Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 48

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 55

File:BertMizusawa.jpg

This is a free photo pulled from www.BertMizusawa.com. To take extra precaution I have sought, and received, the permission of the individual pictured to use the photograph obtained from the website www.BertMizusawa.com -Missclark (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done. I can't see any indication at the source that this is a free image, so we will need confirmation of permission from the owner. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for details of the procedure. January (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sunil Narnaulia

so more and more persons can take information about the subject -122.161.70.23 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 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 Bkonrad (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Seay (musician)

reasoning -Vidente123 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


While I understand your ability to delete this I am concerned as I can provide and direct you to at least a dozen artists who are Seay's peers that have very similar articles here. None of them are being targeted for deletion. I am happy to have Sirius XM music directors verify this is a bone fide music artist with global airplay and sales. I can also have several magazines and music reviewers do the same. Please help me understand the process and provide responses to any of your concerns.

Respectfully submitted

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/Melissa Seay Harshaw, 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 Cirt (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. January (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin Lift Truck Corporation

need an administrator to userfy this page so that I can continue working on it. Aware of conflict of interest issue and will fix that as well. -KC WLT (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Inkie

May be useful to see old article in advance of copying contents of User:Trevj/Inkie across (refs to be included but ProveIt doesn't work in userspace) Thanks. -Trevj (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Sorry, can't restore the old article as it was a copyvio. The site pointed to from the copyvio notice is now a deadlink, but much the same text is at http://www.filthymodernart.com/artists/inkie. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
No probs. Thanks for checking. --Trevj (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

List of NBC slogans

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Seven Network slogans (2nd nomination) (closed as no consensus) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Network Ten slogans (closed as keep) -nymets2000 (t/c/l) 19:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:William Preston Signature.JPG

I don't know the proper tag for a picture I took myself -Ben6288 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Monolith Software

Our company nor product are expired and we are considerably notable sense a large majority of the fiber infrastructure of the world is monitored with our product and we are the first and only unified infrastructure management software -Jonathanmlsw (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Who is we? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"We" is the same as "our company", Monolith Software--Jonathanmlsw (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Metamorphosis Alpha

I am the publisher and personally took the photo, and will release it under creative commons -Morbius of Oz (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Not done The image in question is a compilation of four different covers. In order to be released under CC all of the individual covers must be released under a CC license. If you are the copyright owner of each cover image then you can verify this with our OTRS team and we will restore the photo. The compilation image itself cannot be released under a free license alone, as it is a derivative work of the four covers. Protonk (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

kodondo

To address the concerns that this is an irrelevant or defunct martial art, this is indeed a legitimate marital art practiced at a number of schools nationwide. Official website is http://www.kokondo.org and is referenced in the article. I do not have a comprehensive list of dojos, but I know they at least exist in Connecticut, Florida, Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Idaho, Missouri, and Ohio. The reviewer who indicated that it was clustered around a city in Connecticut is incorrect. There are no notable competition successes from students because the art discourages competition and instead focuses on real-world self-defense. It was founded around 50 years ago, which I would argue doesn't qualify as a recent splinter, and has been continuously practiced since. There are at least a dozen other websites on this art. See example links at http://www.kokondomartialarts.com/links.htm -71.146.66.77 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 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/Kokondō, 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 Cirt (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

reasoning -Shawmjennings (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please consider undeleting this photo based on the following new photo description:


File information
Description

Colonel Payne Jennings, Jr., USA

Source

United States Air Force

Date

1950

Author

Unknown

Permission
(Reusing this file)

Not Needed

Other versions None

No, I cannot show that an airforce employee took the picture. However, the photo, which is of my father and has been in my families possession for over 60 years, was released by the air force to the press following his (Col. Jennings) death. This leads me to believe either my father had his portrait taken by a private photographer or by an airforce photographer.

