Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 82

Chugworth Academy
I have searched for this page to find information about this webcomic, and furthermore it is also linked to from articles elsewhere on the web (for example, http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/11/19/the-trouble-with-jade/). Therefore, I would assert that it may contain searched-for and relevant information and should be restored. -63.249.88.79 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. needs references that discuss this webcomic, though. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloodlines (ITV drama)
2-part drama for ITV, now consigned to DVD history, was not an orpaned article, just neglected, probably, shifted about eventually to Bloodlines (film), where it was gunned down. Reinstate at name in heading, to match this naming style of a similar programme, please or userfy. Ricksy (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC) -Ricksy (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. as far as I see it never was at Bloodlines (ITV drama) nor would the name necessarily be uncontroversial, but I'd worry about establishing potability first. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan K. Miller
College football coach. Missed the PROD, would be able to add more detail and sources, such as this one. -Paul McDonald (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Flume_(Artist)
I have no connection to this article or the artist it describes, just a user who came to Wikipedia to find information about him and discovered the article had been deleted.

it was deleted on the grounds that: (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))

the artist is active in Australia and had a national number two album in 2012, and was in the top 100 selling albums in Australia for 2012 as documented by ARIA, the Australian Recording Industry Association:

see here for background on ARIA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARIA_Charts

links verifying the artists significance: http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-end-of-year-charts-top-100-albums-2012.htm http://www.ariacharts.com.au/news/35898/chartifacts---tuesday-20th-november-

cheers

Mat-210.9.63.150 (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Chart success and coverage indicate sufficient importance. Please help in establishing this by adding refs.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

CytoGene Research & Development
reasoning -117.197.26.176 (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Malformed Request - please use (replacing pagename with the name of the page you wish to have restored and reasoning with the reason for your request). Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  13:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Colorado Springs Philharmonic
Article was deleted in error, organization does indeed exist. -50.58.53.106 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Existence was not in doubt. It has been deleted because it "lacks references required to establish notability". Please try to address that or it may face a community discussion about deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Dynamic steady state universe theory
According to the author, this was not a duplicate of Steady State theory. He seems like he could be a valuable editor here and I think I may have committed WP:BITE -Bensci54 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Harryflatters/sandbox. If he wants to become a valuable editor, he needs to smarten up his act pdq. His writing is slovenly to say the least. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Open_IPTV_Forum
The Open IPTV Forum (OIPF) specifications, created by a non-profit industry body and used by European broadcasters, are referenced in several wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freesat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE-HTML, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_Executable_MHP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_bitrate_streaming, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_IPTV, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANT_Software_Limited, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_Smart_TV_platforms_and_middleware_software, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_Industry_Forum, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouView,. There are no costs associated with the use of the OIPF specifications so this article can not be considered as advertising. -93.189.161.68 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Whether an artcile mostly promotes an issue here is a question that goes beyond costs and profits. This particular article has been gone through WikiProject:Articles for creation, so it either should not have been submitted or not have been deleted speedily. In any case, I've restored it and moved it back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Open IPTV Forum where I declined the current submission on procedural grounds. Please improve it and feel free to contact the deleting administrator User talk:Hu12 or User:Ahnoneemoos the editor who initially reviewed it if you have further questions. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys' eighth studio album
I would like to request that this page be undeleted. In no way did it contain "twitter rumors" as claimed in a reason for it to be deleted. It contained valid information from sources on the Backstreet Boys upcoming album that is set to be released this Spring or Summer. Some of the information shared on the page came from members of the group themselves and as well as producers. Whether it was from their twitter pages or from various interviews done over the past several months. In no way was the information shared on this page false. At this time the group is still working on the album so of course they don't have a title for the album or a have set a release date for it yet. Once they have finished I'm sure this will be added to the page. As it is with every page on a artists upcoming album that has a TBA tag on the page.

Thank you for your time and I hope that you can undelete this page. -96.236.191.4 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg 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 Articles for deletion/Backstreet Boys' eighth studio album, 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 . Please note that they have already has restored it to User:Krystaleen/Backstreet Boys' eighth studio album After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sanctuary_Woods
I came here to research the game company "Santuary Woods" but the article was deleted by a now-retired editor who said it was "just a 5-year old non-verified product list. Time to let it go." After a google a complete product list and more is found. There is much information about this company at this address. http://www.mobygames.com/company/sanctuary-woods-inc -24.42.139.79 (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Crispino
Request to undelete so info can be merged/redirected to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 2010–2011 and contribution history can be preserved. -Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done and redirected. Please add {r from merge}} if actually merging. --Tikiwont (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Master Thespian
Request to undelete so info can be merged/redirected to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1985–1986 and contribution history can be preserved. -Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done and redirected. Please add {r from merge}} if actually merging. --Tikiwont (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick The Lounge Singer
Request to undelete so info can be merged/redirected to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1976–1977 and contribution history can be preserved. -Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done and redirected. Please add {r from merge}} if actually merging. --Tikiwont (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Two A-Holes
Request to undelete so info can be merged/redirected to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 2005–2006 and contribution history can be preserved. -Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done and redirected. Please add {r from merge}} if actually merging. --Tikiwont (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Whiners
Request to undelete so info can be merged/redirected to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1981–1982 and contribution history can be preserved. -Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done and redirected. Please add {r from merge}} if actually merging. --Tikiwont (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Christian
I would've contested this PROD had I seen it, while Andrew Christian himself isn't notable for an article, his brand is. The brand is already a big name, and is still growing with a large following over various social media sites. Such big names as Brent Corrigan currently model for the brand. - NYSM y talk page  15:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. The issue of topic has already been raised there already. --Tikiwont (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Henry Stickman
significant -SmartyPantsKid (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a highly popular game series, but a lot of people haven't heard of it yet. It is also NOT made up. It is featured on many gaming sites, most notably StickPage.com.--SmartyPantsKid (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning web content. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself.  Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Best start any stub from some references. --Tikiwont (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

nataschaBolden
it isjust my userpage and about what I'm doing now. Since userpages are not indexed by search engines, I cannot see, that this should be advertising. What else can a user write as a desciption about his personality and what he's doing? -NataschaBolden (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done and will not be done See WP:UP for further guidance. Wikipedia is not Facebook or MySpace, and will not be used for advertising businesses. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ali Spagnola
She is a very well known artist and a good persona. Even thoguh she is well-known for her Power Hour drinking game, she does a lot of other things that are notable. She is a very good artist and has a lot of talent. There are so amny pointless articles on wikipedia and I don;t feel that this is one of them.-68.105.120.83 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. Feel free to participate at Articles for deletion/Ali Spagnola after having reviewed Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions--Tikiwont (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Laina Morris
I want to use it in Overly Attached Girlfriend. -CallawayRox (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done There was not a single reference, just hearsay about someones real identity failing our policies regarding living people.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Sprint Nextel logo.svg
File was incorrectly moved to Commons, where it was subsequently deleted. Fair use rationale for it to exist here is not questioned, however. (As in, it should never have been tagged and moved to Commons to begin with, but, oh, well... Hopefully an easy fix.) -  user: j  (talk)  23:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Tikiwont (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fathers Reaching Out
reasoning -Mentalhealthreallymatterrs (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning organisations. 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Ultra Q monsters
A bit of an odd request; the page was recently recreated after a PROD expiry and the deleted content should probably be restored. -— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done This too contains copyright problems like plot summaries from http://www.scifijapan.com/articles/2008/10/29/ultra-q-dark-fantasy-official-episode-guide/ so I will leave it deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Ultraman Nexus monsters
It was deleted as a copyvio of this website when probably the reverse was true (webpage exists only as early as 2008, when list of characters on Wikipedia probably predates it). -— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Ryulong. Backwards copying does happen but not in this case. The history of the Wikipedia articles stretches back only to April 5, 2010.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Ultraman Dyna monsters
Expired prod, deleted as a "game guide" when this is a list of characters from a television series. -— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ As an expired prod I would restore, except that it was a blatant copyvio of http://www.freewebs.com/godzilla_2000/ultramandynamonsters.htm (dates checked: as in the above request, this is not backwards copying).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Demand Progress
Please move it to my userspace. It has been in the news today after Aaron Swartz's death. I believe there may be enough material now. -Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Some relevant discussion is at Talk:Aaron Swartz. -- Trevj (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Now recreated. Is it worth a history merge in case some of the old text is worthy of reinclusion? -- Trevj (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done As indicated in the Afd the bulk was sourced to Act.demandprogress.org with some back and forth from blogs in a criticism section. So at first sight, i'd say restoration is neither necessary for attribution nor really beneficial for further improvement, but Ive restored the history (of the second incarnation) anyways in case someone is willing to evaluate it in detail. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks useful (at a glance). I hope to have a closer look myself some time. -- Trevj (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

