Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 99

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101→Archive 105

File:Scouting Ireland.svg (2nd request-please answer this time)

please restore earliest non-background version, per Scouting WPMOS, image should have no background. please at least answer this-there was no response last time -Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Every revision is different of this with different colours. One is purple and dark green on a whit background, and the other is yellow green and neon with a white background. the logo looks to be this now: http://www.scouts.ie/images/si_logo.png an s and i on a blue background. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back with me on this. None of them are spot-on colorwise, and I'd like to have the clock set for a week before revision deletion so the proper blue (latest version with wrong background) could be applied to the purple and dark green on a white background, as the purple should be blue. The logo you mentioned is in the article, it's the corporate logo but is not a uniform emblem. Thanks for touching base.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Withdraw-it's been fixed.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Morgan Perry

Would just like a record for posterity. I do not intend to challenge its deletion. -108.183.151.129 (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's perfect, thank you for providing it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.151.129 (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

David Mahmoudieh

reasoning -Jimdussier (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Mahmoudieh&action=edit&redlink=1

I think this page should be undeleted. It's been on Wikipedia for a number of years, the information growing and being verified and approved all the while, then was rather hastily deleted. The subject matter and the information provided therein dove-tails into a number of pre-existing pages on this subject, who is a recognised filmmaker in both the British and Iranian film communities, and an award winning music video and commercials director. Seems very strange that the page should suddenly be deleted.

The deleter noted there was not enough proof of notoriety. However, on the first page alone of a Google search under the subject's name, the following links appear providing credibility and notoriety:

I would like petition for the un-deletion of this page with the above references added.

Jimdussier (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  •  Not doneSince this was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mahmoudieh by consensus, undeleting is controverisal. So I suggest that you create a sandbox to develop this. However at least several of your proposed references are only secondary ones which have a working relationship with the person. These are not independent and therefore do not show notability. For imdb we recognise this as unreliable. So none of your references support undeleting yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

BPO Plus

Hello, BPO Plus is a well renowned company in Middle east and we are having opereation at OMAN as well.

Our page was live for very long. We have mentioned many third party links for our presence across to globe. Requested to please do approve the page and lets us go ahead with the page.

Jaggi -Jaggijsp (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done. - This article has been deleted five times, and protected against re-creation. Since the latest deletion was the result of a deletion dicussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BPO Plus, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Mark Arsten (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

FEU - East Asia College Physics Society

the article depicts organizations valid information from liable resources however I wasn't able to put the reference. Should you allow me to recover the article, I will put references and together with other executive officers, we will revise in lieu with wikipedias' terms and conditions -Rendezvous07 (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done Non-notable college club; think of how many thousands of colleges and universities there are, each with a dozen or more clubs: how many crore of articles would clutter up this encyclopedia if we put them all in? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Quasarbd57 1.png

Does this image still have a prior revision that is tremendously bigger than the current revision? I would like that undeleted please. -George Ho (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Daniel575

This is the talk page of a user who was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, but who had a fairly prolific wikilife before that happened. There are 433 deleted revisions which contain records of past discussions. I was surprised to find that it was deleted twice, and I think it was because he had the banned template on his user page and I believe at the time (2006-2007) that dumped the user page into the "temporary userpages" category. I didn't bring this up with the deleting administrators because it's been six years and the original administrator has been inactive since 2011, and I didn't do it myself because I wanted to make sure I'm not missing something obvious. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The deletion log wasn't real clear about the rationale for deletion, something about needing to clear a category, but I don't see why that requires deleting all revisions of a page. The deletion seemed to have nothing to do with the user. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Random Perspective