If a private photographer, it's under that photographer's copyright. Thus, it's more likely the Air Force took te photograph. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 04:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Joyce Michel

Joyce Michel · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I think the note said my page was deleted because "unambiguous advertising"?

I would very much appreciate your help with the restoration of my page. I am an American fashion designer. Today I was updating my page and noticed that the web-designer that I hired to put my page up did not put up the appropriate symbols for trademark registration for the companies that I have worked for during my 25 years as a fashion designer. This is required under the patent and trademark rules so I corrected the pages. Suddenly the page was removed. Is this the reason my page was removed? If so, what changes need to be made so that it can be restored?

Re: "unambiguous advertising". As a designer/inventor with over 25 years experience designing products for myself as well as other notable companies in the world of fashion it is hard to write about my accomplishments without referencing the products I have conceived of and designed. It is my hope that the scope of my life's work in this context will not be considered "unambiguous advertising" as that is what I have contributed as a designer.

How do I check back? Where?

I am really over my head here and could use some help please.

Thank you,

JOyce Michel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joycemichelny (talk • contribs) — Joycemichelny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Not done Hi Ms. Michel. Your article was deleted because it appeared to be much more promotional than our content policies allow. We are a general encyclopedia and as such we cannot host articles which are non-neutral in tone. This includes articles (such as yours) which are substantively portfolios of work or which appear to be written to solely promote the subject. In general we avoid this problem by suggesting that editors with a close connection to a subject refrain from editing articles on that subject. It is much easier to write neutrally about a subject in which you have no personal investment. In this case you had an article written and edited at your request and the result was deleted as advertisement. There are a number of professional directories which you might find more appropriate for this sort of biography. Wikipedia, however, cannot play host to it. I do apologize for the situation. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

requested list of publications about my work: I am not sure exactly why my page was removed. I was making some simple changes the addition of trademark and registration marksw and then parts of it, such as my degrees, BS and BA (should have been BFA) which I added appeared in red with warning signs and then the page just disappeared. In one note from wikipedia I was advised to include publications that reference my work. Some of them are:

JOYCE KMIECIK, Times Picayune, NO, LA 1981 LEGWEAR REPORT, IN THE MARKETS, WOMEN'S WEAR DAILY (WWD), FEB. 7,1992 LEGWEAR/BODYWEAR, The Pretenders, WWD, May 16, 1991 LEGWEAR REPORT, IN THE MARKETS, WWD, May 1, 1992 INNERWEAR/LEGWEAR, Donna Karan's New Way With Legs,WWD, July 8,1991 LIGHT SUPPORT, Control Tops-Legwear's Snappy New Business, WWD, Oct. 26,1981 Best Selling Feature, WWD, Spring 2004 The Beauty Report, DKNY Women's Scent Gets a Mate, WWD, July 21, 2000 ABSOLUTE MICHEL AND CULLEN, GQ, Details Magazine, March 1991 ABSOLUTE MICHEL, Vanity Fair, November 1991 ABSOLUTE BOOK., by Richard Lewis, copyright 1996 pages, 115, 117 and 121 The Cowboy Boot Book, by Tyler Beard, copyright 1992, pages 134,141 ABSOLUTELY MARTHA, WWD, November, 1991 MARKETING AND MEDIA, Wall Street Journal, February 12, 1992 F!D Fax, The Dallas Morning News, March 1991 BEHIND THE SCENE, DNR, February 26,1991 AR Accessories Ad, WWD, August 25, 1997, Congratulations Joyce Michel Accessories/Travelware•Special Section/November 1997, AR Accessories Featured, pages 24, 25, 26 Accessories Advance, DNR, August 15, 1997, The Marauder the Merrier, page 12 AR Accessories Ad, WWD, Congratulations Joyce Michel, VP Design, March 1998 IN STYLE, JOYCE MICHEL: ELECTRONIC SELLING, Knitting Times, November, 1995 Business Week, Polishing Up The Cubic Zirconia, July 31, 1995) Would you please reinstate my wiki page and advise if there are to be corrections made. Thank you, Joyce Michel -Joycemichelny (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joycemichelny (talk • contribs) — Joycemichelny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

XSQL

LEARNING -98.203.154.151 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

VersionOne

reasoning -Ian.buchanan.v1 (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted for "unambiguous advertising or promotion". If the page were userfied, I would happily recitify the content to have more encyclopedic content.

