Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• List of elements by physical properties · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I would like to have it in my userspace. It is an older project of mine that I never got around to expand it before it got deleted. I want to model

Userfied at your userspace Skier Dude (talk 17:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Nergaal (talk

) 18:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Africa Fashion Week New York · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Was a contested PROD (if I remember correctly) and as such shouldn't be eligible for CSD. -Cyclopia^talk 22:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, CSD G11 :( You'll need to discuss this one with NawlinWiki. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, taking another look at this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a slam dunk G11 to me but I don't want to steamroller another admin's decision. I would recommend discussing this with NawlinWiki and then taking it to deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"a long overdue event that will gather designers from all over the African continent and within the Diaspora to display their work in the world's fashion capital for the sole purpose of raising awareness of the African fashion industry"? Looks like a G11 to me. If it actually becomes notable, a new article could be written by somebody without such a reek of COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at the last version by Woohookitty before it was "spammed up". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the pre-spam version, Ron. Go to it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 22:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Maj. Gen. Jeffrey W. Talley · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I am now the Public Affairs Specialist for the 84th Training Command. Maj. Gen. Talley is the commanding general. I was told this morning I am now responsible for updating his Wki page. I believe it was deleted because whomever posted it, didn't include references. I have those. Please let me know if this can be undeleted or if I need to start a new page. Thank you. -Arsarge13 (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Given what you told us, you should really avoid updating his Wiki page even if it existed, per

conflict of interest. Your superiors gave you an impossible order. --Cyclopia^talk

16:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to send you a copy of the deleted article, but I agree w/ Cyclopia that you are probably in an untenable position vis a vis our

conflict of interest policies. Protonk (talk

) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find the original article. Do you have the exact title or the name of the account which created it (or the admin who deleted it)? Protonk (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There are other commander's bios, like Jack C. Stultz, the Chief, Army Reserve. My commanding general wants his page to look like LTG Stultz's. I'm not sure how posting someone's bio violates the conflicts of interest. The general's aide says he's not sure how it was titled; either MG Jeffrey W. Talley, or without the rank.

• The existence of other articles is not necessarily
  positive or negative. Further, a good wikipedia article is built from reliable, independent sourcing and an outsider is more likely to use such sources in creating an article be use they are simply not privy to close personal sources or other privileged information. Protonk (talk
  ) 18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• To be glib, I'm almost certain that Powell's bio (to choose just one example) was neither started by nor is primarily edited by a public affairs staffer for the state department. The basic process by which notable individuals get wikipedia biographies is haphazard. Some are posted by individuals who feel a hole in the literature exists (For instance, the biographies I have written). Some are written by admirers, but many by amateurs. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me take a different tack and try to get to yes. Apart from the information on your website, what
    reliable, independent sources cover the general in detail? Has he been the subject of a newspaper article (even stars and stripes would do for a start, or Army Times), magazine profile? Has he published any articles or books? What we are looking for is enough coverage in secondary sources for a skeptical reader to verify the important portions of the biography without using information which produced by the subject or by people under his direction. Protonk (talk
    )
    • Some further advice on the
      WP:Your first article, WP:Notability and WP:Notability (people) first. JohnCD (talk
      ) 19:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Let's also be realistic; there is no such thing as a strictly neutral document coming from a Public Affairs office or officer; if you were genuinely neutral and impartial, you'd be courtmartialed (or at best re-assigned to liaison duties in Greenland). The goal here is clear facts, sourced to reliable sources; and government agencies' websites are not intended to show a
  neutral point of view. --Orange Mike | Talk
  21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Might I also add that I do not personally know of any current generals who are arrogant enough to believe that they have achieved the notoriety and notability to warrant a Wikipedia article, and I know a lot of flag officers. (

BWilkins ←track

) 19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• DemoCreator · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

The software is notable. In fact, it is very good. -Grozo (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done, but this is likely to go to AfD. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Fudhail Bin Iyaadh · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions
  ]

• Fuzail ibn Ayaz · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions
  ]

Same reason and same purpose as above. Thanks. -Kimse (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither page can be undeleted (or userfied) as both were copyright violations, the first being deleted for that reason, and the second being deleted for other reasons, but nevertheless being one. You can simply re-create them as redirects.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Terry Heaton · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

I don't really know why my page was deleted. It has been up for three years (I believe), and nobody has ever questioned its validity. I am a well-known author and blogger, whose material is used in college syllabi worldwide. I run with many new media types and am considered a major thought leader in the world of local media. My entry contained a reference to a news story of the day. I could go on, but I'm mostly just curious as to how a Wikipedia entry, which has been in place for so long, can be arbitrarily removed in a day without discussion. I'm sure this must be some sort of mistake. I've long been a vocal, public supporter of Wikipedia, even when others were ridiculing the place, and I hate that this has happened. Please reconsider this decision, or at least be so kind as to discuss it with me. This is very important to me. Thank you very much. -TerryHeaton (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I provided the following information at

request a deletion review.

— Scientizzle

18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

--TerryHeaton (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC) It has been said that the entry was "blatant promotion" and that the source links were from my blog. Again, let me state that I didn't write the page, although I certainly consider myself notable. As to the promotional aspects, that's a specious argument, because any living notable person's entry could be deemed such by someone with the absolute power to delete arbitrarily. I spent a few minutes on Google and Google News. Here are some links:

Google news in the past month alone: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-the-morning-lowdown-09.27.10/ http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/09/this-week-in-review-apples-subscription-plan-the-exodus-from-objectivity-and-startup-guides-galore/ http://www.themediamanager.com/3/post/2010/09/terry-heatons-pomo-blog-on-the-frustration-about-web-page-views.html

Google: First couple of pages: http://tvspy.com/nexttv/nexttvcolumn.cfm?t_content_cat_id=10 http://www.mediabloggers.org/robert-cox/terry-heaton-explains-what-is-really-at-stake-at-spectrial-boxee http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/ http://smartpei.typepad.com/robert_patersons_weblog/2004/08/decentralizatio.html

I also found syllabi from Harvard, Stanford and Columbia

Blatant promotion? I would love the chance to argue that in person, but that's apparently not how things are done around here. And the real insanity of this is that I have been a vocal and public supporter of Wikipedia since its inception. 'Nuff said —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryHeaton (talk • contribs)

• I can email you a copy of the deleted article or move it into your userspace, but the article I am looking at is pretty promotional. It includes a lot of extraneous comments (e.g. some such about "Heatonisms"), unsourced superlative claims made by subjects which also have promotional articles on wikipedia (the bit about your brain being put on display in the smithsonian) and statements like "His influence on the movers and shakers in New media has been profound.". The article (as it was when it was deleted) is a pretty dramatic departure from our expectations of a neutral, factual article on a notable subject. As for the notability issue, I'm a little uncomfortable asserting pseudonymously that you are or aren't notable--that is part of the issue with the
  detailed coverage by multiple reliable sources. Protonk (talk
  ) 23:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Here's a thought. How about I talk to the deleting admin and we restore the article and start another AfD, since the last one was cut short by the speedy deletion. That would start the clock on a 7 day discussion where someone would have to make an affirmative case to delete the article. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate any help I can get here, so thanks. None of this answers the question about why now. That page has been up for years. It passed muster before. I'm serious about needing to know why the finger was pointed at it now. I have been such a staunch supporter of Wikipedia and the process that I'm shocked this has happened, and I really want to know why somebody did this today. As to the issues of promotion, I am known for Heatonisms. It's part of my notoriety. As mentioned earlier, you could make the same case for any living notable. And I honestly don't know why I'm sitting here arguing this point. It is separate from the question of why now. Why after years of being a part of Wikipedia is it suddenly removed? I want to get to the bottom of it, because if this can happen to me, it can happen to anybody, and I'm not happy. Thanks again, seriously, for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryHeaton (talk • contribs)