rahul eswar
reasoning -115.117.126.34 (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done Nothing under these title.s If you refer to Rahul Easwar that is being discussed at Deletion review/Log/2013 January 9 and therefore won't be handled here.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Kai Wong
Known Asian-American actor / producer / celeb.-67.204.35.70 (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg 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 Articles for deletion/Kai Wong (2nd nomination), 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 . But be sure to review WP:NACTOR and have more elaborate arguments than here and some references. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Zudella Pimley-Smith
Please can I have the article back as I cannot trace it on the deletion log. Sarah Stierck deleted it but I cannot find her as one of the administrators to contact for deletions. Thank you. I hope I can find where to pick up your message?-Pimlezu (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right now, I'm not seeing much potential for an article; if you enable e-mail I'd send it to you.--Tikiwont (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done (procedural) Lectonar (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Josh Wood Productions
Josh Wood Productions does not qualify for the speedy deletion criteria under section G4. This article is not a copy of a previously deleted article. This article describes absolutely deferent company than the one previously deleted for the lack of notable references. It is not identical to the previous article which was deleted. It is not unimproved copy of the previously deleted article. For the above mentioned reasons the article is clearly not qualifying to be deleted under criteria for speedy deletion section G4, therefore must be reinstated. Thank you very much for your time reviewing this issue. -Luisa Pisani (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Undelete Article  does not qualify for the speedy deletion criteria under section G4. This article is not a copy of a previously deleted article. This article describes absolutely deferent company than the one previously deleted for the lack of notable references. Article equal to the following articles Silver Pictures, Samuel Goldwyn Films, Imagine Entertainment, Millennium Entertainment, Amblin Entertainment, Crystal Sky Pictures, Skydance Productions, ect... articles mentioned hereby do not even have references, although some of the articles created in October 2010, remains without any warning as it is clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines (better job to do). Josh Wood Productions was not identical to the previous article which was deleted. It was not unimproved copy of the previously deleted article. For the above mentioned reasons the article is clearly not qualifying to be deleted under criteria for speedy deletion section G4, therefore must be reinstated. Thank you very much for your time reviewing this issue. --AllisonID (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Agree this is on a different topic, but could be subjected to a third afd. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

File:The Wings of the Dove (Henery James Novel) 1st edition cover.jpg
This image is of 1st edition, published in 1902. It should be out of copyright, so prior versions may have higher resolution. -George Ho (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, no. PD-Art only applies to 2-dimensional artworks. This is a three-dimensional book, and thus the photo itself is copyrightable, even though the cover itself isn't in copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done (procedural) Lectonar (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