 Done - userfied to User:Ian.buchanan.v1/VersionOne. Before returning this to the main space you should get agreement from the deleting admin, Fastily (talk), or failing that take it to WP:Deletion review. The referencing needs improvement: on a quick check the majority of the "references" were deadlinks or did not mention the product, at least on the first screen reached. Quite apart from promotion, to establish notability requires showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, not just list-type mentions. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wenderholm Regional Park

Ridiculous deletion. Got deleted because of copyright infringement. I created an article about a park, and it gets deleted. I only used the website as a source, not to copy entire information. -Porch corpter (contribs/public policy) 20:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether immediate deletion was the best approach or not is perhaps disputable, but there were serious problems with much-too-close paraphrasing of the source (my comment summarising that) so immediate restoration is probably not appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: The whole article I wrote was all by myself, and I was getting information from that source. If there is any sentence that is a copyright violation, please feel free to remove those sentences. -Porch corpter (contribs) 04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The best way to avoid this sort of problem is to read your source carefully, preferably several different sources, go and do something else for several hours, then draft your article without the sources in front of you. Finally check against the sources (a) for accuracy and (b) to make sure you haven't inadvertently reproduced whole sentences. See WP:Close paraphrasing. JohnCD (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Dreaming (EP)

This article was one of several related to the band The Dreaming that seem to have been recently proposed for deletion. I object to the deletion of these articles, as they contain accurate information about their subjects. I came to Wikipedia looking for this information, and had I been a few days later, I wouldn't have found most of it. As it is, I have contested the proposed deletions of the other related pages, and intend in the near future to try to supplement the information on these pages so as to remove any future arguments for deletion. I would like this page re-instated so as to be able to include it in my efforts. Additionally, I feel that these pages should collectively be available to anyone else who is seeking to learn about the 2nd band created by the lead singer of a major, notable, and successful, though now defunct, 1990's band. -76.101.99.1 (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Avenue X at Cicero (talk), who proposed it, in case he wishes to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. You should understand that Wikipedia does not aim to be a catalogue of every record ever issued: the notability standard at WP:NALBUMS includes: "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia... Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" (my emphasis). JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

World 5.0

This idea, though brand new, is groundbreaking for our culture. It is an attempt to restore community, ecology and government through a movement of citizen action. The term is much more in that is aligns with the term 'Life,' names our new eco-operating system, and suggests personal healing through the use of our intent. Am I, as founder, promoting the idea? Yes. Will I gain personally from this exposition? Yes. But World5 is all about integrity, justice and balance as well. It is the effort of The World Five Foundation, a 501c3 non-profit organization. If you feel like we suffer from too much of these eternal values and our people and planet are doing just fine, please delete this entry. More content at world5.org. -Jimprues (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not here to promote your noble cause; nor is it a suitable place to try to make notable something which is not yet notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Philippine government agencies seals

Deleted in 2007 because of missing copyright information. I will include the requirements of fair use when undeleted. -Bluemask (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe

My article was deleted because (I have been informed) it does not have enough 'content.' I would like to be able to work on it some more, so that I can add enough "content.' Can I have the article 'put up' again, so that I may work on it, or is it lost forever? Please reply, so that I know, one way or the other. Also, I have been told my page was vandalised - the lines run on too long. I have since learned how to fix this, and would appreciate getting the chance. Thank you for your consideration. -72.2.54.36 (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm sorry, but there is no chance that your article could be acceptable, because it is your own original theory, and one of Wikipedia's basic principles is that, as an encyclopedia, it publishes WP:No original research. Read that whole policy, but the core of it is that Wikipedia is not for first publication of anything - an encyclopedia's business is to summarise what has already been published in reliable sources. Even if you publish your theory elsewhere, it will not be acceptable here until it has been the subject of substantial independent comment - to quote the policy, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it."
I can email you a copy of the text, if you like. JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kidandali