To find out why now, you might want to talk to the person who nominated it for deletion. Christopher Connor nominated it for deletion. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a whole

As to the vulnerability issue, I concur completely, which is why I've felt so honored to have a page. As a defender of Jimmy Wales and the whole wiki process, I find it distasteful to be even discussing this here. Thanks again for being so kind. Terry —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryHeaton (talk • contribs)

TerryHeaton (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Terry Heaton here again. Can somebody please tell me how I request a formal review of this decision? I've been writing comments here and elsewhere, but I don't understand the process and want to make sure I'm not missing anything. How do I have my day in court? Thanks for everybody's help so far. I think I have a good idea of what went down.

Go all the way back up to the first reply to your initial post, in which on the 19th of October you were directed to Wikipedia:Deletion review; the same information had already been provided on your user talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

TerryHeaton (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Thank you, Mike. Having never done any of this stuff before, it's a little intimidating.

• Sri Muralidhara Swamigal · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

reasoning -59.92.5.202 (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. The article was a redirect to

deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Muralidhara Swamiji and so cannot be undeleted here. If you want it restored, you should first contact user King of Hearts (talk · contribs), the admin who closed the deletion discussion; if he does not agree, you can apply at WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk

) 10:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Joe Conway · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

• not an obscure local politician, as stated by Administrator. A representative to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg 2006/2010, a body representing 47 countries and a population of 800 million. Admin cannot be contacted by email — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebenconway (talk • contribs)

 Done The article was deleted as a result of an expired

AfD). —C.Fred (talk

) 07:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Buddhism and violence · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

deleted with no discussion -

Improper forum. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Cirt (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Omer bhatti · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

i want to create this article because omer bhatii is now an artist with his own records and a famous personality for a lot of his fans -Avlakop (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The deleted article is no good to you because it contains a lot of unsourced gossip about Michael Jackson but no indication of why Bhatti is

reliable sources for what your article says. JohnCD (talk

) 19:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that you would be best to create a draft in your own

BWilkins ←track

) 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Pe2elf · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

reasoning -202.168.106.124 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry in advance if I may be posting via the wrong process, but this is such a maze that I can't follow.

The Pe2elf article was deleted as being not notable or some such. Original proposal stated "I can't find significant coverage for this software" on 16 December 2009, and the article deleted just SIX days later, on 22 December 2009.

What sort of review process is that?! Six days from proposal to deletion might be appropriate for illegal content, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Imagine the article is a book that your propose to burn. Just because it's of no interest to you, doesn't mean it's of no interest to someone else (eg. me, in this case). I'm really disgusted right now, with your cavalier attitude at destroying potentially valuable and rare information. You are no different to the book burners of the Nazi era. (Yes, I do think you people act too much like dictators nowadays.)

If you want to delete content just because you don't find it interesting, at least provide some means whereby such uncontroversial content can be retrieved. Unfortunately, the Internet Archive doesn't show this page, perhaps it was only up for a brief period? This page is referenced at other places, such as http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Pe2elf but the content that was here, isn't.

Joe.

 Not done The deletion was the result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pe2elf - take it to WP:Deletion review Skier Dude (talk 04:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Godwin's law strikes again, even faster than usual! JohnCD (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Protiti · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

-

notability, which is is not a matter of opinion but needs to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk

) 09:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Transmedia Activism · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

I used the wrong code when requesting help from the help desk on the deletion review of this page. Possible for it to go through normal deletion review? -lksriv (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This was listed at

Tikiwont (talk

) 10:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• ADITYA SHARMA · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

ADDING SOURCES -Adityakalki9 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

? This is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aditya Sharma - nothing to do here. Skier Dude (talk 08:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ampere model of magnetization · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions
  ]

I don't visit my user page often, and the page was deleted before i saw the deletion proposal, and the admin who deleted it (Fastily) has retired from wikipedia, so i hope this request will restore the page.-Siwardio (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tikiwont (talk

