This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The page has been improved with lots of changes. The person has been mentioned as writer/journalist/activist. His world records have been only included as secondary parts and 'other works'. -Ath.Sn (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done - this page has not yet been deleted.. See the AFD for more information (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
reasoning -Wahine99 (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a genuine research centre at Ripoon College Cuddesdon, an Anglican theologiical college linked to the University of Oxford. I have twice tried to upload a page on OxCEPT and it has been deleted. My name is Dr Cathy Ross, a tutor at Ripon College Cuddesdon and Director of OxCEPT. All my contact details are below if you need to contact me.
I have put up the page to create awareness of the Centre so that people can know what we are researching and get involved. The latest deletion claimed that it was imporper advertising - I do not see this as advertising but as information about our Centre and research interests.
Dr Cathy Ross
MTh Coordinator, Tutor in Contextual Theology
Director of OxCEPT
Ripon College, Cuddesdon
OX44 9EX
tel: +44 1865 874404
fax: + 44 1865 875431
Direct dial: + 44 1865 877420
Not done but you are welcome to write a non promotional page suitable for an encyclopedia. The deleted one looked like a press release. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The upload is not intended to advertise and will give authentic references on the article too. -Manukariyad (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done The deleted article was promotional in tone and without references.So you best start from scratch based on the authentic third party sources you have in mind. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If it can be restored, there can be a major clean up and he now has released his debut album which got into the Independent UK charts.
Please restore so it can be rectified. -CrackersTeam (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2012 (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/Kameelion, 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 Davewild (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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what the content was, but if the article was 5 years old, as the contester noted on the talk page (see Talk:FLYHT Aerospace Solutions Ltd.) then maybe the article should have been tagged for improvement. -Svgalbertian (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Done the article was not too promotional and could be improved, only a bit over 3 years old though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
As confirmed, Subway logo is ineligible for copyrights; there must be older revisions. If so, then they must be temporarily undeleted for me to copy-and-paste older, larger revisions. --George Ho (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Almost forgot: deletion nom in Commons was withdrawn. --George Ho (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a bit messy for restoration as the image is used in many station articles. I have emailed you the image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't know how I must make SVG files viewable, especially on my desktop. How can I paste some programming thing into Commons? --George Ho (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Done emailed as an attachment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I want it moved to my user sandbox so I can revise it and ask help of other admins on improving it before uploading it again. I do want to make the article more viable for wikipedia users. Will change overall tone -Sentimentalstyle (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears that User:Intoronto1125 moved this article to his userspace then requested that the page be deleted because it was in his own userspace. I can't remember if the original article was in a useful format or not, though at the time of deletion the user was on a bit of a self-destructive streak. If there is useful information, could this be restored so I can work on it? -SFB 11:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It was merely the results (times, heights, distances), with wikilinked names to people who will likely never have articles (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I am surprised that prod would have applied to this even in 2008! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
there was a source entered- IMDB, is that not acceptable? Also her website, her name was also already in wikipedia through two of the films mentioned in the article -Sarah27mix (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Neither IMDB nor someone's personal website (nor, in fact, Wikipedia itself) are acceptable as reliable sources affirming notability. As far as someone being mentioned on Wikipedia goes, that doesn't mean someone passes WP:GNG or other notability criteria. For instance, my own name is in a couple of articles concerning books I've written, but I neither qualify under the GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The bar - say - set up WP:NACTOR is quite high, and someone whose sole film credits are as "Actress #1" and a minor part in an indie film doesn't come remotely close. Ravenswing 05:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature
This page is for uncontrovertial undeletions only, and clearly this one is not uncontrovertial. Early closes of a PROD is indeed valid in certain cases. Please submit at WP:DRV for review if there are policy-based arguments to be made for its return (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It might not be against policy to restore to your user space. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 01:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Article does not contain any original research (NOR) and all information can be verified by establishing reliable sources (V). Burden of evidence is on my side. The article is a new project and sources will be added. BLP does not apply as this is a list, not a biographical article. If you delete an article next time, please abide by Wikipedia's deletion policies and leave time for a user to challenge a proposed deletion. Thanks. --Anthrophilos (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin - can you please expand on why it is a BLP violation? If it is really a problem then it should not be here, but I don't think that is the problem with the list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems that I am not the only one who is having issues with him. --Anthrophilos (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Above post redacted by Fut.Perf.☼ 18:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That's a pretty horrific suggestion, and I suggest you retract. Off-wiki harassment can and will lead to blocks. Looks line a whiner video with no proof. Again, you should retract ASAP. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