. -MorganKevinJ(talk) 13:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS ticket# 2011083110008505 confirms the release of the text at http://www.kerere.com/genres.php?id=120 under "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). MorganKevinJ(talk) 13:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In no way am I doubting this but shouldn't the original web page also be changed to include a "cc-by-sa" notice? It seems to me that anybody authorized to re license the original text would also be able to add the notice or direct somebody else to do it (ie the "webmaster") Feel free to trout me if I'm mistaken about this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The email address that sent the release matches the email address given at [1]. The email headers show that the email was sent from the SMTP server of an ISP in Uganda, so I doubt that the email was spoofed. MorganKevinJ(talk) 14:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok then  Done but I think that in the future we should consider requiring that the copyright notice on the original source text be changed to reflect a free license or at least the submitter should provide a damn good reason why it can't be. If anything this will prevent future problems of the article being tagged as copyvio by other editors or the corin search bot. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Claudiu Popa

How is the Ontario Privacy Commissioner not a credible third party source -JL (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done This article has been through community deletion discussions twice, and this person is wholly non-notable. Being listed on the OPC's site does not make anyone more notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. If you think that Wikipedia policy has not been followed, you will have to make valid policy-based arguments at WP:DRV. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Maroochy North Shore Jumper.jpg

To fix the non-free criteria as apparently that's why it was deleted within the past 4 weeks (9 months after I uploaded it to wikipedia I might add) -Mtiges (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. — ξxplicit 19:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Accumulo

criteria provided (A7, G11) for speedy deletion is not germane, article is consistent with over 20 other Apache incubator projects found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Incubator also see: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AccumuloProposal as source of significance. Content is neutral in promotion and again consistent with others in the same space. -Orenfalkowitz (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  •  Not done. Since it was deleted by both G11 and A7, you'll have to discuss it with the deleting admin as it's beyond the scope of this board. However, having that big gray pullbox flashing and honking at the top of the page didn't help your case. Such things scream SPAM and there are many new page patrolers who wouldn't have bothered to look past that. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Courtney_Henggeler

It was a good Article about her. -84.128.45.175 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Arcz

I still don't understand why the article was deleted, there is no copyright, it's completely factual and %100 relevant. -Breakerboy2000 (talk) 20:23, 3 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Daniel Hart

I have made a mistake with the making of Thomas Hart -Hrhar2 (talk) 07:11, 4 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 Bongwarrior (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Zeeshan Mian

I am not affiliated to Mr Mian or Denning Solicitors. Mr Mian helps those in need and this is of great human interest in the legal arena. The article is of encyclopedic value and all facts are 100% verifiable. Please re instate the article forthwith -Ireanne (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done. The deleting admin acted in accordance with Wikipedia's rules; the page did indeed qualify for speedy deletion under criterion G11 as unambiguous promotion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File: 19th Bomb Group B-29 BUB 2.jpg

reasoning -Shawmjennings (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have located the deleted photo at http://www.vetfriends.com/MilitaryPics/index_dod.cfm?wars=Korea. If I am able to reference this location, can the photo be undeleted?

The issue was licensing, not location of the original image. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Native American women

I think this list was deleted because someone found it repetitive with some kind the Native Amaerican category listing. I am researcher, and have not been able to find the info I'm looking for within the American Indian categories on Wiki (IE: Notable Women). The reason why the list exists is because women have been largely omitted (or at least, have a miniscule presence as compared to men) in printed history--this page is a valuable source of information for people trying to find out about notable women in general and American Indian Women specifically. It is not redundant with the category page, in that this page is about a specific subject: notable Indian WOMEN--add the word notable if you believe that needs to be spelled out. -71.241.231.125 (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the article was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native American women the request should be made at Wikipedia:Deletion review rather than here.MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Paul.Polansky.jpg.

