He might be unsigned, but he's a true talent. Just listen to him. He should be treated like every other important singer. -203.116.251.232 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  •   Not done As the article has not been deleted, but is up for deletion discussion, you would be best served making a logical arguement there. Please note, "because I like it" is not a valid deletion argument. You should also verify the notability requirements under WP:MUSIC before making a deletion arguement, because nothing you provided above will help the case. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

PlasmaChem images

OTRS permission confirmed; ticket 2011033110003742 -Adrignola (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


OTRS permission confirmed; ticket 2011033110003742 -Adrignola (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Both  Y Done--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Foundation Leonardo Marques

reasoning: It is important to scientific investigation specifically in gynecology, obstretics and assited reproduction -IMbcn (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was originally deleted by Nyetty on the grounds that my article has no importance. If you carefully read the short article it clearly states that this foundation was set up for scientific investigation in assited reproduction for couples with infertility problems and the social proliferation of sexual reproduction. I do not know why it has been deleted as in Spain it is one of the leading foundations for this cause. Please get back to me

  Not done If it is one of the leading foundations for this cause then it should not be difficult to find sources to indicate the fact. However, the article did not do so, and Google gives no non-Wikipedia hits at all for either "Foundation Leonardo Marquès" or "Foundation Leonardo Marques". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Simplifications to written Chinese in Hong Kong

Would like to have a copy in my userspace (I may be able to source it). - Kayau Voting IS evil 15:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Brian R. Price

the concern was unclear notability. Brian Price is one of the foremost exponents and promoters of Historial European Martial Arts, or Western Martial Arts, in the US today. There is not much yet on those here, but if entries related to them get summarily deleted because a mod never heard of the person then it will be difficult to build up that area. In any case, at least the editor in question could have flagged it and allowed a reasonable time for contributors to address the concern by adding more info or references. -24.6.240.12 (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done The article was tagged for deletion for 8 days before it was deleted and the author was informed: I wonder how long would have been enough? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass Hysteria (band)

The band is quite notable in France, and they released seven albums. See fr:Mass Hysteria. -Od1n (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  •   Not done Neither the deleted article nor the French article gives any sources to show notability, and to simply state that the band is notable without giving evidence is not enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That Girl (David Choi song)

reasoning -TorresAndChicharito (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why should this be deleted? It is a real song, and it was NOT only released on YouTube (iTunes, Album: By My Side) and it is notable. Wikipedia, Qwyrxian is not resourceful. ONLY YOUTUBE? NOT THAT POPULAR? Check out our iPods, iPhones, handphones, Androids, computers! David Choi IS notable, IS good, IS famous, IS on Wikipedia (and will forever be), has HIS songs on Wikipedia (and will forever be) and IS #7 most subscribed musician on YouTube. YOUTUBE. It's hard to achieve this, so please recognise this song, him, and HIM! Wikipedia, I trust you and if you let someone as unresourceful as Qwyrxian delete articles like that just because she's good, you will lose a lot of WikiReaders like me.

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Girl (David Choi song), that is where a decision will be made, and you have already commented there, so there is nothing to do here. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Eulogy Recordings

Was restored on May 31, 2010 without previous edit history. Request that previous history also be restored. -Onthegogo (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  Done History restored. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_34&oldid=1079423851"