With the understanding that the Nobel committee doesn't publicly announce who alternate candidates were, and that many of the people on this list are still living and fall under BLP, one has to consider that the sourcing must be pristine - absolutely 100% reliable sources that affirm that X was a Nobel prize candidate and not speculation. Reviewing the text, I see nothing anywhere to that sort. There's way too much BLP problems with this list that it is better to avoid it altogether, at least until we have the actual candidates from the committee themselves as evidence. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I did not post the video on Arthur Rubin on Youtube, but it illustrates the experience I am having with him, and apparently I am not the only one. I have no problem in accepting that the "List of potential Nobel Prize in Literature winners" be deleted IF it cannot be backed up by adequate sources. What bothers me, however, is the extremely rude attitude in deleting articles prior to its PROD deadline so that the proposed deletion can neither be challenged nor factual evidence established in time. --Anthrophilos (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
it is better to avoid it altogether, at least until we have the actual candidates from the committee themselves as evidence - there is no reason to believe that the Academy will ever release names of nominees until at least 50 years have passed (currently, lists of nominees up until 1950 are available). So avoiding it altogether is the only sensible suggestion since the article is by default going to be original research (unless every living, published author who has an article on Wikipedia is included). --bonadeacontributionstalk 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Beyond that, what effectively boils down to "List of people who failed to win an award" is hardly an encyclopedic topic in my view. Resolute 18:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
If we knew that they were on a shortlist of potential winners, that is actually useful information, as it would be a notable piece of information on the various biography articles; we don't strip out the losing nominees for Oscars or Emmys just because they didn't win, particularly often that there may be some controversy after the fact. Now, yes, I'm not seeing that similar type of coverage would happen with the Nobels, though I'd suspect that's part of the reasoning for the 50 year period of silence). But, that said, we must have reliable confirmation before even considering this list, so non-restoration still is the right answer. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Endorse deletion in strongest terms possible. The following is a list of well-known and lesser known writers whose literary work has generated enough verifiable media attention in journals, newspapers and the blogosphere to be potential future Nobel Prize winners and was created with the intention of inviting response and debate among readers and writers everywhere. WTF? Anthrophilos, please read WP:ENC, WP:NOR and WP:V. Max Semenik (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That's kind of what I was thinking Resolute...WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply. Besides, how would one delineate this List? Every notable living author in the world could somehow be deemed a potential winner before a year's awards are announced...this proposed List would never be stable and would be in constant flux. Since, as the creator states, this is a "new project and sources will be added", that sounds like the content was possibly in more of a draft stage than an article ready for Main. Perhaps a workable solution would be to restore (if possible) the content to the creator's userspace so it can be edited according to Wikipedia guidelines and standards. I do, however, find the sentence that Max Semenik posted above (that is apparently from the List) somewhat troubling: "was created with the intention of inviting response and debate among readers and writers everywhere." ...sounds a little too much like WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTFORUM. Shearonink (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment. WP:BLP doesn't prohibit only unsourced material critical of living persons, but any controversial material about living persons. Being a candidate for the Nobel Prize seems "controversial". — Arthur Rubin(talk) 19:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Now this list has obviously created a lot of response even though not the kind of response I had hoped. I was rather thinking of a response which removes unsourced posts from the list and adds new verifiable "candidates" instead of deleting the list alltogether. The question of how to delineate or limit the list is of course a major issue. --Anthrophilos (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
first, I can't believe you're still asking for favours after both the ridiculous ANI report, AND the completely wrong filing of this REFUND request. Your grasp of AGF, policy, and community leave a lot to be desired. Nevertheless, your potential "list" will be a minimum of 50yrs delayed, and will only list people with a wikipedia article already, becuase being "considered" does not grant notability. So, tell me, is this a remotely useful article? (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Bwilkins, given your accusations I do not think that you expect a serious answer. But here is my point and I am happy to suggest my critique on your understanding of the word "community". You suggested on my talk page that I "apologize to Arthur directly". I don't think so! I have mentioned that I did not create the video, but that I used it to illustrate my point. Arthur is one of those "tinpot dictators" that Larry Sanger has referred to in one of his blog posts (http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=221). And I echo that "one of the most annoying things about the Wikipedia community is the way that people really do act like each others’ editors, forming their requests as orders and in other ways competing to outdo each other in how condescending they can be". This is not exactly contributing to a productive atmosphere on Wikipedia. I am giving Wikipedia a maximum of ten years. This project is already in decline (member numbers, less edits) and if there are no major changes to resolve these issues, especially the endless edit wars and self-appointed editor-dictators then I doubt that Wikipedia has a fruitful future. But I have not yet given up my hope and will see how this project evolves. --Anthrophilos (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