was not aware it was scheduled for speedy deletion until after it had been deleted. Was not given the chance to counter the assertions made against the page, that the website was not important enough and the case wasn't made for it. Was intending to flesh out the page with additional information tomorrow. Website is mentioned as a founding member of Humorfeed on the Humorfeed Wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorfeed reference was given to an interview substantiating websites existence for over ten years, plus the fact the creator had been interviewed about his website shows it was of note. Website has been linked to by the BBC news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5404246.stm as a British satire website of note -Alienturnedhuman (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no claim of importance in your deleted page, however I would suggest that you make it in your sandbox first. User:Alienturnedhuman/sandbox. Do you need the old content there? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I get that was why it was deleted but I was given no opportunity to respond to that criticism and now have no way to access my original content because it has been deleted. When I created the page I assumed that because another page already existed with a link to it (ie the link existed for a long time before the page was created) that would flag it up as needing to exist. I thought that was what red links were for. Had I realised that it would get deleted so quickly AND that I would have no access to the content I wrote I would have done things differently. I understand why it was deleted but it would be useful if the original page creator (provided they don't have a history of spamming/abusing Wikipedia) could retain access to his or her deleted content. That way they can respond to things like this without bothering the Wikipedia mods here. It was a bit of a kick in the teeth to have the data - no matter how inadequate - wiped from existence with no way to access it. Alienturnedhuman (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Have since managed to retrieve the data from my browser history, thank you Google Chrome! Alienturnedhuman (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
If you put it in your sandbox first you will get the chance to get it into shape before someone asks to delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Article userfied to User:Alienturnedhuman/Random Perspective in preference to A7 deletion. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Alienturnedhuman/Random Perspective. (for the archivist) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal Mail Choir

This is my first attempt at placing an article on Wikipedia and it's all very confusing. So if I am in the wrong place it's because I don't fully understand the pages and pages of instructions and redirections. The article Royal Mail Choir has been deleted because I think it refers to a company. But that is the name of the choir, we are all Royal Mail employees. It does not promote the company. There is a link to YouTube but that is only a promotion for a charity single, not the actual download. It did have on it facts from the BBC2 television programme but again did not endorse the programme or BBC products. Basically it is the story of a charity choir that just happened to be formed from employees of the Royal Mail. If I could be pointed in the direction of editing this so it does not get deleted I will happily comply. -JTKKavanagh (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC) JTKKavanagh (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

hbmdb.com

reasoning -Zrt1992 (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC) i donot know why my article is deleted every time while same type of articles are running on wikipedia. I wrote an article on hbmdb.com and was deleted while site like bollywood hungama have their article soomthly please explain me this

Ghost_of_the_Robot

unprod request because it was probably a mistake the page was deleted, the band still exists http://gotrmusic.tumblr.com/ -77.7.61.44 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Um... it was deleted on the basis of WP:NOTINHERITED (one notable member doesn't make the band notable). The fact that the band exists doesn't mean it meets notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. It certainly doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Vinurify

The article was deleted because the topic was not notable. However, the article was about someone who I personally found significant and I meant no harm in writing the article. I would like to request permission to review it and move it to a private space just so that I can have a personal record of it. Thank you so much. -Annerdz (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done - as you want this for a personal record, I have emailed you a copy. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

IAS_Officers_Association

This page is about IAS Officers Association. -Gokulchandola (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done " there is need for a common platform for intra cadre dialogue"? Quite possibly, but not in Wikipedia, which is not a social medium. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

bottlenose

reasoning -76.167.49.81 (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the wikipedia page about Bottlenose, the company, located at Bottlenose.com? It appears it was deleted but I can't find any record of that deletion in the wikipedia logs. Who did the deletion and where can I see the discussion that resulted in deletion of this page? Please share some links if you can find them. I could not find this in the wikipedia deletion logs.

This is a well-known company that actually exists, so why doesn't the wikipedia have an entry on it? There are numerous primary sources that demonstrate notoriety

http://semanticweb.com/bottlenose-enterprise-wants-to-be-your-artificial-analyst-team-to-discover-trends-and-insights_b39067 http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/30/social-media-dashboard-bottlenose-raises-3-6m/ http://www.crunchbase.com/company/bottlenose http://mashable.com/2011/12/12/bottlenose-launch/ http://www.thecmosite.com/author.asp?section_id=2358&doc_id=255223

It doesn't make sense that this would not be covered in the Wikipedia.

Sorry I'm not a wikipedian so I don't know the protocol or how to restore a deleted page. Hopefully these comments are in the right place.

Thanks

There's no evidence that such an article has ever been written. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 Not done This would have appeared as Bottlenose (company) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions] but was moved to Bottlenose.com · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]. The problem was that the last version was made by User:Wetzig a sock of User:Morning277 who was likely paid to make this page. The earlier version by User:Coaimhin looks to be the same, so this is likely to be the same person too. However this does not stop someone without a conflict of interest from writing a new article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

BPO+

reasoning -Jaggijsp (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Hello, BPO Plus is a well reputed company in Middle East. Prior to that we were Spanko GKS. Tejinder singh Bhatia is our CEO and he was the CEO for Spanko GKS too. CEO wiki page:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tejinder_Singh_Bhatia

Please do approve company page too and do share how to make this page more informative.

