Servitor Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) A J Butler ( talk) 02:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm requesting the article be restored to my userspace or emailed to me. It disappeared too fast for me to store a copy.

Azi Vista (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

I REQUEST SOMEONE UNDELETES THE PAGE "AZI VISTA" I BELIVE THIS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN DELETED FOR NOT BEING A REAL PERSON YET HE IS. HE HAS A VIDEO ON YOUTUBE CALLED "DARK SOULED OUTKASTS2 OF HIM WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER SO THERE'S PROVE HE EXISTS! Completing malformed nomination for Azi Vista- Frontman of a emo, metal, alternative band called Azi Vista's Angels. Also written a comic book called 'The Jail Angels'. Artvile was delted A7 by User:Hersfold. Eluchil404 ( talk) 22:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Nobody is claiming he doesn't exist. The deletion was due to: An article about a 'real person', organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. . Corvus cornix _talk 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Weakly endorsing as an A7. If you can tell us that one of the albums came out on a larger label, then feel free to recreate the article. Also, given your username, you might also want to view our policy on conflicts of interest. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, a clear A7, and thanks for pointing out this article as well. Google is not notability, but when googling your name gives 23 results [1], 20 of which are irrelevant to you, it's not looking good. Black Kite 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the A7 deletion. Notability wasn't available at all. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• It's customary to discuss deletions with the administrator who deleted the page before making a listing here — that way, you can get a better understanding of why the page was deleted, or even get it undeleted without the five-day process. I can understand that as a new user, the nominator may have missed that instruction (even though it's displayed twice and bolded). Endorse deletion as a valid A7. Notability first, Wikipedia article second. Verifiable existence is necessary but not sufficient. Stifle ( talk) 08:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Well, to be fair, the author did post on my talk page ( [2])... but it hardly qualifies as discussion. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 18:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, trivially obvious CSD A7. -- Stormie ( talk) 00:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

SUPERPOWER the Movie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Page was deleted by me as a copyvio of this page on September 8. I have received a request to undelete it on my talkpage: by User:71.76.254.143 and by User:SuperpowerTheMovie Since the copyright situation has not, in my opinion, been satisfactorily cleared up, I am bringing it here for comment. — Travis ^talk 19:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Have 'em shoot the WP:OTRS an email, and that'll clear it all up. 'Til that, probably should stay gone. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 19:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• The writer of the review obviously owns the content at the website superpower the movie as she put the copyright disclaimer on there right after you suggested it. She's willing to do anything you want in order to meet your standards. Right now this "banning" or "deletion" or whatever is hurting her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.254.143 ( talk) 11 September 2008
• Note - Okay, I have restored the article. (I would close this discussion, but I can’t seem to find the correct template.) — Travis ^talk 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Microcredit Summit Campaign (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Please bring this page back! The Campaign has an international reach that brings together microcredit practitioners, advocates, educational institutions, donor agencies, international financial institutions, non-governmental organizations and others involved with microcredit to promote best practices in the field, to stimulate the interchanging of knowledge, and to work towards reaching United Nations Development Goals of 175 million of the world's poorest families, especially the women of those families, are receiving credit for self-employment and other financial and business services by the end of 2015 and 100 million families rise above the US$1 a day threshold by 2015. Wiki allows the Campaign to help raise awareness of its goals and activities and helping international organizations find resources they need to improve their efforts at ending poverty through microcredit programs. Microcreditsummit ( talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• It was only speedied, so feel free to create another article on the subject. However, first I highly suggest you take a look at our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest and notability. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 17:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Restore. It sounds as if an inexperience editor neglected to include references from reliable sources. Here is a reference to establish notability which should be added to the article once it is restored: "Microcredit: Moving Women Forward.(Microcredit Summit Campaign)(Brief Article)". UN Chronicle. 22 June 2000. Retrieved 2008-09-11. See also This Google News archive search. -- Eastmain ( talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• It was speedily deleted over four months ago, just recreate an article with proper sources that meets WP:ORG and you're sailing. Stifle ( talk) 08:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Just as Stifle says DGG ( talk) 15:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply

German photography in America (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Clearly, Wikipedia is not the answer for those out there wishing to contribute their knowledge. Another forum needs be found. I will inform the 972 people on my email list. Thankx for being such automatons. 99.8.229.159 ( talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yep, you are spot on, wikipedia isn't for you to contribute your knowledge, very much not so, see no original research and verifiability -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 09:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Why would MZMcride delete German photography in America? By what right? On what intellectual basis? I want to see this page restored. This page represents an immense amount of shared knowledge about photography. It is being maintained conscientously, connecting many threads which already exist within Wikipedia. Every fact has been checked and referenced. This information is useful to anyone concerned with photography or with cultural anthropology. I do believe this seemingly arbitrary deletion deprives Wikipedia users of a valuable intellectual tool. Guaranteed, if the German photography in America page remains deleted, Wikipedia as a university concept has no future. Solo Zone ( talk) 16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Okay, beyond the incivility above (never a good way to get what you want, really), the story here is that this page was moved to List of German-speaking photographers in the Americas, taken to AfD here, and closed as delete by Seicer. No comment otherwise. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 17:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• There was a clear consensus to delete the article via the AFD discussion linked in the previous comment. You shouldn't start a deletion review because you don't like the result of an AFD (only use deletion review if you believe the closing administrator made a mistake in gauging the consensus). - Rjd0060 ( talk) 17:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

anyone is welcome to bring an deletion review if in good faith, and should not be criticized for that, especially when not all the comments at the afd were negative. DGG ( talk) 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I didn't delete the article. I've never read the article. I can't express in words how little I care about whether or not the article exists on Wikipedia. I deleted a broken redirect or two to the article at some point. And Solo Zone, you misspelled my username. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is full of misspellings. You fix them. 99.8.229.159 ( talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a university concept. It is an encyclopedia. Corvus cornix _talk 20:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Suggest userfication (moving to a subpage of the user's userpage) to allow the user to continue to work on the list, or article if it becomes one. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Userify The deleted list contained 80 people , of whom about 30 had WP articles; By our usual standards, a list of people has an implied "notable" meaning "has WP article", so what is necessary for re-creation is to 1/remake it without the other names until you make articles for them. 2/Explain at the top just why German photographers are a special group warranting an article--what makes this a distinctive subject as contrasted with French, Italian, American-born, etc. The reference used may explain that, but you need to explain this to us with exact cites. Whether this ends up as a list or article or both depends on what you do with it, just as Carcharoth says. I apologize that I didn't join the discussion--the non-obvious title led me to not investigate closely. Most of the comments at the AfD were not helpful, making absurd analogies instead of rational arguments. The close was justified, because indeed the article did not show justification for keeping at the time, though the closer's comment "Spectacular fail" seems out of place and snarkish, as were some of the comments there. DGG ( talk) 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. There was a very clear consensus at the AFD discussion. Deletion review is a place to show how the deletion process was not followed, not a place to reargue the same arguments (or advance new ones that do not give new information) on why an article should be kept. The nominator is also reminded that civility and decorum are not optional on Wikipedia, and is pointed to the Wikipedia style guideline on lists and this essay on poor lists. Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, consensus at AfD discussion was unanimous and no reason has been presented as to why the closure was incorrect - just a flurry of insults. -- Stormie ( talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Question - Is "German photography in the Americas" a distinct subject of popular or academic interest? That is, is there enough material in reliable sources about the subject "German photography in the Americas" so that an article can be written about it that does not consist solely of a statement to the effect that "Germans have photographed in the Americas" and a list of photographers? If such an article can be written, then a shortened version of this list would probably belong in that article. If such an article cannot be written, then this list needn't exist. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 01:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Jumeau Dolls (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Hi can any one help me with why my article was deleted back in July

This was about one of the most significant global toy companies prior to the modern era

I am widely published in heritage and museum contexts and have a PhD in art history and work at a senior academic level

but my article was deleted because someone whose main interest/expertise seems to be ice hockey decided that it "does not show much significance"

since then a slightly related article seems to use some of my material

I only do some editing and creation of wikipedia pages - but this was a totally legitimate page at an international level and from a cultural and design history perpective and wonder what qualifications those who thought to delete it had - it seems an act of cowboys, nerds and jocks

I would appreciate some genuine help from the community in restoring a page that had valid factual content and would be useful to anyone researching toys, dolls and childhood

Bebe Jumeau ( talk) 07:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Please note that it's not your page. However, as the deletion was as a result of a proposed deletion, you are entitled to have it immediately restored. Doing so now. Stifle ( talk) 09:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply