Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 49

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

deirdre Breakenridge

To make encyclopedic -24.187.36.74 (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - the article cannot be restored as it was identified as advertising. If you create an account and attach an email address, however, we can email the text of the article to you for improvements. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Insufficient information available online for Champion Ruby's explaining ingredigents, affects on the human body and nervous system and addictive levels.

To whom this may concern,

I have decided to quit smoking in the last couple of weeks and its only been then that have been thinking about these last 7years- what have i really been smoking and do other people think the same as me? After many hours of searching throughing numerous pages online i found nothing that could of gave me some kind of indication on what was in the packet i smoked- not even there average strength. Actually sorry i should correct myself there, i did find some reviews but they weren't warning people on the affects. It was more advertising the great 'taste & flavour'. Hmmm so yes by the end of it all i was quite disgusted with the effort of warning by all, as you can most probably tell by my letter by now.

Wikipepedia- (you guys) are the only people in the whole world that have done a full review on other ciggarets! So why has it been deleted for champion ruby???? We need more awareness... before our kids and gran-kid see these websites & see it as 'cool' and not see the mouth & lung cancer and yellow teeth etc before its too late. Help me, help you, help the kids and get it back up.

Yours sincerly

Abbey Swinburne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.143.21 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 7 September 2011

Can you tell us the exact name of the article you mean? We have never had an article Champion Ruby, and I have tried all the variations I can think of like Champion ruby and Champion Ruby (cigarette) and Champion Ruby cigarette... JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
We are not here to push any one group's agenda, and in any case this is not where you go to request we write an article from scratch. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 15:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken konweiser

reasoning -70.119.38.7 (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

A deleted page with this name does not appear to exist. Considering alternative spellings, maybe you mean the film person Kern Konwiser which was deleted as unsourced biography. If that is what you mean, you can itehr contact user Fastily (talk · contribs) or confirm here that you have some reliable sources to improve it. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

First Gen Corporation

I have already mentioned that this does not contitute copyright infringement because the information that i posted are publicly available not only to the first gen corporate website but listed in several websites such as the philippine stock exchange, department of energy and other references. I am working for first gen and i am the one who wrote the article, including the references, news websites and even wikipedia references, i am not sure why jimfbleak keeps on deleting my article, i truly felt harrassed. kindly review the article before deleting it. -Sunkissedguy (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done. You do not understand copyright law. The fact that this is publicly available does not make it free to copy; the fact that you say you wrote it is not enough, because we have no way to know that someone on the end of a wire is who he says. Wikipedia will not accept material copied from elsewhere unless a formal release has been made as described in WP:Donating copyrighted materials; and even then, material from a company's website is likely to be too promotional for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a business listing directory. If you work for First Gen, please read the guideline on WP:Conflict of interest. JohnCD (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

DipTrace

The reason was "seems it is not notable" - please check Google for the article name, currently this is one of the most widely used Hobby-Mid Range PCB packages together with Eagle_(program) and others - see articles for Eagle, KiCAD, etc in Wikipedia -195.8.201.75 (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sterling EQ

I would like the last version of this article emailed to me, no mainspace restoration required, Thank you. -Phearson (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Mahan Mitra

Mahan Mj (Mahan Mitra) is one of the leading topologists in India. He is one of the very few indian mathematicians who are actively working in Geometric Topology. He is a PhD from UC Berkeley. Now, he is the Dean of Mathematics at Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University, Belur Math. He is my teacher. If you ask any good mathematician of India (or may be, the whole world, if that person is a topologist) about him, you will know the truth! I don't know why you deleted his wiki page! You MUST restore it as soon as possible. Please do it. -59.93.212.93 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Groundshaker (Transformers)

Please send this page to me so I can host it off site. -Mathewignash (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, but the rights to the contents were irrevocably granted to Wikipedia ... besides, there's already a wiki that hosts all the articles that are deleted :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The rights to the pages are under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, so please get with the sharing. Mathewignash (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Video_Copilot

I would like opportunity to provide missing information, if any. Unsure if deleted in error, unable to view/verify content. Significance: Free online learning resource and community of motionographers KATrGEEK (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC) -75.72.31.12 (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that a previous version of this article has been userfied here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, KATrGEEK, feel free to improve User:AustinBrister/Video Copilot. Remember that the article needs to make a clear statement of significance before it can be moved to the article space. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Vodacom Challenge 2008

This is currently a redirect to the main Vodacom Challenge article. However, I certainly feel that this page should be brought back. The afd discussion about it was very limited both in terms of its number of contributors, and the points that it made.

The Vodacom Challenge may not have been supremely notable back in 2008, but it has since grown in stature significantly, and is Africa's answer to the Audi Cup. In this case, the recent history of the tournament becomes more notable, as fans are more interested in the history of the competition.

There are many similar articles already in existence. There are Vodacom Challenge articles for 2009 and 2011 (there were no fixtures in 2010), as well as 2006 and 2007, but oddly no 2008.

Please reconsider this request. RedvBlue 22:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done As per the instructions at the top of this page, articles that went through AFD cannot be undeleted here. You will need to take this to WP:DRV (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It says: "articles for deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator". I would have described that discussion with little participation other than the nominator. RedvBlue 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
...and? I see a nominator, a merge !vote, and a delete !vote ... that's certainly more participation than just the nominator (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion the debate has "little" participation. Therefore, I think it is right to bring this up here, as it fits with the instructions at the top of the page. RedvBlue 23:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright, but I would like to say that if there are articles being deleted with that little participation in the debate, and they are not allowed to be brought up here, then there should be a review into the procedure. RedvBlue 23:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. However creating a third process (or expanding this process to include marginal AfDs and CSDs) would involve a lot of pushing boulders uphill. Rather than spend energy fighting policy and bureaucracy battles we created this page to serve as an easy answer for some common use cases. Eventually we will simplify the undeletion process so there are more options (or just better options) for new editors but that isn't the focus right now. Protonk (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't this page already include the marginal ones, though? It says "debates with little or no participation other than the nominator". I guess that my take on what is little is different from another's. Anyway, this is all rather disillusioning, and I think that it's best for me to wait until the process becomes simplified. RedvBlue 00:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
We really need to change what it says in the introduction. The language regarding little or no participation was added in light of this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll. It refers to AfD debates that are relisted twice and still no discussion occurrs so instead of relisting a third time, the debate is closed as a "soft delete"—the equivalent of a PROD because there was no actual discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
So, will it be changed? I did actually look at the other place first, but then I came here, read the introduction, and from that I realised that this was exactly the page that I was looking for. Anyway, it is more important to know when the process, itself, will be changed. Yes, this may not have turned out to be the right place for me to make my request, but I don't think that that should matter. People could have been much more helpful. My argument for undeletion is clearly stronger, and it wouldn't have taken anyone else a couple of minutes to realise that. Yet, the article still hasn't been restored. The system now is way too complicated. Why not have just one page for all undeletion requests, and label the ones which need a greater review in a different colour, or something like that, so that they can be clearly identified for the people in charge. In that situation, people could just propose what they want, and then it would be up to the people who know about these things to decide how to deal with it. That would be a lot easier for people like me, who can't really tell. RedvBlue 00:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Vasily Zaytsev

No reason to be deleted. verified and important information -42.106.1.213 (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Article had not been deleted, I removed an AFD template as no AFD discussion had been started. January (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Abdul Hakeem Palh

reasoning -Abdul Hakeem Palh 14:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was found in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who implemented the deletion request, user Peridon (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Jane Roskams

Dr Roskams is an award winning scientist, a notable mentor to many other scientists, a leader in the field of Neuroscience and an inspiring teacher and role model to many (check out "rate my prof" and read the references in the Bio we wrote if you disagree). Several former students created this page to inspire other young people to not give up, and believe there is room for creative scientists in a field like Neuroscience. There are many less notable academics currently with wiki pages, and we feel strongly that the page we all worked on deserves to be restored. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawrigley (talk • contribs) 17:33, September 11, 2011

Fixed malformed nomination. lifebaka 18:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. lifebaka 18:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

William S. Tribell

reasoning -Cillaf1 (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am creator of a page dedicated to an up and coming professional poet by the name of William S. Tribell. It has taken me some time to gather up all links etc. so I am not sure what I could have done wrong and why this page was up for deletion as I think there is more then sufficient resources for this site.

