Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 90

Dhanota
reasoning -Sainidhanota (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I left a note to the deleting admin. Lectonar (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done Lectonar (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Caia Mei
Unfair deletion when I had until May 9th to edit and show verifiable info. Englishyankee (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC) -Englishyankee (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unclear notability as well as promotional. ❌ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Enriquez_de_Luna
the women was a extremely important person in history and this page could represent the legacy of the duke of gandia and she was pregnant when the duke was killed the duke was the son to the Borgia pope this is the legacy of the most controversial pope of rome -124.190.146.131 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

JusTeach Foundation
reasoning -Nihaldsouza (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I do understand that Wikipedia has a strict non promotion policy, and that this is essential to maintain the credibility of Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia is making a huge difference.

As Co-Founder of JusTeach an organisation which provides education to children in Mysore city, I believe that we also try to make a difference, and it is critical that potential volunteers who will be teaching these kids know about us.

I find it unfair that wikipedia only permits huge corporate bodies to have a wiki-page but that organisations such as ours who genuinely strive to make a change are blocked. I believe that this is not what wikipedia is about.

Please do find below a link to newspaper article in Si Lankas leading newspaper which speaks of the veracity of the work we do

http://www.dailynews.lk/2013/04/30/fea31.aspw,

Also the link to our webpage: www.justeach.in

If you find any material in our wikipage which you believe must be removed, you could inform us about it before deletion, this makes the process more Just. I hope you do consider restoring our page to its original position

Thanks for your time,

Nihal D'Souza


 * X mark.svg 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. And please read our policy regarding conflict of interest and this isn't about your noble cause, either. Lectonar (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

KatyCats
to retrieve information for improvements -TheKatyCatThatIsCoconutsAboutFish 00:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * X mark.svg Not done This is not a valid cause for undeletion. If you have not kept a copy the text can be emailed to you. If you want that, you need to enable email on your account: click on "Preferences" at the top of the screen, and at the bottom of the "User profile" tab fill in your email address (which will not be visible to anyone) and check the box marked "Enable email from other users". Then ping me, and I will email the article content to you. Lectonar (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Changhua_Great_Buddha.jpg
Deleted because image source was unspecified, which I would like to rectify (I took the picture myself). -Jstech (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Declan Slattery
reasoning -Antairmdearg (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Declan Slattery was Battalion Quartermaster in the 3rd Battalion Déise Brigade of the IRA during the Irish War of Independence. He took part in the Piltown Cross ambush among other activities. http://95.45.178.102/reels/bmh/BMH.WS1245.pdf Here is his witness statements to the Irish Defence department regarding. Im just getting the article started and im new to writing on wikipedia.
 * X mark.svg Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself.  Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Try this process here, it will guide you through the process of article writing. The source you provided is unfortunaltely not enough, as it is his witness statement. Lectonar (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ojai Studio Artists
this group is internationally known and should not be deleted from wikipedia because it is a topic of interest for many people. it was deleted by someone residing in England who may not be aware of the prestige of this organization. please give us time to optimize our page -108.252.164.135 (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please read our policy regarding conflict of interest. Lectonar (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Flandria (cycling team)
reasoning -81.141.2.228 (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Kinetica art fair
Kinetica art fair is educational and is organised by a charity -Keith Watson (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - that does not mean that it qualifies for an article in an encyclopedia - see Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. This article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion. 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 will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. JohnCD (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sirius Jack!
This artist is famous in the electronic dance music community and deserves to be recognized. -Fauxmoehawkeen (talk) 02:53, 7 May 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 about people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself.  Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Lectonar (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Epiphany Eyewear Deletion
Please restore the contents of the page so I can revise it and see what the problems were on the page. I spent hours researching the information yesterday and woke up this morning to find it was completely gone. There was no time for anyone to help me. I posted in Teahouse for help and was waiting to get a response. Now, everything is gone completely. Can you please send me the code for the page or restore it so I can continue research. I found this new technology when I was researching Google Glass (which is way over referenced and appears to be mostly advertising). My little page on Epiphany Eyewear was just the beginning and much work was still needed. Please tell me what to do. I'm fairly new here and only write, research or edit topics of keen interest; especially new technologies like wearable computer items and the like. Your assistance is most appreciated. I'd really like to see what was written for Epiphany Eyewear and I didn't keep a copy because I had no idea it would be completely gone. Thank you 301man (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Zachary Ryan de Rothschild
I believe the article may have been deleted due to a certain person becoming frightened as to the contents of the article, and requested the article to be removed, simply to comfort them. For this reason, I feel that the page itself was accurate, and the article had no reason to be removed. The original reason for the removal being the person was unimportant, if this was the case, why would the person still be listed under the Rothschild family Wikipedia? -Eternalskeptic67 (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Crypto Street
The orignal content is now gone as a result of a "Speedy Deletion" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geoburke) which was pulled before I could contest it. This was the only copy, but it needs to be revised to fit the guidelines. Please undelete so I can get this copy back and work on it. Thank you! -Geoburke (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Although I cannot see anything encyclopedic in that draft, I have placed it into your userspace temporarily so that you can try to somehow meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. You may find it at User:Geoburke/Crypto Street‎ (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 17:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Mary Jo McGrath
This article is not a copyright infringement. It is an article about a prominent attorney and consultant in the educational professional development field. The subject has served as the chair of the U.S. Department of Education's Expert Panel on Safe and Drug-Free schools. She is a nationally recognized expert on school bullying and sexual abuse/harassment in schools. Please restore the article. -Chendrix (talk) 23:04, 8 May 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 suspicion of a copyright problem arose because of the promotional tone, which reads like a press release or personal/company website; the article could do with more independent references about Ms McGrath, rather than things she has done or written - see Notability (summary). If you are connected with Ms McGrath's company, please read the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