I'm the webmaster of Paul Polansky and I uploaded a photo of him on his wikipedia -Puregoldxxxx (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Khema Baba

reasoning -Vijaymirdha (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


2 references were provided. It is true article. Please don't delete this article. It's not about biographies of living people.

  • Not done - this is not an appropriate topic for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia does not accept original research or articles for which there do not exist reliable sources of information.. The sources provided do not meet the requirement of reliable. Due to continued recreation, I have placed protection on the article to prevent recreation. If you feel that you can create a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT that is sourced properly, please do so - but request assistance from someone in verifying that the article meets Wikipedia's requirements before moving it into an actual article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

HispanTV

the deletion was handled improperly -Farzadparsayi (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

--Farzadparsayi (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

  • If your problem is that this page was deleted on Spanish Wikipedia, you must complain to them - each Wikipedia is separate, and we can do nothing here about a deletion there. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Steve James Sherlock

Sad to see the article on Steve James Sherlock has been deleted. A great deal of work went into the work - I felt the comments on 'why' it was deleted rather ignorant or dismissive. Steve did contribute to 2 major international music acts. Marc and the Mambas did only last a short period of time - None the less their work has been highlighted by the likes of Antony and the Johnsons as a major influence on their music. If you look at the sleeve for Marc & TM album 'Torment & Torreros' it states that the Mambas are Marc Almond, Anne Hogan and Steve Sherlock (Steve was not a session man - but an integral part the the band- To dismiss him as a 'bit' player is simply wrong. As for The The - Steve knew Matt Johnson for many years -playing live and recording with Matt Johnson. The fact is Matt Johnson remains the only permanent member of The The. Steve Sherlock is indeed notable for being in 2 major international music acts - Wikipedia is a loss without him. I do hope the page is reinstated.Thank you. '86.155.144.40 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)'

 Not done. The article was deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Steve James Sherlock so, as stated at the top of this page, it will not be undeleted here. If you believe the discussion was wrongly decided, or you have new information, you should first aproach user Scientizzle (talk), the administrator who closed the discussion; then, if your concers are not addressed, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Earl Biss (Top Native American artist for the last 40 years!)

reasoning He is the top native American artist for the last 40 years, he led the art movment out of SantafFe in the late 60 early 70's. There is no page or mention of this man, as the Smithsonian noted " Biss is the most important impact in to impresionism in the late century! There must be something honoring his work and the indian art movment that quaked through American art! This man single handed changed the face of American Art forever! Please honor Mr. Biss by showing Wiki. cares about his contrabution! -ModernMasterArt (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

information Note: Article was G11'd. Given the above, no wonder. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Not done Per the company name, address, and phone number at the top of this page as well as the 2 links at the bottom., I have to conclude that it indeed was an advertisement for "Unique Modern Art". Furthermore, the text that followed it was not an "article" it was an "essay" and not written from a neutral point of view. However if an editor with no connection to the subject wishes to write an article about him, he is welcome to do so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Andrew van den Houten

This shouldn't have been deleted...It's an actual person of recognizability.... -Ace2308 (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. There are two problems with this: (a) whole sentences are lifted straight from his IMDB entry, and Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere unless a formal copyright release has been made - see WP:Copy-paste and WP:Close paraphrasing; and (b) it is written in an unacceptably promotional tone, full of "peacock terms": "solid reputation as a fearless filmmaker... His filmic vision and creative courage... cutting edge... searing and fearless performance... " etc. An article about him may be possible, but this is not it. It would need to verify claims by references to reliable sources: IMDb is not considered a reliable source because it is user-editable, and indeed I see that his entry there was written by "Modernciné Staff", i.e. his own company. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cincinnati craigslist

reasoning -184.59.83.74 (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  •  Not done Although I have tried a few variations of this title, I cannot find one. However, I cannot imagine that this is notable enough to be a valid WP:FORK of an original article. Seeing as no reasoning was provided, this is all I got. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Kokondo

reasoning -Kosmocentric (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Seconding the request of another user, I would like to request the undeletion of the Kokondo martial arts page.