) 10:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sima Yari · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

-89.165.11.149 (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Forwarded Message ----

From: Dr. Abbas Milani [email protected] Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 9:14:53 AM Subject: "Sima Yari "

Dear Sir/Madam: It has come to my attention that the entry on Ms Sima Yari has been, for some reason, eliminated from the Wikipedia. I know of her work, her published poetry, and the defiance of her voice. May be it is just this defiance that has caused the malignant urge of some unknown force or person to try to eliminate her. I have been under the impression that yours is a site given to the democratic reflection of a plurality of voices; judgment on the ultimate quality of each voice is up to the readers and critics, and should not be left to those who have the patience or know-how to act as censors and forces of elimination. There is often not much of a distance between elimination from the page to elimination from the public domain, and even more, physical elimination. We must stop the shameful process where it begins. Restate her entry for she deserves presence, and not elimination. Best, Abbas Milani

Hamid and Christina Moghadam Director of Iranian Studies Research Fellow/Hoover Institution Stanford University 417 Galvez Mall, Encina Hall West, Room 210 Stanford, CA 94305-6045 Tel: 650.721.4052 Fax: 650.723.3010

•  Not done It's an encyclopedia article, not an attempt to eliminate someone. Claims of censorship will not go far - we have rules on
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 11:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thomas W. Hiltachk · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The deleter's claim that the author of a document is irrelevant is clearly absurd and partisan. The article points out dozens of other people who are supporters and opponents of the proposition. Why is this one name singled out? -Novophaedrus (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The article was deleted under CSD A7. This has to be discussed with the deleting admin. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• CollegeBlender · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

user who deleted article cited it was spam which is entirely untrue. There are many references in the article to 3rd party resources which cite the significance of CollegeBlender why it is worthy of an article. It is the first and only web community dedicated entirely to college students and the content they create across various channels. CollegeBlender also has a history behind it seeing as it came from The College Blog Network (whose wikipedia article become CollegeBlender). Additionally, many sites have linked to CollegeBlender's wikipedia article when speaking about its significance and history, all those links are now broken. There is no reason this article should have been deleted, CollegeBlender is a unqiue and significant social networking platform for college students which merits a wikipedia article documenting it's history, purpose and goals, in much the same sense Foursquare deserves a wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foursquare_(social_networking)), neither of which are spam. Referencing blogs as sources is not a reason for deletion either, blogs are the news sources of the internet age. Only articles relevant to the topic of CollegeBlender and it's history and/or significance were cited. -Dwasyluk (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Restored as a contested prod. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. You are incorrect about blogs as sources not being a reason for deletion. If the only sources are blogs then the article is likely to be deleted at

notability guideline for websites. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 04:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reverse financial instrument · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

• I don't see any sources. Protonk (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. This was deleted after a

cabal will not help your case. JohnCD (talk

) 15:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's a neologism that Juxo is seeking to publicize.

  The userpage draft he's cultivating is no better. --Orange Mike | Talk

  19:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you don't can't even make the

talk

)

My experience is that once you starting calling people dude you have already ran out of arguments. The answer is still no.

Spartaz Humbug!

13:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we call that "Spartaz's law" or would be a violation of

WP:NEO which was deleted from the list of shortcuts because it "violated WP:NEO" :) --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 13:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You can if you like but i doubt it will catch on.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, bro: A neologism is a newly coined word or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language. Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event. That's a perfect definition of this new term you're trying (at the wrong place) to restore. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Minesweeper Biz · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Hi My contribution has been deleted. Minesweeper Biz is a firm which provides thought leadership on Intranet and application, i.e. why this article was written.

If you cannot un delete it, I have a request, can you also delete the topic. In google search Minesweeper Biz Wiki search is resulting in a content which wrong positions the search and the firm.

So request you to please the Minesweeper Biz word (the name of the article) entirely, so that it does not appears in Wiki google search also.

Many thanks.