... but you don't consider it condescending to infer that Wikipedia is in decline because people aren't agreeing with you? Ravenswing 00:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I am talking about facts, Ravenswing. Do your research! But this is not the place to deal with that. --Anthrophilos (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
You mean that this isn't the place for premises, predictions and suppositions? I would agree. I would certainly agree that this is a place solely devoted to discussing this particular request for undeletion, one in which essays as to the future of Wikipedia do not belong. Ravenswing 01:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
From the discussion at Jimbo's talk page (now archived) it looks as though Anthrophilos's 'facts' aren't accurate. The figures seem more flat than declining. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Never mind the "fact" that this isn't Facebook; it's an encyclopedia. There are quite literally millions of articles about which pretty much everything that's going to be said has been said: long-defunct sports teams, classical Greek playwrights, obscure kings of the dim past. Explosive growth is far more likely to weigh us down with pop culture ephemera and the Internet meme of the day than with substantive, notable fact. Ravenswing 12:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Endorse deletion: There are several absolutely valid reasons why this list was deleted. Anthrophilos has tendered not a single valid reason why the deletion was improperly done, nor how the article meets the various applicable policies and guidelines. Beyond that, Anthrophilos' grasp of those policies and guidelines is shaky; one wonders, for instance, how he could have possibly missed in his interpretation of WP:BLP the policy's very first sentence, which holds "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." (emphasis in the original). He would be better off in getting a better handle on those rules, which might mend his confusion as to why - as was the case at ANI as well as here - we keep failing to discuss the things he wants us to discuss on the terms he wants us to employ. Ravenswing 23:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
...and if he fails to remove his two renditions of the same NPA, he won't be contributing to Wikipedia for all of those 10 years (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting undeletion of original version of this file which is the logo used by the airline at present. -Cloudbound (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Question: It appears that none of the versions actually match the version on their website now [1] linked from BMI Regional. Shouldn't the current one be uploaded as a new version instead? Skier Dude (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The Canyons Aquatic Club is relevant in the USA Swimming world in that it is a top 20 team in the National Rankings. Furthermore, 2000 Olympic Gold Medalist Anthony Ervin grew up as a member of this club and is relevant again as he is making a comeback and has a legitimate chance of being a 2012 Olympian.
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Neutrality (talk), who proposed it, and who may wish to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you could contribute. What the article needs is referencesabout the club that establish WP:Notability by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As an Olympic medallist, Anthony Ervin is undoubtedly notable, but that notability is not inherited by the club. JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. Congratulations, I think, on taking up that rather uninviting challenge. As this was deleted after a messy AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael David Crawford you need to go through DRV before restoring it to the mainspace, unless you get agreement from Scientizzle (talk) who closed the AfD. As you can see from the AfD, his fan club wasted a lot of energy trying to show notability by piling up trivial references, mainly to things he wrote - you will need to do a good deal of trimming. WP:AMOUNT is a useful essay you may find you need to point to. JohnCD (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I hope that my work here will go to some use. It appears to be a difficult project. RyanVeseyReview me! 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like a copy of the deleted version of this page emailed to me. This was an article I re-created afterword. -MarcusQwertyus 18:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a lot there, but Done. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
PROD reason was Advertisement for hybridsec.com. Undelete = any advert content can/will be removed and notable topic should not be deleted -Widefox (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that you write this again. It reads like the introduction to a promotion by a company, building up a scare story and legislative requirement. It does not cover the topic at all Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
hmmm, rethink...with respect, I just wanted to fix a redlink to it, my feedback is that PROD undelete should be quicker than AfD/CSD where I'm used to getting a look myself via userfy. Widefox (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Normally I would restore a prod on request, but this would have been deleted as a G11 in it's earlier state. If you had email enabled I would send it to you. Any other admin can restore this if they want. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
hmmm, OK, I understand now I know its a CSD, thanks for bearing with me. Leaving that article aside, my feedback continues on Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletionWidefox (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The Thom Huge article is now no longer a redirect to Garfield and Friends, because the user TenPoundHammer dumbly thought, like a serious blockhead, that Garfield and Friends was Thom Huge's only role. To tell the truth it was actually NOT his only role, and that's a FACT. -Interlude 65 18:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. Talk page restored, but I have placed on your user talk page a formal warning for this blatant and uncalled-for personal attack. JohnCD (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
not my article but useful topic, can this be userfied to me so I can work on it? -Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This one was a POV promotion of selected webs site by a banned user. I suggest you start from scratch, as it does sound like a useful topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
While the entry was just a stub (so far), he is notable having designed a number of Icelandic lighthouses, including the Knarraros lighthouse. If in fact he does not qualify for an article, then we should un-wikify his name in Knarraros lighthouse.