IACCM
Page originally deleted back in 2008 because it was an article ...about a company that doesn't assert significance. IACCM is now quite a significant entity in the contract management world. A formal article has been written located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Contract_and_Commercial_Management. The IACCM page should be undeleted so that a redirect to the full article can be established. -Bmickler (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, but the new article needs work if it is to be kept. Every single reference is to the organization's own website, but Wikipedia's notability requirement is for references that show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Also, it reads more like the organization's manifesto than an encyclopedia article about it. See WP:42, WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:FAQ/Organizations. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed and thanks. I will attend to this.Bmickler (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

UPGRADE
I am part of the boyband UPGRADE here in the philippines and I decided to create our own wikipedia. I used our account UpgradeOfficial here in wikipedia to create the article. After I created the article on January 12 2013 at 3am, i sleep and when I wake up i check it and it was deleted by RHaworth and I don't know why. I am still hoping to regain my article back. I worked for it so please do something. I feel all of my work are gone to waste :( -121.54.29.100 (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg 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 . If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Also see User talk:UpgradeOfficial Lectonar (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Genius_Inside
After discussion with one of the wikipedia administrator, we have made substantial improvements to our company's page and believe all sources are now up-to-date and with solid references. Moreover, as one of the leading company in the project management software business, we do believe our page has an importance in this sector and in informing the users of project management softwares. At the beginning, our page was deleted because the administrator stated it did not "provide sufficient evidence that the company is notable" -Rbernard84 (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The place you're looking for as indicated by Mark Arsten is deletion review.. Here we could only give you back the text which you already have but not overturn the previous community discussion at Articles for deletion/Genius Inside (2nd nomination). Make sure to link to your draft and review the links i post you on your talk page.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done (procedural) Lectonar (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

UPGRADE
I am a press and I want to know more about the boyband UPGRADE,and when I checked the wikipedia, someone deleted it. please bring back the article thanks. -121.54.29.100 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're fooling nobody. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 07:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Last Res0rt
Further analysis of what was in the article revealed this fully reliable source about it. I think that's just enough for notability. - Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you talked to Sandstein, the Admin who closed the AfD as delete? Lectonar (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't see much point. He has a whole lot on his plate it seems. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done This is now at DRV. Lectonar (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically, WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 15. The log shows that User:Martijn Hoekstra restored the article and User:Malik Shabazz speedied it G4. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nokia 2710
I will redo it to match standards -Whyagainwiki (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The page was deleted : 04:50, 2 July 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Nokia 2710 (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) May be my writing style was a bit biased. But I could have redone it to make it neutral. I am not an employee or so of Nokia. I just liked the phone so my style was like that. I will make it neutral, if you undelete it. thanks
 * Yes check.svg Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at user:Whyagainwiki/Nokia 2710. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space.  Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and the relevant notability guidelines - articles that are not in compliance will be deleted. Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  11:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Scriberius
Accidental DEL by a bot -Scriberius (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:User:Scriberius was contested and decided to be DEL (Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_7), but not my user page. --Scriberius (talk)
 * Yes check.svg Done, obvious blip by the bot. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Frontline Technology
This is the Bromcom MD's first company and has links to Bromcom Computers PLC, thus is important within the MIS sector for schools in the UK -StacyLarkin (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Frontline Technology Ltd. Have you contacted DGG who speedy deleted it?  He is quite approachable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Camera Camera (Nazia and Zohaib Hassan album)
reasoning -117.192.71.134 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg 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 Articles for deletion/Camera Camera (Nazia and Zohaib Hassan album), 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 . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.