Regards, Mayankb email: [email protected] -Myankb (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tikiwont (talk

) 08:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thinkers 50 · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This is an important list in the history of thought leaders and the origin of all thought leadership lists. -Azikate (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done The article was userfied
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 21:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is not disparaging to a person's character if that is the person that they are truly portraying. Also, the truth was brought out in all statements involved. Freedom of speech, regardless of him running for political office. If you don't want your dirty laundry to be aired don't create the dirty laundry in the first place. All articles about Jon Levenson (politician) were truthful and people have the right to know the kind of candidate they may or may not be voting for.

 Not done This was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Levenson (politician) - please take this to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Skier Dude (talk 06:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• VOKLE (website) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Video conferencing application. Lacks any substantial coverage from reliable sources (and I was unable to find any in a quick search). Fails

Covered in large tech blogs online like these: Arianna Huffington: http://huff.to/cRrau3 / Tony Robbins: http://huff.to/cRFrVv / http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/07/16/vokle-wants-to-give-everyone-a-custom-video-conference-platform/ Building43: http://www.building43.com/videos/2009/12/24/a-distributed-tv-station/

• File:Miura family.JPG · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

reasoning -Fiskeharrison (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This photo is mine. It was taken on my camera by a farmhand (name unknown) - hence I am in the photo - at Zahariche, the ranch of the Miura family. It is also unique as the only photo in existence of the two Miura brothers together on their ranch, alongside their matador nephew, Maestro Dávila Miura.

• In this case the farm hand owns the copyright, unless they were paid for their time by the Miura family, in which case the Miura family may own the copyright, but it would not be you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Dead Horse (band) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Please do NOT delete the article. The reason for the proposed deletion is: No evidence from WP:RS that band meets WP:MUSIC. No recordings on major labels or notable indie labels. This is total non-sense. The band released the CD "Peaceful Death And Pretty Flowers" on Metal Blade/Warner Brothers labels. Are these 2 not major labels? Later 2 CDs were rereleased on Relapse records. It's also a pretty big metal label. So please leave the article alone. -Metaleonid (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with the proposed deletion, you are allowed to remove the PROD template from the top of the article. It may then be nominated at

notability. JohnCD (talk

) 15:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Metaleonid (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I think someone removed PROD template. There's a different template now. I added a few references on that page including reference to Metal Blade releases history and Dead Horse page on Relapse Records website. As for the Warner Bros. records.... I am unable to find references on internet that it their 2nd CD was distributed by WB. However, I have the original CD which was pressed on Warner Bros. When I have a time, I will scan the back cover of it and upload it.

• Laura Massey · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Trying to create a wiki page for Laura "Lollip0p" Massey from Xbox. If you listen to Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb's podcast he talks about how the community has not made her a page yet. I tried to make a legit page and found it to be on a deleted page? I made some edits on oct26th 2am and found them delete. I would like to be able to create/edit a page for Laura Massey she also runs http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/Home -Gregsteimel (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Spartaz ^Humbug!
  12:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Universities in Belize: Atlantic Pacific Mission University · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] A warning have been placed that this article will be deleted. Am requesting that the article should not be deleted as it provides information about universities registered in Belize and does fall under advertising. -Apmuac (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - You created several different spamvertisements for APMU under various names before this account was blocked; but none of them was under this name. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Intelli-Diet · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This is an informative article about a notable application and is not advertising. it is no different in tone and content than then 100+ iOS game pages on Wikipedia -98.228.226.40 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

98.228.226.40 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - it is possible that an impartial article could be written about this obscure iPhone app ("over 500 copies sold!"); but what was deleted was a blatant advertisement, which has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Book of the Law Translated · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I don't know why my article was deleted. -Exarp 18:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• The article was deleted as
  an unambiguous promotional page. You can see the reason for deletion if you navigate to the page title (done easily by clicking on the red link above). Protonk (talk
  ) 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• File:JohnnyBallBirmingham1998.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Taken by Me. Owned by Me. I give CC attributon share-alike licence on this image - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ -Willwade (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, surely you can adjust the license at the Flickr source you provided to the CC-BY license? — ξ^xplicit 06:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sigma Partners · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

The note said "not notable". Sigma Partners is a very notable VC firm, with notable partners. Bob Davoli (see his article) was recently called a "legendary investor" in the Boston Globe. Gardner Hendrie, an early partner at the firm, is a trustee of the computer history museum, was a technical founder of Stratus Computers. Greg Gretsch and Bob Davoli have both been on the Fortune Midas list more than once.