crimeanization
The reason for undeleting the article Crimeanization is this: the musical project Crimeanization is gaining popularity all around the world and sells its singles and albums in all well-known internet stores. Also, this is a living project that releases singles and albums on a regular basis. Today Maxim Mikhaylov, the creator of Crimeanization, is working on a new album to be released in 2013-2014. -Maximcdfan1976 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 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 about music. 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 musicians or music groups 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. King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Bae, Kim & Lee
There is lack of information about Korean law firms of Republic of Korea. If you have a look at the content of the Law firms of South Korea Wikipedia page, there are only 3 law firms with Wikipedia page which. Also, compare to other firms like Kim & Chang and Yulchon page, the contents of Bae, Kim & Lee is only stating the facts. If I created Bae, Kim & Lee page for advertisement or promotion, I should have focus on more details like practice areas and offices of the firm. I believe Wikipedia needs more information about Korean law firms. -Blackandwhite2013 (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done. This page has not been deleted since you recreated it yesterday. The speedy deletion tag has been removed, since there was no longer any promotional content. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  06:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Holy Thursday (disambiguation)
I have no idea why this page was deleted - "Holy Thursday" can refer to four different Wikipedia articles -Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. The deleted version only disambiguated between Maundy Thursday and the Feast of the Ascension, a function duplicated by hatnotes, so it's deletion was quite proper. However, there are also the William Blake poems to consider, plus other potential uses - as such, I will restore and expand the page (please feel free to add other appropriate links to it). Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  06:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Scola Prosek
reasoning -NatalieSMoran (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I am very new to Wikipedia (submitting anyways) and I submitted an article about an opera composer, Lisa Scola Prosek. I believe I remained unbiased in the article but I guess it didn't come off that way (I had listed her website as an external link which might be frowned upon?). Could I have it undeleted so I can make the necessary changes and resubmit it as a more acceptable article? Thank you for your patience with us neophytes!

A thank you for your help with this!