Jaggi

  • (Non-administrator comment) This page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. Just because the company exists does not make it notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry. The "article" about the CEO is pretty iffy as well ES&L 11:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Not done and will not be done. Deleted per WP:CSD#G4 as a repost of deleted material. This has been deleted five times as BPO Plus and salted after WP:Articles for deletion/BPO Plus, and also deleted and salted as Bpo plus. It was explained above at WP:REFUND#BPO Plus that AfD deletions will not be restored here. JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Accu-Tek

reasoning -Sharkyzero (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't get the reasoning for its deletion. It was mentioned that it wasn't significant...of course it's not, it's a small company. I was just trying to fill in an empty spot where a red link was. Please let me know what the deal was. I read the rules and don't see the problem.

 Not done. Read WP:Notability (summary). Wikipedia is not a business listing directory and is selective about subjects for articles. The criterion used is called WIkipedia:Notability and is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? If you think you can find references to show notability for Accu-Tek, I will "userfy" it for you - move it into a sub-page in your user-space where you can work on it. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Bans

I'd like to view the history of this page. If it was once a redirect to Ban, would it be possible to restore it? Thanks, -Korg (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It was originally a redirect to Ban; then a spam account for a tiny company called BANS created an article titled BANS and redirected Bans to it. That redirect was deleted as a spamlink, but the original redirect was not restored; instead, Bans now redirects to a river which is apparently called "Bans" by somebody. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That redirect is inexplicable; I'm restoring the original redirect to Ban. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you ! Korg (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal Mail Choir (2)

reasoning -JTKKavanagh (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)It's my very first attempt at this. So far all I have been used to is Facebook. You post it and there it is. But evidence is needed. Sources. I have tried to re write the article (god knows where I have put it) with references.

But if I could please have the original undeleted I shall include these references which I got the original information from. I have been a bad lad. I get it now.

Basically if this doesn't work I am just going to quit the whole idea. As I feel like I'm going from pillar to post trying to explain this to anonymous sign in names. And it getting a bit embarrassing.

And there you have it.

JTKKavanagh (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Don't despair! "We essay a difficult task; but there is no merit save in difficult tasks" (Ovid). If a Wikipedia entry is more valuable than a Facebook one, it is because Wikipedia has standards for sourcing and notability.
I have restored the deleted article to User:JTKKavanagh/RMC first draft so that you can see it, but your newer version which is at User:JTKKavanagh/Royal Mail Choir looks much better and is the one you should go with. I have tweaked it slightly to sort out a problem with the references and to tidy the start into standard form.
I am not sure whether these references are enough to meet the fairly demanding notability standard of WP:MUSICBIO, but when the article is ready, click "Submit the page!" in the box at the top, which will send it to WP:Articles for creation, where an experienced user will check it and either accept it or give you feedback. JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sci-brain

reasoning -Venkatms11 (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hassane Amraoui

reasoning -Great11 (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC) because he is notable, we make discussion, i write the article, and i close the discussion 4 delete and 2 keep , but i will administor look first if the article was notable or no, Thank you.

Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassane Amraoui, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Secret (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Philippe_Langlois_(entrepreneur)

reasoning -Zoxedit778 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the line in reference with this deletion: 15:29, 11 August 2013 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Philippe Langlois (entrepreneur) (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I created this page based on a bio.

I guess that's the reason why this was deleted: the bio itself may look as advertising or promotion.

The founders of Qualys (this page concerns one of them) are incorrectly referenced in articles and web pages.

Wikipedia where it is referenced: Qualys ‎ World-Net ‎

Also, the other co-founder has a page that is similar, not less advertising, and with _less_ reference than the article I wrote.

Therefore, please restore this and I can try to make it neutral.

Also please consider that this is some of my first edits, and therefore I think I should be given a little bit more notice to enable me to polish the articles instead of straight deletion.

Thanks.

