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. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
The article provides clear information about the ISTQB foundation level, no marketing information was provided, but only concrete information about the topic. Similar information is available in ISTQB official material. This information is relevant for the users and they should have the opportunity to read about the specific topic in an article and not only read about a generic article on ISTQB levels. - Lmgamaral ( talk) 14:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
prod - Nakurio ( talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I want Mike Dalton (wrestler) to be undeletet because i think he is notable, he has won the FCW Heavyweight Championship. He is one of the upcoming stars for WWE. Which sets him in the spotlight. I wash´t the original writer of the article but i want to have all wwe personnel in wiki, as they are people of major interest. And the deleted article might help me to safe some time, I can add reliable sources if that was the major problem. If it is worth it to review it and edit it. thanks for checking this request -- Nakurio ( talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the article i work on it how many time i got till the timer fades?-- Nakurio ( talk) 06:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Article about notable show was deleted by User:Fastily as G6 without discussion. The show should have an article on Wikipedia. -RJaguar3 | u | t 17:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
A serious problem of personality clashes between deletion editors and creator of page. Deleted without addressing merits of page. Page is agreeable with wikipedia policy; personality is notable------ "first black writer....first African to write science fiction epic, also sources were checked. Investigate deleting editor for reprimand. Even if original creator is punished, re-edit page per wikipedia policy. -- Intoheaven ( talk) 20:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Personal clashes between deletion editors and original creator of page. Deleting editor did not address any of the issues for supporting a page on Ken Sibanda; "first black writer or first African " to write science fiction book. The subject is notable given South African history as per discussion; punish creator of page --- not subject.-- Intoheaven ( talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Undelete:
I disagree: multiple accounts is not grounds to punish both the article and the creator -- thats just a convinient excuse. Again, there is definately something going on here; the good news is that God will eventually shed a light onto this. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.154.110 ( talk) 17:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe there was enough discussion except by the nominator when this article was deleted. There were enough references to show that this company was a notable one. I can add more references if that will be helpful. But I would need the content to be restored so I can do that. - Nrx2010 ( talk) 05:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
reasoning - 117.198.138.35 ( talk) 08:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see the following references: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/mission-impossible-4-ghost-protocol-mi-4-mission-impossible/1/164476.html http://m.economictimes.com/PDAET/articleshow/5117663.cms http://www.indiajournal.com/?p=20471 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LB10Df01.html
reasoning - Kunalgadahire ( talk) 14:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Why you have deleted my page Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini. The web page which contains our content had steal the content from our officila website www.rmponweb.org. We own the full rights to this content.
reasoning - 75.150.154.110 ( talk) 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Undelete
What is the relationship between the deleting editor and the creator of this page. Seems personal at this point, don't agree that this is unnotable.
I already have collected all of the needed links - Senso m ( talk) 10:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.theacms.in/detail.php?deptId=91&empId=260&action=emp - Hiltrack ( talk) 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Monchy Y Nathalia is the continuation of the band called Monchy Y Alexandra; therefore we copied the same general information and replaced the information that needed change e.g. name of the band and name of the record label. We are looking forward to working with you to restore Monchy Y Nathalia, because as of now when you go to Monchy Y Nathalia Wiki, you can only access Monchy Y Alexandra that that could cause irreparable harm to the new group. All of the information provided is verifiable. Please advice. - Terramusic ( talk) 22:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Request to userfy. The article was deleted under A7 and I'd like to fix it up. - -alfredofreak- 05:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone removed the non-free rational, the file was then put to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 18#File:Seoul 1988 Olympics logo.svg and deleted. The file shouldn't have been deleted, the non-free rational should have been restored. - Svgalbertian ( talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
could not respond in time to the Speedy Deletion notice - Kgashok ( talk) 18:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
reasoning - Lilmozo 5 ( talk) 23:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I just want to ask this girl to prom! I'll delete it soon myself!
reasoning - Volley36 ( talk) 02:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I am a Civil-Law Notary and added a section on presentment of Postal Orders, as the US Government is currently forwarding a fraud against money order issuers per it's publication at https://www.usps.com/shop/money-orders.htm which says both domestic and international postal orders are negotiable outside the US and it's possessions, which is a fraud.