Sincerely, Natalie Moran


 * Yes check.svg Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:NatalieSMoran/Lisa Scola Prosek. 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  06:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Blognostics
reasoning -Mroberts72 (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You folks gave me absolutely no time to add references before deleting the page. For new users such as myself a little bit of time is not a lot to ask. Mroberts72 (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would probably be willing to userfy it to a personal sandbox, which is normally the first step of creating a new article, especially for new users. However, there's no way that a topic that does not appear to meet our notability guidelines can be returned to article space.  Let me know how you would like to proceed (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 13:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

MonoGame
Incorrectly deleted for personal reasons by spinningspark who gave no credible reason for its deletion. -Totallyeviljake (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request.  Suggesting that an editor is doing this for "personal reasons" removes all credibility of your request and future arguments (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 13:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

rishiraj sharma
reasoning Why you said that this person not indicate any real person.

Proof for real person of rishiraj sharma- Link for getting proof- 4xhack.webs.com/top-10 http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/ethical-hackers-india.asp - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.200.219 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 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 about people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself.  Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 13:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Antonio Riestra
reasoning -Riestradp (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please specify where is the copyright violation? I included the NYT as a source. If this is not enough please specify. Where is the conflict of interest?
 * The copyright violation is blatantly obvious. imdb cannot be used as a source, and the NYT is a weak source, as it does not prove the entire set of claims.  WP:BLPs must have multiple independent sources.  The COI is a little bit obvious ... based on your username and the last name of the subject, n'est-ce pas? (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 13:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Scwebgfx
reasoning -Scwebgfx (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC) I've followed the same guide line structure as facebooks for my Bio on Scwebgfx with links to verify content written in my article. (link to verify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook). I also provided (link to verify questionable content. I am following the rules for a person posting an article about Scwebgfx. This unit deserves to have a post created for not giving up and achieving a great social networking tool now they even have a market app.

I love posting blogs,forum atc ont new successors.

here's a link to there site if you can support a facebook,myspace etc bio certainly you can respect my post.


 * X mark.svg 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. (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 10:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Walberto Goldstein
reasoning -Carl Goldberg (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Improve the page with wikification
 * X mark.svg Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself.  Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Wikification is not the problem which led to the deletion of the article, so this not a valid reason for undeletion. Try submitting the article via the process at articles for creation, and just follow all the necessary steps laid down there. Lectonar (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Martin Port
References were included and article was checked for errors and inconsistencies - 86.147.198.168 (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Although a PROD, this WP:BLP had falsified references and significant inconsistencies that make it impossible to undelete (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 10:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I could not see any evidence of falsified references. All I saw were two references to external pages neither of which mentioned the guy at all. So I support the refusal to undelete. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Maslowsneeds/Suzannah B. Troy
This is a user page which I believe had information that would be useful for an article. I recognize that it may not have been updated for a while, but that's true of many many pages on here... including pages on hugely important topics. Please undelete at least temporarily so I can retrieve links, etc. Thank you! -groupuscule (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Bump groupuscule (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Jesus Cover-Up Hypothesis
reasoning -article makes clear the key elements in this hypothesis first suggested by Barrie Wilson. A redirect to the author's page talks about the author, not primarily the main components of this hypothesis. --Sixth Estate100 (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌. You already have a fairly extensive coverage of this hypothesis in the author's article Barrie Wilson, and another in the article about his book, How Jesus Became Christian. It is not clear to me that the book meets the notability requirement of WP:Notability (books), and to cover the same ground again in a third article is simply spamming.


 * Moreover, as far as I can see the term Jesus Cover-up Hypothesis is not used even in Wilson's book, which refers to a Jesus Cover-up Thesis; and we should not have an article at either of those titles unless the subject under that name met the notability requirement of having been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