Not done and will not be done See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All articles must meet basic requirements in their own right. Start a new draft, without the praise-laden language and puffery, in a sandbox. The hagiography will not be restored. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, can you send (me) the latest version of this page as the one on speedydeletion wiki is not up to date? All the references and bio table were still ok IMHO. Thanks. --Zoxedit778 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoxedit778 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I will email you a copy if you enable email on your account. To do that, click on "Preferences" at the top of the page, and at the bottom of the "User profile" tab fill in your email address (which will not be visible to me or anyone) and check the box marked "Enable email from other users". JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I added my email to my wikipedia account. Thanks, best regards. Zoxedit778 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Damon_Matthew_Wise

reasoning -AspieNo1 (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Request given review undelete page and its talk and if neccesst userfy ( WP:USERFY ) or SANDBOX page and its talk to my.

Majority Consensus was Keep and alternate preferences were Userfy or sandbox (neither of which were done.

Myself, my support team using dropbox to supply links and references and other editors would continue to like to work n this article. It had been checked and tagged with Disability tag as a disability biography.

Have already joined Disability Project

WP:ASPIE WP:AUTIE WP:ASPERGERS WP:AUTISM

As language and use are relevant to Aspies culture, this is a Disability page and use of language reflects contribution by Aspies and other editors issues of disability connected to the admin/editor users involved.

Article has been extensively cut on biographical content not relevant to the style in relation to Autism and Disability, accordingly. It had passed the test as a Disability biography as note, and thus ought to be reinstated, or if further work is neccesitated temporarily undeleted and userfied or sandboxed until such issue has been dealt with. I cannot see any further need to reference or link supporting independent references and material, but stand to be corrected if any still remain, which can be readily resolved.

There are questions about where he is from as has lived and origin in multiple countries, and multiple nationalities, but that should not have been a problem for anyone to keep. Permission from authourities to show and display PDF and image of nationality and residences have been requested (Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service have approved the use of both PDF and its scan of the fact he was no longer Irish for passport). It remains to see if this is sufficient to commons.wikimedia or can be placed as external link on one of his biographies and references on any of the charity and voluntary groups he has been involved with's websites.

Any help and suggestions appreciate by me, individually and we (collectively working off wikipedia through me and other editors - note disambigifying same) appreciate the support.

AspieNo1 (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Aspie, Bbb23 was very clear when he closed the AFD - simply go to him and ask for userfication. Instead of that, you argued for restoral into articlespace, and are making rather bizarre claims that he misread the rather obvious consensus in the AFD. Why not simply ask Bbb23 as originally requested, HOWEVER remember WP:COI and WP:OR ES&L 11:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:COI and [[WP:OR] repeatedly raised and dismissed as not relevant here - been looked at and read by several and explained why the editors here who worked on the document aren't capable of being neutral or unbiased, and working with different viewpoints in a fair and balanced way - sources that are quoted or verified in the media or academic or published form by others are allowed. Several times asked and pointed out that this article WAS successfully reviewed and APPROVED and elligable as a Disabiity Bioghraphy and tagged as such.
Whether over half the people in post-graduate at university and on wikipedia have a diagnosis or may be in the spectrum is irelevant - if they have, good on them - while I identify and appreciate some of the issues they raise, that does not mean I may have or amy be one of them - I do not know that - I work with and support them, and am trusted and have access with them. Quoting contents and verify publication relevant by reference or citation is not.
Auties page, etc applies because me and other editors are trying to keep the appropriate use of language, style and subject to the matter of Damon's works and Asperger's cultural and language identity - but this does not mean I have ever sought or been diagnosed - unless dyslexia, and a stammer is some kind of Asperger's or autistic diagnosis I do not know?
Using "Yanklish" or other language which does not sit well with this sense of cultural identity is to them as derogatory as ordering contents be placed into a psycological or sociological review (with the thus insinuation of incapcity of mind or social understanding or being somehow wrong) - when issues of language and behaviour or neurologcial, genetic and physically provable.
Yes people are getting angry and frustrated - the former being a Mundane bevhaviour of negative emotional which aspies cannot understand and the latter being an Aspies trait - but it is impossible to have negative emotions that Aspies cannot readily relate, understand and relate to, or fake because they cannot do it naturally and have Asperger's traits at the same time - the difference between the cultural identity, mannerism and such here.
May I hope and suggest people read up on the topic from an Aspie cultural view rather then attack the expression of a fast-growing cultural identity world-wide (if such would ever be allowed to properly referenced, explained and be officially expressed here). I live in hope. Hugs and Kisses AspieNo1 (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

MUSH (e-mail client)

Did not know proper steps to remove PROD before deletion occurred, will add needed content -Slaurel (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Please add sources as soon as possible to prevent another deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Lawrence