To address the concerns that this is an irrelevant or defunct martial art, this is indeed a legitimate marital art practiced at a number of schools nationwide. Official website is http://www.kokondo.org and is referenced in the article. Dojos exist in Connecticut, Florida, Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Idaho, Missouri, and Ohio. The reviewer who indicated that it was clustered around a city in Connecticut is incorrect. There are no notable competition successes from students because the art discourages competition and instead focuses on real-world self-defense. It was founded around 50 years ago, which I would argue doesn't qualify as a recent splinter, and has been continuously practiced since. There are at least a dozen other websites on this art. See example links at http://www.kokondomartialarts.com/links.htm.

I am unaffiliated with this martial art but was seeking information on it, which I had seen once before on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the page no longer exists, yet pages for countless other things exist on Wikipedia with far less historical and cultural relevance and general interest value. Please consider reinstating the page.

  • 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/Kokondō, 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. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Greatshot

Could someone please userify the deleted article Greatshot, so I can copy it off site? Thanks. -Mathewignash (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done - emailed to you. JohnCD (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks! It now resides here (Redacted) Mathewignash (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Syed Riyaz ud din Hyder Jaffery

because am going to give u a proof -Akhbariyat (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. There is no point undeleting this article, because it contained only the words "Prominent Akhbari Scholar In India." You are welcome to write an article about him, but it needs to explain why he is important, and give references to reliable sources to confirm what it says. Read WP:Your first article for advice. If you are the same person as user Akhbari12 (talk · contribs), please choose one account and use only that one, to avoid any suspicion of "sockpuppetry". JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Beatie

handledimproperly -Bluehorizon1968 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. There is nothing to undelete, because there has never been an article at this title: it redirects to a section about him in Male pregnancy. If you have concerns about the content there, raise them on the talk page at Talk:Male pregnancy. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

CareWell VIP

Permission for content at http://www.carewellvip.com/ to be released under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license received from carewellvip.com address in OTRS ticket 2011083010013564. -– Adrignola talk 20:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree. What is the way forward, though? I can't imagine asking the OTRS queue to police our inclusion guidelines as well as process copyright questions and I don't feel comfortable refusing to restore a G11 page/file when the reason for deletion has been obviated. That said, 75% of the pages like this I have restored have been deleted again, so something has to give. Protonk (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's unfair to the newbies to let them go through OTRS and then zap their article as spam. When I delete a copyvio, I usually add a message to the author's talk page like:

Please note that even if the copyright issue were resolved, the promotional tone of a company or personal website is likely to be unsuitable for an encyclopedia article, which requires a neutral point of view. Article subjects need to have notability, which is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is more detail at WP:Notability (people), and good advice on how to write an acceptable article at WP:Your first article.

with minor variations for companies or bands. How about adding something on those lines to the end of the copyvio warning templates? JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Good idea.. except that the copyvio warning templates are so long! Template:Nothanks-web is already 7 paragraphs. Readers facing a wall of text like that filled with links to policies and guidelines could just as easily be discouraged by just that. No I think the better solution here, and something that could be added to that WP:CHIMP essay possibly, is to encourage admins to delete under G11 in the first place, before G12. It's something I'm guilty of doing, when admins see a blatant piece of advertising that also is an obvious copypaste from a copyrighted website, the inclination is to delete under G12 as that seems like the 'more serious' infraction. But to avoid this whole mess G11 should just take priority, when both clearly apply. Probably better than creating a new CSD category for it anyway. -- Ϫ 04:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ashley Harrison (English Footballer)