Is there anything I did wrong? I know nothing in the article is misquoted, all links are legit. I am really not sure.

Could you please not delete the page, or at least let me know what is wrong. I am hoping this is not due to there being 2 pages active, one for William S Tribell and one for William S. Tribell. One one was created by me and someone else created a link to the now corrected version: William S. Tribell

Thank you in advance. Cilla

The article has not been deleted but only tagged for speedy deletion. I declined the speedy but the article needs inline citations. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Construction Citizen

I believe I have the right to get my work back, if not put up on the Wikipedia website publicly. I believe that this, although in my mind, did not have partial views towards an organization, can be changed to seem less partial, and can be edited as such. However, this can only be done if I can receive the text of the Wikipedia page back. I thank you for your cooperation, and I hope to fix the problems you believe I have with my page. -Shyam.raghavan.1 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Zola Levitt

non-notable charge erroneous -Ac44ck (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


Deleted with WP:PROD.

Seven days is not enough time for interested parties to notice their work is about to be thrown away. Not everyone checks Wikipedia every week.

http://www.raptureready.com/who/Zola_Levitt.html

a weekly 30-minute television program, "Zola Levitt Presents," ... aired on hundreds of TV stations.
a prolific author with more than fifty books published in several languages.

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. —Bkell (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. - Ac44ck (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Zinepak

company merits page; page created with qualifying, reputable citations and not written as advertisement -Zinepak (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

page not written as advertisement; references citable sources -Zinepak (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate requests merged. January (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done The deleted page was full of promotional text using words like exclusive and deluxe. It also looks like you have a company username instead of a personal name. So I suggest that you create a new username and let some one else write an article on the topic if they feel that it merits a page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Zola Levitt

article recently REFUNDed -Ac44ck (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


I would have thought this happened automatically when the article was restored.

Article and talk page were deleted with WP:PROD after the expiration of a 7-day period for comment, which is way too short.

Both pages were deleted based on an erroneous charge of non-notability.

Thank you. - Ac44ck (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


Ben Perryman

Page was deleted by another user who is refusing contact with the subject of the page -Number6UK (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Payleaf

The page was flagged for speedy deletion as soon as I put the title name and the link to the website. Later, I made a complete page just mentioning the company's history and the services it offers, along with general information in the information box. I was not advertising the company. This was my first attempt to make a wikipage, so, obviously I took time to get used to the rules.If you feel that the page is appropriate at the point of deletion, please re-instate it. If not, kindly tell the reason for deletion and what changes will I have to make to submit it again in a fashion that does not get it deleted. -Ashutosh.manager007 (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning companies. 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 companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Note that you claim the company is in "Portsmouth, United States of America" (what on earth does that mean?) yet tag the article as using U.K. English. You say they sell "solutions": that's marketing-speak for whatever it is they actually sell: unless they break encryptions or sell solutes dissolved in solvents, they are not selling "solutions"! The tone is promotional and gives not the vaguest hint that the company is actually notable in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Studio One (TV Series)

This article was originally deleted bacause an administrator felt that the TV Series was not notable. There are now many references that can be added to the article where it has been written about in the press. I have prepared this new article with the additional references. 

 -Tomi1001 (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

recover of Integrated_Display_Technology page

different competitor of this company have a page on Wikipedia why IDT page has been really deleted (G11 I already know)? Is it possible to see the original text ? See my question to fastily ... thanks for the support. -Gammaware65 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

General answer - if it was deleted under WP:CSD#G11 that means the deleting administrator thought it too promotional for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion of any kind, and is very resistant to attempts to use it like that. Also, it is not a business listing directory, and does not expect to have articles about every company that exists, only those that are notable enough to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. See the WP:FAQ/Organizations and WP:Notability (organizations and companies for more information.
I cannot tell you what was in the deleted page, unless you can tell us the exact title of the article. We have never had an article Integrated Display Technology or Integrated display technology or IDT Integrated Display Technology or IDT integrated display technology or any other variation that I have tried. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure if this was a typo, but this is a different title than he mentioned at Fastily's talk page. :) Gammaware65, you asked for Integrated Device Technology there. I see that another administrator has overturned the speedy deletion and restored to an earlier version which was less spammy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ivan aran

OTRS verification of permission from Ivan Aran for release of content at [1] under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license in ticket 2011091210014381. (Also, please move the article to Ivan Aran for proper capitalization). -– Adrignola talk 22:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fairhaven Singers

Expired PROD, but I was offline during the relevant period and could not object in time. would like to edit to meet notability guidelines and proper citations -Architrave2 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Green Building Initiative

Fully substantiated article with 3rd party references deleted without chance to appeal. At least send it back to user space so I can work on it. -KennyLMacdonald (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Logs indicate page was G11'd. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 23:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 Not done Yep, G11, unambiguous advertisement or promotion. Also a G12 (copyright violation) as substantial portions of it were lifted from this organization's website. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

FilmCrave

the page existed for several years without problems. For some reason it was deleted though other pages that were similar still exist such as FlickChart. Please let me know what I need to do to get this page back and edit it so that it remains a page. Thank you Heartiscontentious (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Heartiscontentious -Heartiscontentious (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message for the deleting admin, Athaenara (talk · contribs), in follow-up to a message left by Heartiscontentious. The most recent delete was from a proposed deletion, and a conflict of interest doesn't prevent a user from contesting a proposed deletion, but I want to make sure there's no deeper issue before restoring. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Too late, I restored it before I saw your response. Feel free to re-delete it if it turns out there are "deeper issues". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Nope, no problems. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I see there needs to be some revisions/additions based on the wiki note. Who do I need to work with on getting those issues resolved so that deletion problems don't come up again in the future? Do I simply make edits to the page and then ask if the edits are ok? Thanks again Heartiscontentious (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Unholy Alliance (WWF)

Per consensus at WT:PW, we will begin on expanding the article so it can meet with Wikipedis'a general notability guidelines. Feedback ☎ 16:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC) -Feedback ☎ 16:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite whatever local consensus might have been reached on a talk page, "this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions". The article was deleted after an afd but not salted, so write the new article in userspace and move it to articlespace when it's ready. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. 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 Unholy Alliance (WWF), 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 JForget (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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe neither. The article was deleted due to past consensus and therefore there was "no error" done at that AFD. However, there has been a new consensus that believes this article can survive another AFD. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Boom, when editors' decided that a similar article was indeed notable, it is indeed appropriate for this article to be restored. There was nothing wrong with the AFD, it's just that consensus has changed. If you still do not want to restore the article, could it be placed in the incubator or in my userspace for further expansion? Feedback ☎ 17:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Userfied to User:Feedback/The Unholy Alliance (WWF). Before returning it to the main space, you should approach JForget (talk), who closed the AfD, for permission, or if he does not agree take it to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter Gerrard

reasoning -86.160.164.175 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As the author of eight books I cannot understand why my page should be deleted. There are many areas where my output can be substantiated - Amazon Books - John Blake publishing wikipedia page and many, many web page references

Fixing malformed request. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Undeleting an unreferenced biography of a living person is challenging - especially since many items in the article have remained unreferenced for years. Even though this is a PROD, I see no references to support undeleting. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Done Sorry, BWilkins, I must have been doing that while you were evaluating. I encourage the IP to take the concerns to heart and work on them immediately, as an AfD is likely. LadyofShalott 23:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think all BLP recreations like this should immediately subject to a 10 day WP:BLPPROD as the latest creation date is post March 2010.The-Pope (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I've no objection to that, but is it the policy on resurrected pages (or just your wish that it be)? LadyofShalott 00:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, as the template throws up an error message if you try to put it on page created earlier than the blpprod process, I think you'd get that error if you put it on this article (or ones in similar situations). LadyofShalott 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no policy for this, only a compromise agreement not to use it on old articles. IAR says it is no longer an old article. You can ignore the template warning- it still works. Incubation is fine, but that is a bit of a black hole. The-Pope (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this to the incubator Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Peter Gerrard. When sourced it can be moved back to article space. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Indigo Magazine