I, 82.71.241.173, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 82.71.241.173 (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Please edit it and submit when it is ready; "Articles for Creation" is not for indefinite storage of drafts. If it is to be accepted, you need to establish Wikipedia:Notability by adding references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources; you should also take care to avoid promotional language so that it does not read like an advertisement. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NAI LAC

I, Nailacresearch, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Nailacresearch (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done This was a blatant advertisement for your company; with your blatant conflict of interest, there would be no point in userfying it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

BM Oplot

reasoning -Apolovko2 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done The article was a copyright violation from http://www.army-technology.com/projects/oplot-m-main-battle-tank-ukraine. Minor rewording does not avoid a violation. Please read Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. JohnCD (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

BM Oplot (2)

It is not clear why my article was deleted under section G2. In any case i want to improve it and remove possible copyright violations. Article is about the new model of main battle tank, it is relevant and should be reflected in encyclopedia. -Apolovko2 (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. It was deleted under section G12 Unambiguous copyright infringement. If "possible copyright violations" were removed, there would be nothing left: you had simply rearranged the source and altered a few words. Wikipedia cannot hold copyright material, not even temporarily, not even in sandbox pages. Yes, this is a good subject for an article, but you must write in your own words. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Arden Leigh

Reliable sources seem to exist, e.g. The SunCBSJezebel -Pburka (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Juliette farrell

reasoning -Daisy Records (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC) The original page was valid .

Not done. Wikipedia is not a place for Daisy Records to promote their artist. JohnCD (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Koperasi Usahawan Apil Jaya Berhad

Hello, i'm request to undelete the page because this page is about an cooperative. Please restore back my page. Sorry if my English is bad. I'm from Malaysia -Azputra (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Can you explain what improvements you could make to the article that would remedy the concern regarding the page that it was unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic? Hasteur (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bangladesh Aquarists

This society is the only non-profitable company with nearly six hundred members. This organization has received many featuring from several TV media. This is not a club. rijans 16:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC) -rijans 16:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Kallsoft

I was in a process of creating page for Kallsoft, an emerging software firm in India. I felt it would be informative for people to add wiki page. I had also listed their product under List of ERP packages. I don't know why my work was deleted. I'm new to wiki contributor list, but very old user and donor. Please help me to undelete the page -Arunkallaje (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about 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. We don't want articles on "emerging" anything; we wait until they have fully emerged. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkallaje (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Meditech equipment

reasoning -Nesma2012 (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Sir, I would like to know why it has been deleted indeed there are many similar setuation already in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contec_Medical_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Manufacturing_companies_of_China also Meditech known well everywhere,and leader for medical technology in China , and always people mix between it and meditech USA ,and i guess this description is important to show the deference On other hand i saw that shandong province companies page almost empty !

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ypsilanti Youth Orchestra

I, Ypsiyouthorchyyo, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Ypsiyouthorchyyo (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ypsiyouthorchyyo Might you have a Conflict of interest] that makes you a very less than optimal editor to try and get the page published? Hasteur (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Zorin os

Zorin OS is now an Official Derivative of Ubuntu[1], even as listed here. Also, I will be happy to apply the needed requirements to make this page publicly available in Wikipedia. -Launching777 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Before you take the brash step of requesting a restoration of an article from 2008, it might be a good idea to contribute to List of Linux distributions#Ubuntu-based and expand the relationship of this individual fork of Ubuntu and the "mothership". Hasteur (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. This page needs a lot of work Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Zurab Mtchedlishvili

The article met all notability requests and was well sourced. Its about a Georgian international rugby union player, who was present at the 2007 Rugby World Cup and the source used was ESPN database. -Mistico (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ashok Khemka.jpg

There is no copyright violation, file is exist more than one year. Suddenly deleted, requested for undeletion of file. -Gokulchandola (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  •  Not done Where did you get this? Did you take the photo yourself? If it came off the internet we need to know which page it came from and who the photographer was, and it probably cannot be uploaded here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Institution of Analysts and Programmers

reasoning -86.13.104.39 (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Hello

I have recently been put in post at the IAP and am looking at all our media including Wikipedia.

I notice that we have not updated it for a while and as I have noted in the talk page we are referenced by many other site.