profile defenders
reasoning multiple references and noteworthy articles from Wall Street Journal, Sun Sentinel, and Entrepreneur Magazine -Jeromekaram (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done mentions in two newspapers are a claim of importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sabur Khan
Being the president a Dhaka Chamber of Commerce & Industry (DCCI), which is a large organization bearing 10000+ business organizations in Bangladesh & contributing to entire economic development of the nation, Mr. Sabur Khan may be counted as a notable person. -Wikiwebsbd (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - As announced at the top of the page, 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 at Articles for deletion/Sabur Khan, 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 . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review., and has then repeatedly been recreated without significant changes. Lectonar (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Marriott Rewards
We would like to request that this page be undeleted. We are happy to edit it per your recommendations, but would like to be able to share objective information about the Marriott Rewards program. We are not sure why the page was deleted - please advise. Thank you. -Mrtemphelp (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic is not encyclopedic, and is not notable outside of the hotel chain itself - it's merely a minor loyalty feature such as many companies have. Feel free to expand mention of the program in the Marriott article, as long as it's sourced and non-promotional  (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 21:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Super Technologies
A G:11 clause is mentioned as the deletion of the article, however we may be able to defend this clause, but we don't have the content right now, so it will be your sincere gesture, if you can email back the deleted article, so that next time we can post it in accordance to the defined policies of Wikipedia. -Ilmtruely (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done A copy of the deleted article has been emailed to you. Please do not attempt to resubmit it in this form; it will simply be deleted again. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Karen Chen
accidently press delete button -Sallymontana (talk) 22:27, 13 May 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 about people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself.  Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Lectonar (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(Let's Start) Tomorrow Tonight
The article has been merged into Original songs in Smash, with this edit - it should be a redirect from merge - or the deletion summary should be changed -Christian75 (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Willie Jae
reasoning -Ayerhola (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC) links have been placed to support why article deserves to be in encyclopedia. Rocnation is making history everyday, and anyone who contributes to the history of the company should be included.
 * X mark.svg Not done. This article is not currently deleted; you recreated it yesterday. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Samy Kamkar.jpg
Flickr license has been adjusted to reflect CC-BY-SA -Ymsrm (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by User:Morgankevinj. Note that the file is on Wikipedia Commons, and in the future, you should request undeletion at commons:COM:UNDEL. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Colin A. Ross
reasoning -Jaceknow (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 23:38, 1 February 2012 Atama (talk | contribs) deleted page Colin A. Ross (Expired PROD, concern was: Subject not very notable; most information is from primary sources or completely unsourced.)

If deleted "Colin A. Ross" page was about known American psychiatrist, concern "subject not very notable" is not true. Because I want to write properly sourced article about Colin A. Ross, please restore the page to make my task easier Jaceknow (talk) 23:18, 14 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wedlock (band)
I believe the article may have been deleted due to a certain person becoming frightened as to the contents of the article, and requested the article to be removed, simply to comfort them. For this reason, I feel that the page itself was accurate, and the article had no reason to be removed. The original reason for the removal being the person was unimportant, if this was the case, why would the person still be listed under the Rothschild family Wikipedia? -Marcus.lui (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - As announced at the top of the page, 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 at Articles for deletion/Wedlock (band) (2nd nomination), 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 . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review..


 * The reason you give makes no sense because you have simply copied it from the request a week ago to undelete the hoax article Zachary Ryan de Rothschild. JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The consensus of the deletion discussion was that the band lacked coverage in reliable secondary sources and so did not meet our notability requirements, see WP:GNG and the more specific WP:BAND. As the contributors to the deletion discussion were nearly unanimous and those who held the opposing view did not offer any evidence demonstrating notability, there is no chance of this article being undeleted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