Established notability by adding reliable, independent secondary sources about the topic. Temporary information is deleted to keep up with the notability guideline. -88.242.54.48 (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Article is not deleted. The possibility of future deletion is merely being discussed at this point. LadyofShalott 23:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:American Conservative Movements

This is an userfy request. I am developing the new {{Conservatism in the United States}} side bar nav box, and would like to evaluate some of the links on this template for the new side bar. For eval purposes only, the ACM template will be CSDed when I'm done. -– Lionel (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. See User:Lionelt/American Conservative Movements.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Raymond A. Watson

This is a request that the page be incubated at the Conservatism Incubator WP:RIGHT/I. Toward the end of the AfD editing on the article increased in an effort to save it--we just ran out of time. The folks over at WPConservatism shuld be able to have this mainspace-ready in no time. – Lionel (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC) -– Lionel (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done to Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Raymond A. Watson. Before returning this to the main space, you must convince TParis (talk), the admin who closed the AfD as delete, that you have overcome the reasons for deletion, or if he does not agree take it to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

El-viz Guru Bhai : Prince of Peace World Tour

speedy delete request by mistake by author should have been re-directed but was deleted by administrator jimfbleak on the 10th sept. 2011 please restore as a lot of work and resesrch went into this draft article. The article will then be finished off by the sponsors of the Elviz Guru Bhai World Tour with extra audiance figures and relevant notability status. Thank you -Elviz77 (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done Note that this is an apparent sockpuppet of User:Elviz (and I invite you to read that userpage to see what's going on). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Grand Father's M/C

Were not Advertising. We are trying to give the people a better understanding of our world and we love helping people. Bikers get a bad wrap. I see a few other Motorcycle clubs have a Wikipedia and we would like our own also. Please tell me what needs to be done so Grand Fathers M/C can stay on wikipedia, Thank you! :) -Gfmc8888 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning companies. 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 companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

UK Alfa Romeo Owners Club

The article was one of many that fall into the category Automobile associations and none of the others have been flagged for deletion. The article had useful content and was as notable as other articles in the category. The club is well-known in the UK, as evidenced in part by its representation on the Internet. The article has good references (but as I recall, none inline. I'll fix that if it's recovered). -The Skywatcher and me (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user HighKing (talk), who proposed it, in case he wishes to consider nominating it at WP:Articles for deletion. The only references are the club's own website and what seems to be the website of another AR owners' club; what the article needs to establish notability is references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Levi Horn

Page was deleted before he made the taxi squad roster. Taxi squad players are uncontroversially allowed to have pages. Please recreate this page in a way to facilitate a WP:DRV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC) -TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Page userfied at User:TonyTheTiger/Levi Horn. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Even nicer job of forum-shopping all over the place. Block for disruption next time, I would expect. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Kerry Crafton

reasoning -Wodinlord (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


I apologize for not including references in my article.

I have gathered these and would like to include them. I hope they will satisfy the requirements.

They are:

Discogs http://www.discogs.com/artist/Kerry Crafton

CD Universe http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Kerry Crafton/a/albums.htm

albumcredits.com http://albumcredits.com/Profile/67108

Metal-archives.com http://www.metal-archives.com/artists/Kerry_Crafton/104352

Amarillo Globe News http://search.amarillo.com/fast-elements.php?type=standard&profile=amarillo&querystring="KERRY CRAFTON"

Skull & Bones.com http://www.skullsnbones.com/profiles/blog/list?tag=Kerry Crafton

Westar Music http://www.westarmusic.com/uploads/wsr292.pdf

Dagno Music http://dagnomusic.com/ForceMajeure/song_focus_10.php

Caustic Fallout http://causticfallout.net/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=286:one-bad-pig-a-christian-banned-ep-1986&catid=41:albums&Itemid=106

Metal Underground http://www.metalunderground.com/interviews/details.cfm?newsid=67444

Glenn Hughes http://www.glennhughes.com/twii.html

.950_JDJ

Why was this deleted, why not merge into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Jones -192.104.67.221 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What Are Records?