Minsk (band)
Please could you re-open the Minsk band page. I thought it was a perfectly well referenced and adequate page, for a band that is important and deserves it's own page. If you were able to tell me the reasons why it wasn't, I would be happy to make improvements to the page to keep it open. Many thanks Jack -Jtaylor477 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. The concerns of the proposer were: "Not clear how this might meet notability guidelines.  Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.  References provided are original ones or essentially copies of press releases." --Tikiwont (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

AssaultCube Reloaded
It is not a copyright violation, which was the reason for its deletion. -23.17.148.90 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The copyright deletion has already been overturned at Deletion review/Log/2013 January 14 It's notability is now being discussed at Articles for deletion/AssaultCube Reloaded. Feel free to comment there. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

RapidQ
Active Programming Language -155.207.43.8 (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Being 'active' isn't sufficient. The article needs third party references to establish notability and may still be nominated for a deletion discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

catholic health Services
reasoning -Smaranikamishra (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. The article you created is at Catholic Health Services Maybe you got confused by the renaming. But you can't sign here with a weblink, so I redacted it--Tikiwont (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Oklahoma_Atheists
Connected to Facebook page that we wish to update. We also have sufficient demonstrated notability that we would like to add. -68.227.122.221 (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although this was a PROD, it was deleted 18 months ago. The existence of an org does not mean its notable, and nothing in the "article" suggested any notability, nor was it proven.  On top of that, someone involved in the org should not be writing about it as they clearly have not got the appropriate detachment as per WP:COI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

fabienne fredrickson
The page was recently created by somebody who wasn't sure how to properly create an article. I created an article for her after this, but it was already on the speedy deletion list so it was deleted. The page wasn't spam or advertisement, and had all of the correct sources after every sentence backing it up. I wish for the page that I created to be undeleted. -Mandirenfroe (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There only seems to be the page that you created at this name. However ❌ as that version is too promotional.  Next time if your write it use less glowing terms.  Also references like linkedin and facebook are not counted as reliable.  And references to her company or press releases are not independent.  So find reliabe and independent substantial sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

jana k. arnold
Jana K. Arnold is the screenplay writer of at least two produced movies mentioned on Wikepedia -99.109.245.175 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Gomess
I would like to have the existing text of this article to work on rather than start a fresh article. Thanks. -Mathewignash (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Scholz
Deleted on 4 January 2013. Reasoning: "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." He has played his first A-level match today (19 Janaury 2013) in the Belgian Pro League for Lokeren vs OH Leuven causing him to pass to requirements. See http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/matchcenter/mc_voetbal/jupilerleague_1213/speeldag23/1.1525145 (in dutch). Please restore. - Pelotas talk undefined contribs  22:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please update the article and add the reference. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Wars Combine
That page was deleted because it lacked resources. Now, in addition to the single article cited as source, I have found a second mention of the website in a national magazine and also two Academic thesis about the game and programming. I would also mention that the original article was deleted also because some anonymous user rewrote the article to use it as a publicity means, and was no longer consistent with the article cited. I can provide PDFs of the new additional sources upon request. Thank you for your attention. --RubenWan (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC) -RubenWan (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg 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 Articles for deletion/Star Wars Combine, 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. GB fan 01:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I admit I could not find the Articles for deletion/Star Wars Combine, when googling for it only the Cons of Star Wars Combine came up. I will surely contact the administrator who closed the discussion now that I know his handle. Thank you again. --RubenWan (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to understand better. Now I remember that page was already undeleted in 2010 upon providing new information (You can check that in my Talk page). Is there a record of the second discussion to delete that page? In any case, I contacted the administrator Marasmusine, but I'd really appreciate to know what happened to the "version 2010" page. --RubenWan (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The subsequent two deletes are under criterion G4. This means that it is a recreation of the article deleted by a discussion (like AFD) without addressing the problems mentioned in the debate.  For this situation it is bes to crate a sandbox version where you can improve the content with good sources, before it gets the chop. This is the delete log:


 * 08:47, 6 May 2012 Neutrality (talk | contribs ) deleted page Star Wars Combine (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
 * 11:00, 10 October 2007 Marasmusine (talk | contribs ) deleted page Star Wars Combine (Speedy G4; direct repost of article deleted through AfD; content was: ' The Star Wars Combine is a free online player-based simulation revolving around the Star Wars universe. First conceived in [[...')
 * 00:53, 22 April 2007 Coredesat (talk | contribs ) deleted page Star Wars Combine (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Combine)


 * So you can talk to Neutrality about the 2010 version deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

saint petersburg international film festival
This is a real festival, there are a plethora of online articles and other proof available. Although technically a new event, it is actually a collection of 4 pre-existing events which have been running for decades. We do not understand why the article about the festival was deleted. -109.172.15.23 (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The only comment by the deleting party that I managed to see before the page was removed was that there were no sources. I did not understand what this meant and before I could get to the bottom of it, the page was removed along with the volunteers contact details.