thomas thaulow stöcklin
Would like to get the text, for later use... -Atlanta10 (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your last action on that article was to blank it, which was a request to delete the entire article. Can I ask why you want the text back now after intentionally requesting its removal yourself? (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides, as per your talkpage, the "draft" is still located here (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reid Boucher
Please restore the edit history for this recently re-created article. -Dolovis (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Liverpool Physical Society
The premise upon which it was deleted was flawed, the supposed lack of link to the University of Liverpool, the original society and thus the Students of the Physics Dept. and Guild of Students is documented in the University of Liverpool Archives here http://archives.liv.ac.uk/ead/search?operation=full&recid=gb141uniguild-a312,a084. If those of you that feel clarification is necessary between the changes over that time, that is fair and can be adjusted but the Society remains a part of the Physics Dept. promoting Physics to others and future students and is based in the Oliver Lodge Building, University of Liverpool. Its affiliation is valid and the Physics Dept. supports it as such and is proud of the heritage the Society and the University have. -138.253.83.1 (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - As announced at the top of the page, 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 at Articles for deletion/Liverpool Physical Society, 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 . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. You'll note that the person who nominated it for deletion is affiliated with the club; he's definitely well aware of the relationship between the society and the university. It was deleted because it doesn't pass our inclusion standards; the bit about the university/society relationship was a side thing.  Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User Talk:Hadrian0
Please don't delete my user talk page because it is mine and that page is not a test page, it's my user talk page and for people that look at it can talk to me about something. -Hadrian0 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Hadrian0, my name is Howicus. Just to let you know, User talk:Hadrian0 is not being considered for deletion.  Hadrian0 is, because that is an article which you created which is just links to your user and user talk pages.  I hope this helps.  Howicus (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is article hadrian0 going to be deleted. I created it so that i can go to my user talk page and my user page without being logged in or people can go to my user page and my talk page.--Hadrian0 (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the article namespace, where Hadrian0 was, is only for encyclopedia articles, not links to user and talk pages. If someone else wanted to go to your user or talk page, they can follow the links that are in every signature you add.  Howicus (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Firefly Tonics
a Firefly employee foolishly edited this page (which was created outside the company many years ago) some time in 2011 making it too promotional. I would like the chance to re-edit it and remove all promotional content, leaving only the factual, properly sourced elements. Thanks. -Harrybriggs (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I reverted it to the last edit you made, which was late in 2008; if you want to improve it, you might start by looking to see if there were any productive changes made after that time. Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Kate granata
reasoning -Horseloverforever800 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to show us how this meets general notability and biography inclusion standard. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 07:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Javelin (band)
Apparently, the page was originally deleted because of non-notability. I've already requested that the original deleter undelete the page, but he has been unresponsive (hasn't been on wikipedia since I asked). I gave various reasons the band is, in fact, notable here: User_talk:TerriersFan and I'd like to put more reasons on the page itself once its undeleted. Thanks Fresheneesz (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC) -Fresheneesz (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Fresheneesz (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

South Bound
reasoning -Jespon (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC) First Degree The D.E. is a legendary underground rapper from Sacramento and he appeared on many of Brotha Lynch Hung's albums. He's dope as hell and South Bound is a cult classic. If you don't believe me look here http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/first_degree_the_d_e_/south_bound/

I've even reviewed it myself.
 * This hasn't been deleted but lacks reliable sources. I have declined the speedy and passed this for further discussion at AFD. I suggest you read General inclusion and album notability and try to improve the sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 07:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Steven D. Waldman
reasoning -Murdy26 (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)This page should not be deleted as it has to do with texts and courses one can take on pain management which is very essential for people who will be needing such.
 * X mark.svg Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself.  Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. And I am sorry to say, but the article really was essentially an advertisement. Lectonar (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Dolovis/Dan Bertram (ice hockey)
Please re-store my userfied article which was apparently unilaterally restored to main-space and then summarily deleted. -Dolovis (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason given was "no work done on it since 2011". Do you intend to improve this page? Last found at Dan Bertram (ice hockey). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is my intent to update and improve this biographical article. Please restore. Dolovis (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Status of player hasn't changed since the Afd in 2011. They haven't played a single game more. The page which I userfied for the Dolovis was not changed in the 2 years it sat there. Userspace is not an end run around Afd and is not allowed to be kept indefinitely. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Daniele Luciano Moskal
I have re-edited all my references and linked them to better links; I realise my mistakes by not citing my resources - I am new to this but I am honestly and sincerely trying my very best - thanks -DANIELE LUCIANO MOSKAL 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - this page has not yet been deleted. Please see WP:PROD for the instructions for responding to a proposed deletion. Lectonar (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He must be important. He wrote and published 8 books in 2012. Carptrash (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The City of Mirrors (novel)
reasoning -72.49.224.13 (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Book is now a certainty, 2nd book in the trilogy released over 6 months ago.
 * So? That doesn't make it notable. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:51, 18 May