If the page can be undeleted, I will review the text and get it upto date with the appropriate references

John 86.13.104.39 (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institution of Analysts and Programmers, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user BDD (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. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have recently been put in post at the IAP and am looking at all our media including Wikipedia suggests that you have conflict of interest and probably aren't the best person to create a neutral encyclopaedia article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/McLaren Industries

I, 5.53.214.125, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 5.53.214.125 (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Chandra Nath Shastri

reliable sources and links are added -~+BlueBlack+~ 21:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Shaon Halder

reasoning -Vrspro4 (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

2=reasoning This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... The subject which is the headline is my name accompanied by my valid username vrspro4.. also mentioned with a valid email address.. For my personal carrear development i created my own wikipedia with full honety... i have given information of my work only.... There is no mention of any software.. or illegal site ... So I have rights to create my own page under my real name... As a valid user of your site... Kindly go through my request to accept my formal approach so that i can continue my proffesional image through your site....

Natco Pharma

reasoning -Gadiya (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • This page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. WikiDan61 erred by not giving enough time to add content. No further action is required at this point now that content is added. Consider this statement as a speedy delete decline for Natco Pharma. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
However, the article could be speedy deleted if the company is not deemed significant or important (CSD A7), the text is overly promotional (CSD G11), or the article is copied from another website or other source (CSD G12). —C.Fred (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

paymenex

reasoning -Fulginic (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC) The Images has been removed, and I think is ok now to stay Fulginic (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done This page is not tagged for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

File:MadonnaTheFirstAlbum.jpg

True, it was uploaded by a banned/blocked user. However, this image is or has been significantly known to Europeans. Removal was a mistake. Please add it back to Madonna (Madonna album) with {{Extra album cover}}. -George Ho (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Please upload it yourself. See if you can find an online version from a reliable source for this cover. I see there are several around, but mostly what I see is blogs or low quality pics of the CD. Then upload it yourself. The banned user has no ownership of this and you are free to do the job yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Very public figure, Indonesian equivalent of the page is quite sizeable, possibly deleted by Sudharto regime crony -Jamesrlforsyth (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

  •  Not done Contains gossip and no references. However feel free to write a few sentences on the topic yourself, with a couple of sources. The chances are good that your article will be better than the one that was there, which only mentioned his family relationships. I can see no evidence of political interference here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Tahrir Monologues

The copyright claim is not true. I own this content, actually this website copied the content from our official Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/TahrirMonologues/info -Ethar91 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

  • OK to prove that this is your facebook page you can edit your TahrirMonologues/info page to add a copyright license that permits anyone to make any kind of use or modification of it. This would be the text CC-BY-SA-3.0 along with the attribution your would like. A CC-0 license is OK too. This means you get no attribution. If you do add this license let us know. However the deleted article contains no references to show notability. I would suggest that you find some. Also the tone is wrong for an encyclopedia entry. Use of "we" is inappropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Dialog i35

This article is not an advertising or promotion. -Jpchamathdj (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It might exist, but how does it meet our notability criteria ... its only "references" are to its own website? Because of those two things, it qualifies as "advertising or promotion" ES&L 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Brough Family Organization

The article was deleted through a G4 process, however the article that was up was substantially different that the prior article, and contained plenty of sources to pass GNG. At the very least a deletion discussion should have been held, so I am requesting undeletion as the deletion of the page was mishandled. -99.240.160.85 (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Done G4 is only for pages that are virtually the same as what was deleted before; something with any substantial changes is not eligible, and something that's gotten dozens of edits over several months is nowhere near eligible. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

ACCC Conductor

this was my first effort. it was deleted in minutes for being too self promotional. I would like an opportunity to edit it. I was unable to add graphs or photographs that would have served to make it more generic. This is an important topic about an important product that is having a profound impact on the world's power grid. Please give me a chance to improve the discussion. Thanks -Dave Bryant (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Dave Bryant/ACCC Conductor. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Jaz789/sandbox

I, Jaz789, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Jaz789 (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Done "Userfy" means to move a page from mainspace to userspace, i.e. going from an article to your userpage. Any page beginning with "User:" is already in userspace, so it can't be userfied any more than water can be made wet :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Senpai Kanji

reasoning -Senpai Kanji (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

1= Senpai Kanji

2= I don't see the reason you guys wan't to delete this page everything that i write in it it's true please don't delete them