Thanks
--Ira -Ira Goldstein (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking a bit before I deleted this one. It was mostly a genealogy. But if you can come up with independent references for the design then that could justify it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of pages, such as the lighthouses at Gardskagi and Hólmsbergsviti which talk about his work as a lighthouse designer. I also took a photo of the tourist sign at Knarros Knarraros lighthouse sign, but am not sure how to use that as a reference. --Ira Goldstein (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Matthew Lutton is a well known and esteemed individual. He is a prolific theatre and opera director in Australia with an extremely high profile and many notable directing credits to his name. He is represented by HLA Management Pty a theatrical agency in Sydney Australia, who are the company requesting that this article not be deleted. His Agent can be contacted on (Redacted) should this matter wish to be discussed or any information verified. -Hla123 (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Richard Bazley, who is pictured in the image, and who owns the copyright has now been kind enough to email Wikipedia using one of the Wikipedia templates to release the image under a creative commons license. Unfortunatel;y it took a few days to arrange this, in which time the image was deleted due to lack of licensing information. -Dave.m.houghton (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
For this sort of thing we usually will await for the OTRS volunteer to confirm the email. Otherwise if you have an OTRS number we can proceed from there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
PROD reason from 2007 was A fairly clear-cut example of a piece of software that doesn't pass WP:N. No secondary sources are given per WP:RS. I have retreived a number of sources which I believe establish notability. The software is under continuing development. --- Trevj (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
You need to give us the exact title of the page you mean, including the same capitalisation, or else the username of the account that created it. JohnCD (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe the reason for the delete (quoted: "No indications of notability. Non-notable software. Unreferenced.") was incorrect. PlantUML is refrenced in at least 2 places ( List_of_Unified_Modeling_Language_tools and Graphviz) and does have some notable features (which I would be happy to spell out). I have found this software to be very useful and to fill a niche which is otherwise only filled in a limited fashion by a few online pay services. As a GPL alternative to those services, it seems to me that it deserves a bit of explanation. -Shdwjk (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done. This article was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlantUML so, as stated at the top of this page, it will not be undeleted here. If you believe that the discussion was wrongly decided, or you have new information, you should first approach user Ron Ritzman (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion. Then, if you concerns are not addressed, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Article was speedily deleted because the contents where similar to those on another website. However the article is not in violation anymore since a copyright disclaimer was published on the page it came from. -Calfaro (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Done, but if the article is to be kept it needs more references - the two it has seem to be based on the same press release, and that is not enough to establish WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The biography of the artist Trevor Steel (performer, writer, producer, label owner) was reviewed by Mr. Steel for accuracy and is veriafiable in the All Music Guide as well as other resources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alias2u2 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. As notified on your talk page, the article was deleted after ten days because it did not cite any reliable source to verify what it said. I have restarted the clock, giving you another ten days. Note that if the article is to be kept in the longer term, you need to establish WP:Notability by references that show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See also WP:MUSICBIO and WP:42. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted by AFD, therefore not eligible for restoration by this process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
What is the proper process? Also, can you temp undelete to my user page? 173.65.60.108 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2012 (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/4.2.2.2, 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. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.. And, um, you've never had a userpage (talk→BWilkins←track) 23:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Dude, it says at the top of the page "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". I am asking for you to userfy the deleted article. I'm not asking you to do anything with my userpage. As you note, I've never had a userpage. 173.65.59.187 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
"Dude", your request above says "temp undelete to my user page" ... you don't have one. (talk→BWilkins←track) 16:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
DoneSince you do not have a user page this is the content:
'''4.2.2.2''' is the [[IP address]] of a [[DNS]] server owned by the company [[Level 3 Communications]].