It is the reason for deletion (WP:CRYSTAL). As this is no longer true... Also making this noteable is the awards, sales, etc this series has garnered thus far. It is mainstream; http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/10/17/justin-cronins-gonna-get-you-sucker/


 * Recreated as redirect to author article. Plausible search term, but independent article is premature. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Rowan steam railmotor
This article was very well researched. It contained a lot of very detailed historical information from reliable sources. It was not controversial. It was considered by Ironholds to be a "great" article. I have much more information I wished to add to the article. I was about to appeal the speedy deletion but I was too slow. -Junior Lightfoot (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Dbromage for deletion rationale. No prejudice to refund but I am leery due to the circumstances and that your account was created right after. Mkdw talk 07:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I have edited for many years but didn't see the need to create an account. In this case I created an account because I wished to move the page which has now been deleted and create a disambiguation, then add more information. From what I can see, the nomination for deletion appears to be blanket by an IP. Smacks of bad faith. Rowan steam railmotor is notable, well sourced, uncontroversial and not disruptive. Junior Lightfoot (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done on good faith. Mkdw talk 08:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Planet Zero (First Degree The D.E. album)
reasoning -Jespon (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete it? He's a legendary rapper and this is one of his most critically acclaimed albums. I'm not making shit up.

Also why did you delete the main First Degree The D.E. page?! I want it all back.
 * X mark.svg Not done And if you keep leaving hateful messages on people's talk pages you will be blocked indefinitely. The link to WP:MUSICBIO has been placed on your talk page by more than one editor. Mkdw talk 19:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Beach Fossils
Article subject discussed in detail in such sources as the New York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22Beach+Fossils%22/, Pitchfork, NME, and countless other notable sources. They have toured with such groups as Blonde Redhead, Warpaint (band), Real Estate (band), Wavves and many more. They are well known and respected members of the independent music community and deserve an article. The article was deleted because strong sources were not included, they can easily be added if the article is restored. -Thriley (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Thriley/Beach Fossils. 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Love Honey NZ
reasoning -Bobdoleorama (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Application of Speedy deletion tag A7 incorrect usage of Tag. Page met directly addressed notability, and was outside the regulatory bounds of A7 tag.

Page content should have been moved to discussion for deletion; not nominated for speedy deletion.

Further content to support notability including photographic evidence and media coverage of organisation are being collated currently.
 * Yes check.svg Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Bobdoleorama/Love Honey. 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Clean Energy Finance Corporation
I wish to either improve the article or have a second look before seeking a deletion review. -Chriswaterguy talk 20:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - article has been restored by Nick-D, see User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

BMW R1100RS
Can you userfy the deleted article BMW R1100RS to me or to WikiProject Motorcycling for development? -Brianhe (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. It was a PROD deletion, so could just be restored, but as it is pretty thin I have userfied it to User:Brianhe/BMW R1100RS for you to improve. JohnCD (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ganatri
I wasn't done working on it yet. The planet is from a book that my friend is still writing. I simply want to set the stage for him and get the page about it myself. -MIISAAC (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done and will not be done. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place for original work or for anything about unpublished books. See Alternative outlets for ideas about other places where you could post this material. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