Sigma was founded in 1984 and made investments in industry defining companies like PSInet (early ISP), Electronic Arts, Vermeer Technologies (bought by MSFT and helped them become an internet company), Vignette (first commercial content management system), EqualLogic (the LARGEST ever all-cash acquisition of a VC backed company).

I think this makes the firm notable. -Rdale (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

None of that was in the article. Also remember:

notability is not inherited; even the most notable person has been involved with totally non-notable projects during their lifetimes. --Orange Mike | Talk

21:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Restored as a contested PROD. However, Orange Mike is correct so I've sent the article to AFD. (discussion). You have 7 days to demonstrate the subject's notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Tamaskan Wolfdog · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

wrongful deletion -WolfDogLover (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It was a misunderstanding -WolfDogLover (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Tamaskan people were angry because a Tamaskan WOLFDOG is something totally different. There was NOTHING bad in that article and the Tamaskan people were not even mentioned! I'm not impressed because they actually edited to say things like "the only breeder is a puppy mill" and other slanderous / libelous comments which I either explain the reasoning or deleted because they were false. It's total hypocrisy. NOTHING was wrong with that article.

• There was no referenced information in the article. Feel free to write a new version, and be sure to put in references showing this breed meets WP:Notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Digital Entrepreneurship · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

reasoning -Vicperotti (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The concern was: Trivial or non-notable neologism, and an essay of unsourced original research.

While it has taken some time for academia to create published research in this area, it is now widely available. In fact, published Digital Entrepreneurship research includes authors from University of Hawaii, Long Island University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Memorial University in Canada and more.

Furthermore, The Knight and Kauffman foundations have funded the Digital Media Entrepreneurship center at ASU to further the study of this area.

Today, Digital Entrepreneurship is an active area of research across the world. It refers to the new business forms and practices enabled by technology advances, particularly Internet and Communication Tech advances.

• Restored as a contested proposed deletion. It looks like a neologism to me, and may be sent to Articles for Deletion, a community deletion discussion. My suggestion is that you pare the article down to a few paragraphs and source those well. Also it helps considerably to describe things in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. If that can't be done with the given sources it is a sign that the subject may not be appropriate for inclusion in a general encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions
  ]
• Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions
  ]

Done. Both article have been undeleted for purposes of merger. I have redirected them to the target, linked the title of merge target in an edit summary for attribution, and protected them since they should not be revived. Please remember that for copyright attribution, you must state where you are merging the content from in each of the edit summaries when you perform the merges, e.g., Merge content from [[Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament]]. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do.--

Laozi speak

03:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please redirect them to the section within

talk

) 20:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done so for the tenth anniversary tournament (which didn't follow my direction above regarding the appropriate attribution edit summary on the merge, only stating the name but did not link). The second one does not yet appear to have been merged.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, I didn't realise it needed to be linked. I've merged the other article, this time with the link.--

Laozi speak

13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 13:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that it's been merged, doing so now. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:How to delete a page · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Deleted on sight by an administrator without discussion as "no longer needed/relevant". The only other place I can find this information is in the deletion policy, which is ten times the size, split over multiple pages, full of information unrelated to the question "how do I delete a page?" and unintelligible to new contributors. This page was created precisely to address these problems. -Gurch (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Note that I messed up the restoration edit summary, it should have said "Since this was deleted as a G6 based on uncontroversiality and resulted in an immediate request to undelete, I don't think it was so uncontroversial. It's also linked through about 2500 talk pages." Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where G6 comes into it. This was a "roll your own" speedy tag that should have been IMHO declined from jumpstreet and the tagging user directed to