My presentment section addressed this current defect in North American (US and Canada Postal Orders) Postal Orders, as there are caveats on presentment that apply to both US citizens unaware of this intentional fraud by USPS and Canadians who are used to their Postal Orders being accepted in the states IF made payable in USD.
I agree placement could be an issue, but to put such information only under US is unfair to the Canadians that are impacted by the fraud (I discovered this fraud by being a victim of it). The website is clear and unambiguously fraudulent as to presentment, and misleads consumer/issuers.
I would welcome better or more high-profile placement regarding the fraud inherent in US Postal Orders - my only question is where better to place it. It covers at least North America, and given the issue, I imagine it is a topic that can be enlarged to include other geographic areas (nations) as well.
I would like to try to fix the problems - Camhall61 ( talk) 16:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Originally deleted because the editor felt the article was advertising, also questioned copyright on our school logo.
Request to userfy. The article was deleted under A7 and I'd like to fix it up. Avihu ( talk) 12:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
reasoning: I was on of the passenger involved in the crash. This page is the only one I found available on the web where to have the confirmation that the crash happened. The article is accurate, the dynamic of the crash quite true (I would add we slide for nearly 2km upside-down). So I don't know why someone would like to delete this article. Please keep it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.74.86 ( talk) 07:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This page was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 as not being notable, and also for having no sources, when in fact, the article describes a major work of Adolf Loos, a notable architect, and did have sources (albeit improperly formatted sources). I was in the process of cleaning up the article and properly formatting the sources when it was deleted. I request undeletion so that the original contributor may be properly attributed. - WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
MDRC is a 40 year old non-profit organization supported by foundations that studies ati-poverty programs.(www.mdrc.org) The deleted article was general information about MDRC's history and work. The reason given for the deletion was "unambiguous advertising". Given that we do not sell anything or seek donations from the public this seems completely erroneous. Perhaps the page was defaced before deletion? I can't tell since the page and it's history are gone. Peer organizations such as The Urban Institute, and the Brookings Institution have articles similar to the one deleted about MDRC. There are also articles about programs we have studied (Opportunity NYC) and one of our past presidents (Judith Gueron). I think the deletion was erroneous and should be reversed. - Bmnpetrie ( talk) 17:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
objection to "lack of notability" - TvF ( talk) 18:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
(Originally, I addressed the following to user:fastily (who deleted the page), but was advised that he/she is currently inactive and that I should take the request here)
Hi,
I was reading in the German wikipedia, switched to the English one and saw that the article I wanted to read was deleted. As I had previously not been familiar with the deletion process, I looked it up. The page was deleted for "No indication of notability". I would object on two arguments:
1)
a) "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."
Intershop (then called NetConsult) in 1994 created arguably the first e-commerce software available (see
Online shopping) and continued to be one of the leading software developers for this early time of the market (cf.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NetConsult's+INTERSHOP+Online+Virtual+Storefront+Software+to+be...-a018936058)
b) "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject."
Independent coverage (over the last 13 years) does exist:
http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/handel-dienstleister/new-economy-veteran-intershop-strebt-nach-neuer-groesse/3477040.html,
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/aktien/new-economy-intershop-ein-verblassender-schatten-der-vergangenheit-141633.html,
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/new-economy-der-entzauberte-mythos-115512.html, ... and many more
Intershop has also been notorious for its New Economy bubble - being one of the prime examples for it in Germany (company value rose to 11 billion USD in 2000 only to fall to penny stock levels in very short time, see
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuer_Markt ). So it even is interesting from a historical point of view (even used in schools:
http://www.schulportal-thueringen.de/web/guest/media/detail?tspi=1195).
see also
http://www.insead.edu/v1/projects/cgep/Research/Industrystudies/Computer/Intershop.pdf,
http://dimetic.dime-eu.org/dimetic_files/Buenstorf%20Fornahl%20JEE%20Intershop.pdf,
http://books.google.de/books?id=nbSNQFjAgTkC&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=intershop+%22new+economy%22&source=bl&ots=dICjmRO0po&sig=vhKmsOkZsTevDMrHL7Wvsjp9-Qc&hl=de&sa=X&ei=JcN0T5OSFYiPswbplsDSDQ&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCDgo#v=onepage&q=intershop%20%22new%20economy%22&f=false,
http://books.google.de/books?id=nbSNQFjAgTkC&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=intershop+%22new+economy%22&source=bl&ots=dICjmRO0po&sig=vhKmsOkZsTevDMrHL7Wvsjp9-Qc&hl=de&sa=X&ei=JcN0T5OSFYiPswbplsDSDQ&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCDgo#v=onepage&q=intershop%20%22new%20economy%22&f=false
2) Other, very similar, pages for companies with much less significance still exist. For example, see
Demandware, a company from the same segment, with about the same revenue, and with the same founder. Compared to the German article on Intershop (to which the English one was probably very similar before deletion), it has even less depth. And most of the sources are in fact quoting articles from the local paper rephrasing press-releases by the company or its customers.
I think this should be enough reason for undeletion.
I suppose the article itself lacks quality (the German one does), but that is another matter.
Regards,
TvF
This page documented the architecture of an obsolete but popular computer system and programming environment (language, OS, and hardware) from the 1970's and 1980's. Suitability is by precedent: other systems, less obscure, are documented fully in wikipedia (C programming language, UNIX, and Sun for example). Popularity (or lack thereof) of a an article covering a tangible, physical artifact (that actually sold hundreds of millions of units) should not be cause for deletion. - Clintp ( talk) 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The original article was deleted due to a lack of notability. I think this is not right, even the notability may not be shown in the citation yet. I would like to add some sources to the article for this. The d3web software is widely used in defense, healthcare and machinery area. Being an OEM backend component, many people are not aware of this software. This does not make the software less relevant. - 82.113.106.93 ( talk) 05:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Previous revisions were deleted under AFD. However, current version is more well-written and well-referenced. This is "History undeletion" request. - George Ho ( talk) 11:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I need to know a brief bio of Brian Redban for a project on the use of blogging and social media as a tool for self promotion in the professional world - 88.87.178.208 ( talk) 19:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I missed the original PROD & would like to add sources to prove notability - sephia karta | dimmi 22:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 30, these BBC logos are possibly non-free in the UK. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
this article is based upon a number of encyclopaedia entries I have written in the past few years on this topic and so can be said to be authoritative (I can provide references if necessary). I am one of the originators of this field of work. The article included links to game theory and other aspects of 'soft OR' which are important. A new article has appeared under the heading of 'confrontation analysis' ostensibly covering the same ground but the two subjects are in fact distinct. - Dramaturgid ( talk) 08:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
As unusual as it is to request undeletion for an AFD that was G6'd, I would like this to be userfied to me for archival purposes after the April Fools shenanigans for 2012. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC) - Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This image was deleted as "non-free". However, per commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright status of "The Simpsons" logos (Or commons:Special:Search/Copyright status of "The Simpsons" logos prefix:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/04 if archived), this image in ineligible for copyrights in the United States. I wonder if this can be transferred to Wikimedia Commons without prejudice. If not, maybe this local copy can be undeleted and then kept as a "local copy". - George Ho ( talk) 20:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Please userfy. Article was deleted here [1] and a new version created last year. I would like to compare the deleted and current versions. -– Lionel ( talk) 04:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I just don't understand why Orangemike deleted this article while there were some sources (including serious/notorious French sources) and the article clearly explained how it was notorious enough to have a WP article (including the fact that this organization has been created as a consequence of the worldwide success of March of the Penguins). He also seems to have ignored the existence of the French interwiki, where it's far more developped and referenced. Moreover, a speedy deletion doesn't appear to be the right procedure for such a case. Please restore and launch a DR. Thanks. -- TwoWingsCorp ( talk) 17:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC) - TwoWingsCorp ( talk) 17:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I have just add a new artist album from 2012 and a new, updated official photo! - Floringrozea ( talk) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to restore this article. I did not create this page, but I was the main contributor. It has been deleted on 11 March 2012 and the reason was: Expired PROD, concern was: Promotional biography of a non-notable individual. After the restoration of the article I will fix the reason for deletion taking into consideration all Wikipedia requirements. - Dezvoltaredurabila ( talk) 09:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 30, all BBC logos are possibly non-free. Even if "BBC America" logo is ineligible in the US, BBC logos are still intellectual property of the BBC in the United Kingdom. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I am a Science Fiction author with 8 books in print. Why was my entry deleted? - SANDIABLONDE38 ( talk) 19:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Please undelete and move to my userspace at User:Pmsyyz/609th Air Communications Squadron so that I can work on show notability/expanding/sourcing it. Thank you. - Pmsyyz ( talk) 04:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I couldn't remember how long it was when it was deleted. -- Pmsyyz ( talk) 07:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In the six months or so since this article was deleted, the NewSQL topic has gained significant momentum in the database world. NewSQL has been the topic of numerous independent blog posts and trade articles subsequent to the original research article published by noteworthy technology analyst firm The 451 Group. Please refer to the following independent articles on the NewSQL topic:
http://blogs.the451group.com/information_management/2011/04/06/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-newsql/ http://blogs.the451group.com/information_management/2011/04/15/nosql-newsql-and-beyond/ http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2011/04/the-newsql-movement.php http://www.nosqldatabases.com/main/2011/4/7/hybrid-rdbms-systems-now-coined-newsql-databases.html http://www.unbreakablecloud.com/wordpress/2011/05/22/newsql-databases-cloud-are-made-for-each-other/ http://www.bloorresearch.com/analysis/11734/nosql-newsql.html http://www.springsource.org/node/3484 http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/46932/1954 http://www.quora.com/If-NewSQL-systems-work-as-advertised-then-why-should-anyone-use-a-NoSQL-DB http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/04/newsql http://gigaom.com/cloud/is-stonebraker-right-why-sql-isnt-the-choice-du-jour-for-many-apps/ http://highscalability.com/blog/2011/4/16/the-newsql-market-breakdown.html http://web-app.usc.edu/soc/syllabus/20121/30383.pdf http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/238728/newsql_could_combine_the_best_of_sql_and_nosql.html
It is also noteworthy that classes in NewSQL are now being taught in Universities such as Brown and USC. NewSQL has clearly moved from the realm of a neologism and is rapidly emerging as an important topic in the database software realm. The NewSQL community includes some of the world's leading database authorities, including Dr. Michael Stonebraker and James Starkey, and it includes representation from noteworthy software vendors such as Microsoft and VMWare. NewSQL is as relevant to the database world as NoSQL, a topic that enjoys appropriate coverage on Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for considering my request to restore this article on Wikipedia. - Fholahan ( talk) 23:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
reasoning - 69.143.122.124 ( talk) 22:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
reasoning - Kazuya35 ( talk) 03:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Requesting userfication for possible restoration; the band charted a hit single. - Chubbles ( talk) 05:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
reasoning - 49.204.157.103 ( talk) 08:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Steve Oliver is a very notable smooth jazz guitarist. Article was speedily deleted. - ANDROS1337 TALK 15:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G11
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G12
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G4
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/U5
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G10
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G5 Note that Wikipedia's notability policy requires that a subject's article be sourced to multiple reliable sources that discuss him in depth, and/or that he releases a charting single. — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and this was my first page. I appreciate I may have posted it without adding every possible piece of text. There is a considerable account to be told about the history of the church, its building, the involvement with the local community including the asylum seekers and refugees among whom lives were literally saved. This page augments the information carried in two existing pages produced by other people. It seems to me that the page already had more information and notability than a comparable page, say that of the Leeds Atheist Society and so I am puzzled as to why such an influential local organisation is seen as not notable. Does it need further text added before being returned to live status? - AHoseason ( talk) 18:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