N Not done. Hi Senpai. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of knowledge about things that the world has taken already taken note of by publishing about them in reliable sources. We have a number of guidelines and policies that work together to attempt to keep this place an encyclopedia, and not some other kind of site, such as notability, verifiability, no original research and our policy on what Wikipedia is not. The entry you attempted to write fell afoul of a number of those policies and guidelines. The fact that the entry was true is not the issue at all. There are a lot of sites on the Internet where you can write about yourself and your anime roleplaying exploits. This is not one though. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Contec Medical Systems and Shanxi Jerry Medical Instrument Company

These articles were speedily deleted when I wasn't looking for supposedly failing criteria A7 but if I recall correctly one of the sources used in both of them is literally titled something like "List of notable Chinese medical device manufacturers", an industry analysis that is explicitly identifying these companies as among the major Chinese medical device manufacturers. So well beyond just fulfilling the lower-level "importance" standard of A7, these topics are not only notable but the articles already contain sources specifically addressing their notability. -▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. The only reference in each case was a list called "Key Portable Medical Device Vendors Worldwide". Just being on a list with the word "Key" in its title is not enough to establish Wikipedia:Notability, which requires references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If you can find more, ask user Kudpung (talk), the deleting admin, if he will undelete or userfy them for you. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you, as an unbiased and uninvolved admin within the Wikipedia system, are willing to swap in an alternative non-speedy deletion reason when the articles did not actually fail the stated A7 criteria since their content did in fact indicate that the company is a key portable medical device vendor globally, and A7 clearly states that it doesn't require the same standard as notability-related deletions do, I can hardly expect any better treatment from the deleting admin. And I already invested quite a bit of time in finding that citation (or at least much more time than appears to have been spent examining the articles and considering whether they met the CSD by the deleting admin) to try to show good faith and ensure that these topics are valid for inclusion under Wikipedia guidelines.

So thank you for the offer, and thank you for at least confirming that the articles said exactly what I remembered they did, but I am not willing to put out another research effort on the long odds that Wikipedia's own rules will be followed next time, as it seems most likely that my half-hour or hour of poring through scientific articles and search results will again be thrown away with a few seconds' thought. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 05:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

England (band)

Could somebody userfy this article (eg: to User:Ritchie333/England (band)) so I can look at it and see if it's notable enough for mainspace? The article was deleted as an expired WP:PROD on 11 April 2007 by Nakon (talk · contribs), who has now retired. Since then, the band has had a lengthy feature in a commercially published book "Mellotron" by Nick Awde and has a handful of trivial coverage in other sources eg: AllMusic, Mellotron (official site), JCR Music. Normally, I'd just create the article again, but I'm sceptical that there's enough to meet WP:GNG, and I'm hoping the original article might have other sources. (Though, frankly, I'm not holding my breath on that one). -Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've userfied it to the title above. Get ready to be disappointed. No source at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Not only is it unsourced, it is of a completely different band - "my" England were a late 70s progressive rock band who released one album on Arista Records. Could you delete it again as it's completely useless for my purposes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Done, and as a perk, my bubble-bursting-quota is filled for the day so I can focus on other evil deeds.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I just took a look for good sources, and found squat but apparently they reunited and gave a performance of the album in 2005 at the "baja prog".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The band seem to be right on the edge of notability but not quite there - one album on a major label (I can't easily verify the other two releases aren't self published) is halfway to criteria 5 to WP:NMUSIC, one of them allegedly went to work with Jeff Beck, (google:Martin-Henderson+jeff-beck) one with Queen (google:jamie-moses+england+garden-shed) and one with The Pretty Things, but aside from the band's own website, none of that's verifiable. The band has an article on German Wikipedia here, but it's cited entirely to primary sources so would get wiped at an AfD here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: With a band from the 70s (unlike many other subjects) there really may be some excellent sources in music magazines from the time; but most of those never make it online not even in a secondary mention of where to look; the situation where only members or people who followed them from the early days could provide the sources. If you are really keen, you might try emailing to see whether they have clippings they could scan and send to you at nfo AT gardenshedmusic DOT com.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've parked a userspace draft in User:Ritchie333/England (band) and that's as good as I can get it with the one print source and various online sources I've drummed up. I'll see if the band have got any other news / magazine sources I can cite. Michig (talk · contribs) is a bit of a subject expert in this area, so he might be able to give further advice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Derivatives (TODO Contact)". Retrieved 29 August 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_99&oldid=1136434500"