WP:MFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 03:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Laura Ortiz · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

reasoning -Angelxone (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

administrator who closed the discussion, user King of Hearts (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 02:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Terry Heaton · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Having exhausted other attempts to resolve this, I now bring my request to the formal process. The page was recommended for deletion by ChrisConnors, who told me via his talk page that he discovered it was part of a "walled garden of spam created by hollygirl78." While that explains how he came across my page, it did not justify deletion alone, so he said it didn't fit Wikipedia's notability requirements. He directed me to admin Kimchi, who explained that the page "seems sufficiently non-neutral to qualify as advertising."

So there are three issues: the walled garden of spam, notability and advertising.

Let me begin a defense by confessing a degree of ignorance about the proceedings here and apologizing for my clumsiness. This page has been up for years and has made its way into Google searches of my name. I've always felt proud to have the page, and it hurts to have it arbitrarily yanked without a hearing or the opportunity to edit offending portions. The "walled garden" is indefensible, because it's a judgment call on your part that you certainly have the right to make. It is, however, subjective, and it was made without due diligence on behalf of the people about whom the pages were written. For myself, I can only say that I didn't write the page. Its weaknesses in terms of associated links and validated notability, therefore, are not my fault, although I'm the one left to bear the consequences. Don't you think I at least deserve a hearing?

On the matter of notability, I spent 10 minutes on simple Google and Google News searches to find links to me and my work, including syllabi from Harvard, Stanford and Columbia. It's very awkward and assuming to have to defend one's notability, and again, the opportunity to edit the page to satisfy this argument was never offered.

On the matter of advertising, when I pressed on this, I was told that the real objection was to certain adjectives and prose on the page. I believe one sentence referred to a "crowning achievement." Again, I didn't write the page, but the opportunity to edit it to satisfy language requirements was never offered either. I stated, rightly I think, that any living notable's page could be considered advertising. It's a matter of the words used in the person's description, and words can be edited.

Within the body of my work, there are many references to Wikipedia. I have been a staunch and outspoken proponent of the process since the beginning, always defending Jimmy Wales and you -- the very people who have axed my page. You have a tough, tough job, and I admit that. However, this event has colored my view of things, because it appears that here, like everywhere, human nature trumps procedure in administering justice. I believe my page was hastily steamrolled, because you were offended by this alleged "walled garden of spam" -- a serious, serious accusation made on the basis of appearance alone.

I ask that the page please be undeleted, at least so that it can be edited to pass muster. Thank you very much. -TerryHeaton (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already been restored to a sandbox for you to work on, back on the 25th. As it stands, User:TerryHeaton/Terry Heaton is completely unacceptable, as it reeks of the presskit, full of fulsome praise and bizarre assertions of importance. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Though I generally agree with orange mike about the merits of the article I am happy to help you appeal the deletion if you like. We can't restore the article here, but if you wish I can copy this post to deletion review and start a community appeal process there. I understand some of this feels bureaucratic at times, but I hope we can make the entire process more transparent to you. Protonk (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

TerryHeaton (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)OrangeMike and Protonk, thank you for your help. Again, I apologize for my clumsiness. Is it permitted for me to edit "my" page? How do I go about doing this? What kind of help can I provide? And, Mike, "restored to a sandbox" is Greek to me, totally. I love your language, but what is a "bizarre assertion of importance," especially if it's made by somebody else? Just as you assert that the prose of that page was over-the-top, so do I feel that your use of such drama is likewise a bit much. The difference, of course, is that you're in charge. And again, you must understand how uncomfortable it is for me to be even asking for this consideration, and I wouldn't be doing if the page hadn't been up for so long pumping out Google Juice for the world to see. Thanks again for your trouble and your help.