I would be gratefl for any advice you can offer.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this.

C.A
 * I can't find that title or Saint Petersburg International Film Festival or SPIFF Saint Petersburg International Film Festival. However what I did find was this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Saint Petersburg International Film Festival.  You can edit this to add sources, such as books, magazines and newspapers to show that this is notable and then resubmit it for consideration, or you can ask at my talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

American School Band Directors Association (ASBDA)
reasoning -Mekelrogers (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user, who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a discussion lasting seven days to which you would be welcome to contribute. What the article needs is references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish Notability. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Da-Wen Sun
As Orangemike's advice, I have carefully removed any promotion quotes. I believe the page is no longer promotional. However it was deleted unilaterally by Sandstein. Then Graeme Bartlett restored it, but it was deleted again by Sandstein. I believe the idea here is to improve Wikipedia, not to delete things that he does not like. By looking at the history, for some reasons, Sandstein has a strong view on the page although the page has been edited by many experienced Wiki Editors in the past few years -Mayonglan (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Better take this to WP:DRV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Graeme for your kind suggestion. If the page is no longer promotional, then Sandstein's deletion is clearly an error, and the page should be restored Mayonglan (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wii U Internet Browser
This was deleted through PROD, and I am interested in trying to improve it. - Fun Pika  22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Peto Coast
People want to know, he's sort of a gay legend. -86.159.0.114 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

australian bulldog
This page has recently been deleted, some discussion about the deletion seems to relate to a few individual breeders creatin gthe page and that this is not a true dog breed just a cross breed.

So what - it is still a product sold regularly in Australia. It has been in exsitence for over 2 decades and there are more than 200 breeders across 3 associations involved in this breed a few more than stated in the discussion the page was an interesting history of the breed.

I am sure there are pages on wiki that need deleting but this is not one of them. there are over 7 dedicated facebook groups to the Australain Bulldog, hundreds of breeder apges, forums and 3 associations. Why not a wiki page??-124.150.71.204 (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * X mark.svg 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 Articles for deletion/Australian Bulldog, 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 . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Southern Cross Records
There is no reason why this page should be deleted, given that Southern Cross Records is an independent record label and is presently active. -58.167.66.187 (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg 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. Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  09:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Article talk notification
I want to create another non-free file problem notification template and perhaps want to use this as a starting point. Please also restore the documentation subpage. ---  Toshio   Yamaguchi  15:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Lectonar (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Stazione Corridoio Trento Italia.JPG
I moved this to Commons in February last year and requested deletion of this file per WP:CSD, believing that this was a photo of a building from the mid-19th century. However, it was later discovered that the building is from the 1930s, and it is currently up for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Angiolo Mazzoni because the image violates Commons:COM:FOP. The building is protected by copyright in Italy, but should be fine on English Wikipedia (see Commons:Template:PD-US-architecture and FoP-USonly), so I'm requesting undeletion here. -Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since no one is responding here, it still sounds like an issue as freedom of panorama does not apply in Italy for this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There is no freedom of panorama in Italy, so the image isn't allowed on Commons. However, it is allowed on Wikipedia since the building is in the public domain in the United States, having been completed before 1 December 1990. See also Template talk:FoP-USonly. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Dating Guy
This page was deleted per WP:CSD, but it didn't meet the following criterion: "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version[.]" -Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ the reason being that the issues from the deletion discussion were not addressed. Silver seren made this statement when nominating it for deletion the last time: "This article was previously deleted for lack of reliable sources on the subject. After being taken to Deletion Review, the deletion was endorsed. This version uses all of the same sources that were thrown out on review and no new ones are shown." The way to address this is with reliable sources, which perhaps do not exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD does not mention issues from deletion discussions. Indeed, as I just pointed out, it specifically excludes the kind of reasoning you're providing (and quoting) here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First up, this sort of request belongs at WP:DRV, not here. Secondly, had you had the basic courtesy to simply contact me first (per the instructions at the top of this page and at DRV), I'd have restored the page - I usually do so if asked, as long as there's no overwhelming reason not to. Thirdly, you might want to consider that after being deleted five times by speedy deletion, once by proposed deletion and once by AFD (which was subsequently endorsed at DRV) there just might be a possibility that this genuinely isn't a suitable topic for Wikipedia... But fine, if you want to wikilawyer around the deletion and ignore the spirit of the law in favour of the letter, so be it: I will restore the page (sorry Graeme) and put it up for AFD again. Perhaps then you'll finally drop the stick... Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  03:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_Jungle
there is much interest in Hong Kong Disneyland's history. -Savvyvavvy (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  02:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