ahmed bahrani
reasoning -Rajaajee 1 (talk) 07:51, 20 May 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 about people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself.  Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. Actually, it wasn't deleted, but it is now, and no, it will not be restored for the reasons mentioned. Lectonar (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also deleted as Ahmed Al Bahrani and Ahmed bahrani. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Holcombe Hockey Club
Request the article be undeleted as there are a number of reasons as to why it is notable. The club is one of the largest, in terms of teams, in the UK. Both the men's and women's 1st XI play in the England Hockey League and so are playing at the top level in the country, with the men's 1st XI narrowly missing out on promotion to the Premier League this season just gone. The club is also home to a few players who are notable on the international hockey scene, particularly Barry Middleton, who has appeared on TV at the 2004, 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games. Is it not quite notable to have such a player as a member of the club? It demonstrates the intent to compete in the Premier League. It also seems strange that a club such as Woking Hockey Club or Romford Hockey Club exists on Wikipedia and yet Holcombe Hockey Club gets deleted when clearly demonstrating more in terms of notability in the hockey scene. -Mok9 (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - As announced at the top of the page, 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 at Articles for deletion/Holcombe Hockey Club, 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 . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.. Your other objection falls under this Lectonar (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Luc Floreani
reasoning -Lucfloreani (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Please can you help me undelete my page Luc Floreani Luc
 * X mark.svg Not done - As announced at the top of the page, 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 at Articles for deletion/Luc Floreani, 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 . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. And aas the article is about yourself, see our policy about conflict of interest. Lectonar (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Truth: Gujarat 2002 – Tehelka report
A significant media report that generated a wide interest in the Indian and international media. -Chaipau (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - As announced at the top of the page, 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 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth: Gujarat 2002 – Tehelka report, 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 . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.. This article has been deleted about 15 minutes. Must be the fasted REFUND request I have seen. Lectonar (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I shall follow up on what you suggest. Chaipau (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

prettypimp
reasoning -Kymsmithlibk (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done Correct A7. FYI, requesting user is indefblocked by now. Lectonar (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett
This kid is on all the major newspapers. Must have a wikipedia page. -2A02:120B:2C70:8170:6C8A:F600:3AA8:3A2A (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - As announced at the top of the page, 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 at Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett, 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 . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Lectonar (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm passing on this. All the criteria--"kid in on all the major newspapers", gave a talk at TED, petition by an anon--is borderline, & fails convince me one way or the other. IIRC, an established editor can create a new article here if the content does not duplicate the one deleted, & that person is convinced the subject is notable. So besides deletion review, you could try WP:Requested articles. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

lassiter holmes
Resorces were deleted and Author was given 10 days. Supplemental sources were provided and deleted without any verification then summarily deleted by japaingirl. She is now attacking the Film page "the Cloth" even though it meets the criteria. This was a biased attack and the page Lassiter Holmes could have been paired down to remove any "self promotion," but japaingril set it to delete immediately without working with the author. -70.115.65.183 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I don't know where you got 10 days from, and there was not a summarily deletion from any japaingirl. However I have restored this to let the AFD run its course.  This was not irrepairable promotion.  Bu please remove any promotional parts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The_Nighthawk
The administrator who deleted my article has a "secret" account so I cannot locate him/her. (UPDATE: The admin has quit wikipedia)

Therefore, this is my only recourse.

I am wondering why my page on The Nighthawk was deleted. There are several independent sources about my career. If you accepted print media, I can also direct you to several articles and citations in Pro Wrestling Illustrated and other magazines, as well as encyclopedic websites such as Puroresu and Online World of Wrestling.

You may also want to check with the Cauliflower Alley Club. I am also mentioned in other wrestling pages on wikipedia.

I do wish whoever made this decision had the basic courtesy to actually contact me.

This is a matter of no small importance as I am in the middle of a large (multi-million dollar) lawsuit and the opposing attorney has sent us a demand that we not modify or remove this page as it is going to be evidence at trial! If I am accused of deleting it, I could wrongly be implicated as trying to hide evidence. Therefore, your precipitous action creates a financially actionable situation. Who do I contact? I'll need this for myself, my attorney, and the opposing counsel. If it isn't resolved, I'll need this information for the judge so as to avoid contempt of court ... You have put me in a very bad situation here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrRonThomasJr (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The person who deleted this was called User:Secret. This was based on the discussion at Articles for deletion/The Nighthawk.  Using a Wikipedia page as evidence in a trial is strange, as anyone can change it, and few people prove who they are, so that they cannot tell who wrote it really. People do not own pages here. You could get a copy via email. Alternately you can look at one of the Wikipedia mirrors that do not delete things and preserve instead, for example http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/The_Nighthawk  ❌ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)