This page was deleted whilst I was on holiday on the grounds that the person named was not notable. I disagree with this as Ashley Harrison appeared in one of the most popular series on sky one called Dream Team and was a member of several giant killings in the English F.A. Cup, on one occasion reaching the third round, whilst also appearing in live matches on various t.v channels. -Neveharri (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.. I will notify user Jimbo online (talk), who proposed it, in case he wishes to consider taking it to WP:Articles for deletion. The article needs more references to show that Harrison meets the notability standard of WP:NFOOTY or the General Notability Guideline. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nightbird (Transformers)

I'd like to host the article off site. -Mathewignash (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Emailed to you. JohnCD (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Informatica Security Corporation

reasoning -JL (talk) 02:05, 7 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Amod Prasad Upadhyay

The person in question is a leading Nepalese politician. The user who flagged it for deletion appears to be unaware that he is a notable personality in Nepalese national politics. -NepMan (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has not been deleted. The BLP-PROD notice said that, as an article about a living person, it would be deleted after ten days if no reference was supplied to confirm what it said. Now you have added a reference, you have quite properly removed the notice. No problem. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Leslie Kulesh

Hello, I have just recently become aware that my page on the artist Leslie Kulesh has been removed. I was not contacted or informed in any way about the deletion, nor was there any discussion with myself or (as far as I can tell) anyone else. The grounds given are that the subject is non-notable. I disagree, Leslie Kulesh is an important young artist whose work has been highly influential. Contemporary artists are underrepresented on Wikipedia because they do not fall into a mainstream idea of notability. I have begun work on several pages of contemporary artists pages. I am working directly with the artists and galleries to obtain permissions to use their images. This is a personal passion of mine and is extremely difficult to build a network of pages if they are deleted without me being given the opportunity to build on them. I appreciate the time and effort we all put into Wikipedia and I am grateful for any assistance in helping me solve this issue -Chaosandvoid (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

All the best Chaosandvoid (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Centre for Computing History

It may be useful to reinstate the comments on this page before adding WikiProject banners. -Trevj (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Not really useful, the only thing there was an unsigned comment that said Text has been taken from the Computing History website with thier permission.. Go ahead and slap on those tags. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for looking into this. No problem. Some projects added. Will work on article soon, in case there are any remaining COPYVIO issues. --Trevj (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

chemfluence

No reasoning given. -Mbapril14 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Kim Collins

At the 'Career' section I uploaded a photo of Kim Colins celebrating his first title -- file name:Kim-Collins 03.jpg. Please, allow me update image's copyright. I'd also appreciate it of someone could help me by adding other Kim Collins pics with copyright sources. Many thanks in advance! -Shaliq (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hospitals of Hope

Permission for use under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL received in OTRS ticket 2011090710012393 for content at http://www.hospitalsofhope.org from Hospitals of Hope representative. -– Adrignola talk 23:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Done -- DQ (t) (e) 04:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Reverend James B. Simpson

Permission for use under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL received in OTRS ticket 2011090710014499 for content at http://www.american.edu/soc/communication/Rev-James-B-Simpson-bio.cfm from American University representative. -– Adrignola talk 00:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Done -- DQ (t) (e) 04:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Caroline_H_Thompson

Even if the reasons given for considering the deletion of her page are valid, I can't see why the caveats users mentioned can't be included in a new page -- that is, that her work has had very little impact on mainstream physics. A new page could just outline her life -- or what is known of it -- and her work, with links to her articles, along with a comment that her work has had very little impact. -Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The original discussion had little participation and one of the delete !voters stuck his !vote. I would not be opposed to the creation of a new article if someone completely unrelated to the subject chooses to write one but under no circumstances should the deleted version be restored. It was an unsourced BLP and was not written from a neutral point of view. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It was also well-nigh incomprehensible, with no context to make it at least vaguely meaningful to the lay reader. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments, I'm certainly not qualified to write such an entry. However, as far as the last one is concerned, I'm sorry to say, but there are countless Wiki articles where this is true: "It was well-nigh incomprehensible, with no context to make it at least vaguely meaningful to the lay reader."