European Golden Shoe Pages - Undelete
The pages were removed as the European Golden shoe award is given by a magazine and also stated that it is "not that notable". This is not the full picture. The magazine does provide the award; but this is derived directly from the scoring feats within all european leagues. It is more a factor that the magazine curates the award. It is a very prestigous award for players to receive and extremly notable. The yearly award and tables included are a valuable resource when looking into scoring feats in european leagues over the years. -170.148.198.157 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg 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 Articles for deletion/2006–07 European Golden Shoe, 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 . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. GB fan 17:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Fayetteville Mall
reasoning -170.158.81.237 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done The entire content of the article was "Fayetteville, NY". A new article would need to be created that has context about the mall along with reliable sources.  GB fan 17:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Shamim Zakaria
I had forgotten to provide the reliable reference for my article. This time after my article is undeleted I will provide the link for reliable references -Shamimpzakaria (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ The "article" has already been moved to your userpage. You are not significantly notable, so it should not be placed in articlespace (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

SturdiGuns
I believe the page was deleted in error and since it was put in the speedy deletion queue I was unable to contest it or make any significant edits in order to meet whatever standard it apparently did not follow. I hereby request this either be un-deleted and resubmitted to the encyclopedia or at least send me a copy and tell me what was wrong with it so I can make changes and resubmit -Totalpedia (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg 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. Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  08:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Randy Komisar
reasoning -64.124.139.194 (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am an employee of a large non-profit organization serving the motion picture industry. I am involved with a project detailing the history of Lucasfilm, LTD. and came across a mention of a related organization, Lucasarts Entertainment Co. which had just (November, 1993)appointed Randy Komisar as President and Chief Executive. Upon searching for his name in Wikipedia I found that the article about the subject had been deleted and article A7 cited as the reason. I would challange that the subject is not shown to be important.
 * Hmm, it could be we are not about talking about the same Randy Komisar here; the deleted article was about a book author, and, indeed, did not establish the notability of the articles subject . Lectonar (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the Randy Komisar who was chief executive of Lucasarts in 1993 is the same guy who is today the top Google hit for 'Randy Komisar', and seems to be a venture capitalist. If the IP will create an account I see no reason why the article couldn't be restored in his user space. There is nothing embarrassing about the previous content, and it could be sent by email if needed. It is three sentences plus three references. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done – I'm declining so that this request gets acted on. Per the above, the text may be sent to you or placed in the user space of an account, but the page won't be restored as a Wikipedia article in the same condition as it was in April 2010. It is an article about a living person, but it did not have any reliable sources as references. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Tero Kinnunen
reasoning -98.23.63.55 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user, who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. The article needs more references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)