Network users primarily use this address to check their connectivity to the internet by [[Ping|pinging]] this address.
Because the address of this DNS server is easy to remember, its use is spreading rapidly among IT and ICT professionals who quickly want to check the connectivity of a device.<ref>For an example, see [http://www.webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=1278 this handout] from the [[Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation]]</ref>
It is also popular with [[Information technology]] and [[Internet service provider|ISP]] help desk personnel, who find the IP address simple to tell people over the phone. It is often more convenient for them to instruct someone to ping 4.2.2.2 rather than the ISP's own DNS server in order to test connectivity.
The Bobin.A [[computer virus|Windows virus]] pings this address to detect an active Internet connection on an infected machine.<ref>http://www.pandasoftware.com/com/virus_info/encyclopedia/overview.aspx?lst=det&idvirus=81557</ref>
4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.6 are all valid Level 3 DNS servers.
credit to . Manuelvde and Dina and a few other minor contribs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
reasoning i would like in at user:windows.dll/portlands -Windows.dll (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done - you can see the text at http://www.mainehistory.org/about_opportunities.shtml#docent, but for copyright reasons we cannot accept it, even in a user page, without a formal copyright release. That would not be worth doing, (a) because of the promotional tone ("friendships that will last a lifetime!") and (b) because just copying the text would not provide the references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which are needed to establish WP:Notability for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a notice-board for announcements. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Was hastily deleted without consideration of the company having just been launched and can only provide just a little history or notability. Also seeking suggestions and assistance from administrators to edit the page and keep it up. -Qualitypedia (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If the company has only "just been launched and can only provide just a little history or notability" that is exactly why it doesn't qualify for an article - Wikipedia is not here to help launch the "up and coming". JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
This page was deleted under CSD G4, content previously deleted after an XfD which has been recreated. I created the page again and it was tagged for deletion almost straight away. I was not the person who created it the first time, and undoubtedly it was different content. It was referenced and is notable, as it fits in with all the other newsreaders which have articles and their own category. People should look at content before they delete instead of just if it was XfDd before. Rcsprinter(Gimme a message) 15:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC) -Rcsprinter(chatter) 15:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done. The reason for deletion at the AfD was lack of reliable sources to show notability. Your new article's references are Bigfishmedia (his company)'s website, his own website, and a news item which lists him among several other people who joined a protest. That is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Newsreaders are not automatically notable. You should talk to Graeme Bartlett (talk), the deleting admin; then, if you are not satisfied, you can take it to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
In the meantime, may I at least have it userfied, please? Rcsprinter(shout) 18:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
This page was apparently deleted according to the noteworthy criterion in 2010. However, Metaxas is a noted author whose book on Bonhoeffer was the #4 NYT nonfiction bestseller on Sept. 25, 2011. He is referred to in 17 Wikipedia articles. He gained a new audience as the speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year (the only such speaker to not have a Wikipedia page). I am actually not a fan and came to Wikipedia looking for a NPOV on him. -Hugetim (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. It was in fact only deleted last month. I will notify user Mfhiller (talk), who proposed it, and who may decide to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you could contribute. Any references to comment about him in reliable sources that you can add will help. JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Done? The article was deleted on the basis of numerous complaints. The major complaint (as supported by talk) actually was that this article contains almost nothing but advertising for someone who does not express a majority view (e.g., completely unsupported, unscholarly views about Bonhoeffer). Thanks for paying attention. Will take this forward. Mfhiller (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.. I will notify user NatGertler (talk), who proposed it, and may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you could contribute. You should add to the article any references you have to establish WP:Notability, preferably not all from the same source and not behind paywalls. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
'Still notable with possible legal ramifications. -Quill and Pen (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The article has potential legal precedent. See my comments below too.