TerryHeaton (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Okay, I just clicked on the link to the "sandbox," and I've got to tell you that I agree with what's been said about the page. It's been so long since I read the thing, and I've been influenced by this dialog. I'll spend a couple of days with it and remove or validate the claims. Thanks again. Terry

• User:Arctic Night · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Ah - I would like my userpage back now please :) Deleted under

Done. — ξ^xplicit 07:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arctic Night/To do · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Deleted under

Done, technically, but was deleted seconds later before I had a chance to remove the speedy tag. Discussing with deleting admin. — ξ^xplicit 07:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Arctic Night 07:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arctic Night/Douglas R. Archer · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

• User:Arctic Night/Designspace · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

• User:Arctic Night/SBTemp · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Done all three. Ignore this edit summary, completely messed up. My bad. — ξ^xplicit 07:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! Arctic Night 07:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Salmon burger · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I recall looking at this before and adding a source. The topic has some merit and so I would like it back to develop further. -Colonel Warden (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Tikiwont (talk

) 08:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• User talk:Arctic Night/Archive 1 · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

• User talk:Arctic Night/Archive 2 · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

• 13Bit_Productions · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

they created five feature films, two of them on significant historical issues, and sponsor an interesting parade. why are they less significant than others? why was this deletion not even discussed by the community? why is this process subject to the whims of one person? -67.250.44.160 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• administrator who implemented the deletion request. If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.. However, the admin who deleted the page is a regular here, and he may leave his own comment. My read of the deleted page is that it meets the speedy deletion criteria. If you like I can email you a copy of the page or if you create an account I can move a copy to your userspace. Protonk (talk
  ) 21:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Performance_(band) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

unfair deletion, the article was written following guidelines for band pages and had references about notability -NikoDisorder (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It had a couple of minor references, but where was the

BWilkins ←track

) 10:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe i should have added more if i was left the time to do it. But about the band notability, criteria 7 was met, Peformance was the band that relanched the electropop scene in Manchester there's lots of reviews to read here: http://www.music-dash.co.uk/bands/artist.asp?ID=Category&artist=681 About criteria 2, i'm sure that at least their single "Surrender" which was released on major label

Polydor has been on the UK music chart but i'm having a hard time retrieving a source for this. The notability of the band is also made of the notabilty of its members, Joe Stretch is a writer and has published two novels, Joseph Cross is a producer and have worked, among others, on the first album of Hurts one of the currently best selling band in Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_(Hurts_album). What can i add more to help? NikoDisorder (talk

) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Proper

BWilkins ←track

) 10:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• BBC : "Having caused a storm when they blasted onto the local scene three years ago, they soon found themselves with a hefty record deal from a big label (...) they have finally produced an album befitting of a band who were championed by the NME and Peter Hook amongst others when they first appeared." (Peter Hook from Joy Division and New Order) http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2007/06/14/140607_performance_feature.shtml

• Manchester Evening News : "As the doorman says, 'It's a signed band tonight,' so six pounds is the cover to gain an audience with Manchester darlings, Performance, and it's a suitably small example of their gradual rise to fame." http://www.citylife.co.uk/music/reviews/14700_performance___music_box

• The Times : "Joe Stretch, singer with the newly signed Manchester band (We Are) Performance, is also a lecturer in modern literature and the pop lyric at Keele. He maintains that universities have a new role as guardians of pop" http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article5523220.ece

• The Guardian : Performance is a guest star of a music tour along with Peter Hook and Mike Joyce from The Smiths http://www.guardian.co.uk/enjoy-england/competition/manchester-music-tour

Furthermore, Joseph "Joe" Cross could fill the criteria to have his own wikipedia page as a musician because of his work as a composer and producer for The Sound of Arrows and Hurts and remixer for other major artists. Joe Stretch already have a wikipedia page. So it would lead to the kafkaesque situation where two member of a band are notable enough to deserve a page on wikipedia but not the band itself...

Would these sources be enough?

NikoDisorder (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The deletion was under CSD A7, which is outside the scope of this page. Please try discussing it with the deleting admin, Eagles247 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and, if your concerns are not addressed, you may request WP:Deletion review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)