Notable label deleted via PROD. Contesting PROD. -Chubbles (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done I suggest you right away add references that demonstrate notability. Otherwise, an AfD is likely. LadyofShalott 02:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue: Out of Mind

These pages were deleted for not being useful or being used by anyone; that they should be joined to the mother article. These pages were detailed enough that they required their own pages, just like for every other series there is. I used them quite frequently. If they cannot be restored is it possible you could restore them temporarily so I could copy them over to the mother article. Thanks. 90.218.97.189 (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Split pages above into separate templates. Cheers. lifebaka 23:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

PS Nation

The page was marked for possible speedy deletion and it was deleted. The page was waiting for additional information to be provided to me by others to help justify its importance. PS Nation is one of the top PlayStation podcast downloaded on I-tunes as well as accessed by people all over the world. Besides just a podcast, PS Nation also comprises a web site with video game and other independent content, and a Facebook group page. While that may not sound like much it is evidence that there is more to it than just a podcast. Additionally they were one of the charter members of PlayStation Home's Community theater, and continue to have videos posted there. They are one of the larger independent podcasts, who as part of retroid's network managed to collect more money for extra life than other bigger media corporations such as IGN. I believe that they raised over $18,000 last year. Additionally as an independent podcast they have been invited to events such as E3, Starhawk announcement, and other major industry events. If there is any other thing that I can do or information I can provide that helps to prove the relevance and importance of PS Nation please let me know. Damon -ZiaTiger (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning companies. 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 companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok how about these outside references? from Sony: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/07/28/this-week-in-playstation-home-mag-personal-space-community-theater-update/, Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/company/ps-nation, Joystiq: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/20/ps-nation-podcast-066-metal-gear-molecule/, iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/playstation-nation-podcast/id251193106

What about 'em? A blog: worthless; a LinkedIn listing: meaningless; a minor notice on a hobbyist blog; and an iTunes listing: worthless, since you can try to sell any kind of crap you want on iTunes: Steve Jobs don't care. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

First Mr Orandemike, I would like to thank you for your quick response. I know that it must be a thankless task moderating Wikipedia. I don't take this personally and I know that when somebody has to judge content it is very subjective in nature some times, so again thanks for your quick response. Now for the sources I had listed above. First the Sony blog is the way that Sony is communicating what is going to be on the Playstation Network, and what videos are going to be in Home. This isn't a random blog, but one run but a major company. I agree with you about Linkedin not being the greatest reference, but since it is used to network business people I feel that there is some more merit to it than what it was given. The minor notice on a Hobbyist blog is fine with the exception that that same minor hobbyist blog has a wikipedia page. To me it seems odd to discount something that is currently on wikipedia as a reason to discount this page. Since they are both media enterprises at what point does it become deciding which point of view you want to share instead of the idea of sharing all points of view? As for the iTunes reference, the show is a free download from there, not something that cost money. I also don't feel that even if money is involved that should matter where something is a candidate for Wikipedia. By the same logic that things should be discounted in value because you are trying to make money off of it and it may be crap, there should be no listings on Wikipedia for tabloids but this exists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_magazine. I think that the real issue here is that PS Nation is not a business but a media enterprise. And under that belief I am trying to prove its validity by mentioning major corporations that refer to it or other things that have Wikipedia pages. Again thanks for taking the time to review this Orangemike, and for your feedback. Also I do appreciate you doing this job, I for one wouldn't want to have to deal with people questioning me on my decisions like this. Have a good day.