I have contacted the contributor who redirected Onion (dog) article with no response. A majority of the contributors objected to the article's removal, but the redirect was done any way. Below is the redirect link and my comments on the redirect page. If I have filed this complaint incorrectly, please be patient as I am new to Wikipedia. I've done some edits here, but I mainly participate in the WP copy edit drives. Thank you. Quill and Pen (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I have strongly disagreed with the NFD concerning Onion the Dog, and I still do, as this case is a legal one. If the Lexus Project wins their case that could be heard at the Nevada Supreme Court, then Onion the Dog will set legal precedent throughout the United States. Other government agencies will have to review their policy concerning vicious dogs. Also, the article reflects a changing view of pet ownership. This what made Onion the Dog unique and noteworthy as the big picture was not the dog attack itself, but the ramifications following the event. Quill and Pen (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done. Before the redirect was put in place, this article was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onion the dog so, as stated at the top of this page, it will not be undeleted here. If you consider that the discussion was wrongly decided, or you have new information, you should first approach user Bwilkins (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion; then, if your concerns are not addressed, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add sourcing to the article to make it appropriate for wikipedia. However, I no longer have the content of the article, so if possible I would like to edit the it in my own sandbox before restoring it. Is it possible to send me the content? Thanks for the help -Trafficattic (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Page was improperly deleted for incorrect reasons -BurbankTV (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done It only took a few moments of looking to see that being deleted as an advertisement/highly promotional is quite the correct reason. For example, "...you can watch them on TV or at their web site..."? Doesn't get more promotional than that = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Very little discussion was undertaken on this page - there seems to have been an arbitrary judgement by an administrator that it is "not notable" -Hammersfan (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Really? There's more bytes of text here than most other AFD's...and of course, never good to not WP:AGF and insult the deleting admin whose role is to weight the policy-based argumements (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Fine - then restore it to my userspace until such time as more information becomes readily available, after which the page can then be restored to the main site. And where is this supposed "insult"? Hammersfan, 27/06/12, 23:38 BST
seems to have been an arbitrary judgement seems to be an insult. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
this was being used in the article, and had proper licensing information when uploaded. If there was no licensing information, it was removed due to vandalism-we are very careful about such images -Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Done This was not lost due to vandalism but foolishness, I did not restore the part where it was tagged PD, and then tagged with no source, when the edit summary had the source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a game that kids have been playing at Hume Lake Christian Camps for decades. The kids in our church youth group play this game often. Kids from church youth groups all over California play this game and it is a prestigious title to hold at Hume Lake Christian Camps. -12.139.172.178 (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Although this article was speedy deleted for an incorrect reason (A7 does not apply to games) and there was a prod, if I restored it I would have to nominate it at AFD. If you can find reliable independent writings about the game, ie not youtube or humelake, then I would consider undeleting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The page was deleted because it supposedly represented advertisement for a product. However, this page is no more an advertisement of a product than many other descriptions of software products found on wikipedia. The page describes a free and open source tool for data discovery for which a free LiveDVD is available. It was created to be referenced in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIS_Live_DVD which also describes other similar tools, many of which have a similar description page. Please kindly reconsider the deletion. -Mhogeweg (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you come up with some independent reference for this? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I am writing to request reasons as to why my short page on Es Canar was deleted?
It does not promote a company, product, group, service or person as it is none of those.
It may not have been full and descript, but it was short and to the point, and better than some of the articles on here that you have failed to action the removal of.
Please get back to me asap, this is what i want, this is what i expect. -SalopSi (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Done however the article did contain promotional adjectives, which I have now removed. Your next step should be to include references that show where the information came from, and also please explain what the football team has got to do with this place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Most members of the Fessenden family will be as non-notable as "Boston" Kelly, and have no place in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Done the article was not too promotional and could be improved, only a bit over 3 years old though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Question: It appears that none of the versions actually match the version on their website now [1] linked from BMI Regional. Shouldn't the current one be uploaded as a new version instead? Skier Dude (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: Admins do not undelete articles based on the request of the subject or people associated with him - Wikipedia is not free advertising. In any case, A7s will not be overturned here. In order to be included in Wikipedia, a subject MUST be proven notable, by way of having multiple reliable sources discussing him. This is not negotiable in the slightest. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 07:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