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Absolutely, but that is a reason to improve those articles not a reason to restore this particular revision. What OrangeMike meant (presumably) was that a reader or an editor would be better served by starting anew rather than attempting to build an article from the old one. If you prefer I can email you a copy of the text or move the article into a draft space for you to work on it if you feel that having access to the older revisions might be helpful. Protonk (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, thanks for those comments, and the offer, but as I said, I'm not quualified to write anything about Caroline. We exchanged e-mails and ideas for about a year, and then she fell ill and died.

However, I take your point that this is a reason to improve articles, but that wasn't done in this case. The page was just deleted. If we did that with all the pages on Wiki that were "well-nigh incomprehensible, with no context to make it at least vaguely meaningful to the lay reader" most of the Mathematics pages would be gone, to say nothing of the Physics and Logic articles.

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zona-X

Hello, I am a composer from romania, compose music and that is said to belong to someone else's page is wrong. The name "Zona-X" and added that there has ever existed, even if what I wrote here is something else, this is about my life, one could no one write it. Thank you! -Zonax (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, it is not a place to write about your blue eyes or how girls love to call you charming. For that, you need a social-networkig site like Myspace or Facebook. See WP:MUSICBIO for what a musician needs to have achieved before having a Wikipedia article, and WP:Autobiography for why in any case you should not write about yourself here. JohnCD (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science

Lika many others I am working with the project "Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science". It is of general relevance and addresses Desktop Grid contributors and users (scientists) globally. I think the deletion was accidentially done as the project short name "EDGeS" sounds similar to the wrestler ;-) -79.220.146.167 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion regarding this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enabling Desktop Grids for e-Science. Please feel free to participate. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thatchers' Fine Timeless Fabric

I spent a lot of time on this article making sure that it was not advertising. The reason I chose to write an article on this company is because the company is championing the creativity of its artists. These artists designed much of the prints Lily Pulitzer used for 25 years. Lily Pulitzer's page has not been deleted nor have references to her company. If my article was deleted I do not see why those articles weren't either. Also, I reviewed the article written on Kravet, Inc. on Wikipedia which has not been deleted and my article does not sound any more like advertising than the Kravet article. The article is also fact based. The sources used have been properly vetted and are on legitimate websites. Perhaps using the Thatchers' website home page was seen as inappropriate but the Kravet homepage and Lily Pulitzer home pages are both used as references. The point of this article is to stress the originality of the artists and this company's commitment to them. -Ravenclaw65 (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm sorry, but despite your best efforts that absolutely is an advertisement, written in pure PR-speak and stuffed with peacock terms: "exceptional quality, niche textile company... uniquely designed fabric... premier signature collection... prestigious luxury firm... iconic American fashion look... iconic designs... their inimitable vision... exceptional quality chintz... " If you really cannot see that that is promotional language, you have a problem: either you are too close to your subject, or you have spent too long in the advertising or PR trade. With regard to the other articles you mention, at a quick look they do not seem to me nearly so promotional in tone, but in any case WP:WAX - if there are some promotional articles, that is not a reason for allowing more.
By all means try again, but my advice is to read the advice in WP:PEACOCK, take out all the adjectives, put out of your mind any lingering idea that you would like your reader to think the company is wonderful, imagine a hostile critic looking over your shoulder saying "Who says so? Can you prove it?" and write a neutrally-worded description of what the company does and what it has achieved - no glowing adjectives, just plain facts backed up by reliable sources. You should not be trying to persuade, only to inform. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Florida Oceanographic Society

OTRS confirmation of release under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL in ticket 2011090810015843 sent by Florida Oceanographic Society representative. -– Adrignola talk 20:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_48&oldid=1138664645"