Mock chop

This article was deleted because user Tikiwont does not think there is such a thing. Mock Chops do exist and are widely available in Scottish fish and chip shops. A quick search for "mock chop scotland" will show evidence that this is a real thing. The article should be restored as the reason to delete it was wrong -136.254.7.59 (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Although this is effectively a contested PROD, you might want to rethink your reasoning. Just because something exists (which I don't doubt) that does not make it notable, and WP:GNG was noted in the PROD. The majority of the article was a section called "Speculation of origin" ... this is an encyclopedia, not WP:OR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Wikipedia articles cannot be based on "It is thought to be... " and "Its also rumoured that... " - see WP:Verifiability. JohnCD (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Treasure Section of Fine Arts

I would like to have the article back, or 'usefyed' so that I can improve and complete the "duplicate" article with whatever information it might be missing -Motstravail (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Daniel C. Juster

Daniel Juster is both an important theologian and one of a handful of pioneering leaders within the modern Messianic Jewish Movement. As the first president of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations and author of several important books about Messianic Judaism, theology, and leadership development, it is beneficial to have a wiki article that documents his contributions and work. There are many independent references and citations that can be utilized to objectively improve whatever article existed before it was deleted. -Pistachio2010 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. lifebaka 17:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue: Out of Mind

These pages were deleted for not being useful or being used by anyone; that they should be joined to the mother article. These pages were detailed enough that they required their own pages, just like for every other series there is. I used them quite frequently. If they cannot be restored is it possible you could restore them temporarily so I could copy them over to the mother article. Thanks. -07JonesJ (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. lifebaka 17:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue: Recovery One

These pages were deleted for not being useful or being used by anyone; that they should be joined to the mother article. These pages were detailed enough that they required their own pages, just like for every other series there is. I used them quite frequently. If they cannot be restored is it possible you could restore them temporarily so I could copy them over to the mother article. Thanks. -07JonesJ (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. lifebaka 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue: Reconstruction

These pages were deleted for not being useful or being used by anyone; that they should be joined to the mother article. These pages were detailed enough that they required their own pages, just like for every other series there is. I used them quite frequently. If they cannot be restored is it possible you could restore them temporarily so I could copy them over to the mother article. Thanks. 07JonesJ (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC) -07JonesJ (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. lifebaka 17:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue: Recreation

These pages were deleted for not being useful or being used by anyone; that they should be joined to the mother article. These pages were detailed enough that they required their own pages, just like for every other series there is. I used them quite frequently. If they cannot be restored is it possible you could restore them temporarily so I could copy them over to the mother article. Thanks. 07JonesJ (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC) -07JonesJ (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. lifebaka 17:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue: Relocated

These pages were deleted for not being useful or being used by anyone; that they should be joined to the mother article. These pages were detailed enough that they required their own pages, just like for every other series there is. I used them quite frequently. If they cannot be restored is it possible you could restore them temporarily so I could copy them over to the mother article. Thanks. 07JonesJ (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC) -07JonesJ (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. lifebaka 17:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Red vs. Blue: Revelation

These pages were deleted for not being useful or being used by anyone; that they should be joined to the mother article. These pages were detailed enough that they required their own pages, just like for every other series there is. I used them quite frequently. If they cannot be restored is it possible you could restore them temporarily so I could copy them over to the mother article. Thanks. 07JonesJ (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC) -07JonesJ (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. lifebaka 17:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Mugshots Grill & Bar

please, i would love to have Mugshots Grill & Bar undeleted so that i may add all of our references, which i failed to do in the first place -Joyhirdes (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done That was a shameless piece of advertising. I can only conclude that when you say "our references" you refer to the company you work for or own, or by whom you have been hired to spam Wikipedia on their behalf. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Spokane Flyers (senior)

Pre-May 4, 2010 Edit history appears to be missing and should be restored (when the 1st edit is an AfD nomination then something is not right) -Dolovis (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's weird, the afd in question was filed by the same user who created this article. Why he would create this article and nominate it for deletion at the same time I have no clue but there are no deleted edits for this article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Resolute claimed to have created the page. There is talk about it from 2006 if you look at the what links here[2]. The only explanations I can offer at this point is bugs or may be oversight.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
See http://web.archive.org/web/20060913000000/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokane_Flyers, other times the name was used by the junior team: [3] [4]. If yoiu look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spokane_Flyers_(junior)&action=history you can see that what became the junior team article was waht Resolute created. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_49&oldid=1136434575"