AHoseason ( talk) 18:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G11
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G12
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G4
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/U5
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G10
User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G5 Please note that the existence of Article X can't be used in any way to justify the existence of your article, and that all pages must pass our notability policy on their own merits. That said, while the page can't be restored to it's former location, an admin will likely be more than happy, assuming the text is not a copyright infringement, to restore it to a subpage of your userspace (Say, User:AHoseason/Washington Church of Christ) so that you can continue working on it without fear of it being deleted. Would this work for you? — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It sounds better than nothing. I am wary that, having spent 20 hours work just to find the page arbitrarily destroyed, that I am cautious about investing further valuable time when "anyone" can take a decision to remove it again without any discussion with me. AHoseason ( talk) 22:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
There were several participants in the AFD, and all voted for delete. Nevertheless, one of them suggested a task force. I wonder if this request is uncontroversial. - George Ho ( talk) 04:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
player meets WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a fully pro league the Scottish Premier League in season 2007/08. Source [2]. Should there be any reason this cant be restored would an admin userfy this for me. Thanks in advance. - Edinburgh Wanderer 17:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. GB fan 17:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This new article about a very notable BLP subject was tagged for speedy deletion by user: Andrew Kurish [ [3]]
Approximately 2 minutes later it was then deleted by user Jimfbleak. [ [4]]
The editor who first tagged the article has subsequently very graciously acknowledged on my Talk page that the deletion certainly should not have happened that speedily.
" the article should not have been deleated that quickly under the BLPPROD tag that I placed on it"
And -as readers will see - it should not actually have happened at all.
The reason that the editor who tagged it gave for tagging the article was:
"all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article".
As a very seasoned Wikipedia editor I couldn't agree more.
The reason that the admin who deleted it gave for deleting the article was:
"Unambiguous advertising or promotion: unsourced biography of a living person"
If that WERE the case - I couldn't agree more.
AHEM
It isn't the case.
With all due respect to the two editors - the article cited no less than 18 references to major respected sources such as the Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, the New York Daily News, the official websites of the Kennedy Center, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (confirming the multiple Emmy awards) and HBO. The subject of the article is also clearly notable by all Wikipedia standards for BLP. Exactly as the subject's father and grandfather are notable and are covered by Wikipedia articles. The father's notability is for many of the same Emmy awards that contribute to the notability of the subject of this new article.
The Edit Summary I provided when I posted the article made clear that i would soon be adding more information and additional references (over and beyond the 18 mjor references already cited). In other words the article - which was already far more substantial than many Stub articles of BLP subjects - was just in its infancy. Albeit a substantially cited and referenced infancy. Infanticide is not appropriate in this instance. There are a vast number of BLP articles on Wikipedia that have ZERO cited references - let alone 18 respected reliable references.
Given all the above, I respectfully request that the article should be immediately reinstated. Thank you Davidpatrick ( talk) 19:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The rules governing Speedy Deletion include (pertinent emphasis added)
Thank you Davidpatrick ( talk) 19:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Done; please format your citations from inline; that is probably what threw the earlier admin off. This is not an endorsement of the article, which might still be deleted due to prod or afd. NB:This was added after an edit conflict, I have not read your addition. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I request undeletion of this image for the article " Give Me a Ring Sometime". Shall it be used for the infobox or the Casting section? - George Ho ( talk) 06:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
reasoning - Brianbjparker ( talk) 14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
This article was deleted before I could make a backup copy due to concerns that the list of subjects given was under copyright by ACM, which I considered to be an over-reaction-- similar articles such as
ACM Computing Classification System similarly list ACM subject classifications.
In any case, I have since confirmed with ACM copyright clearance that this usage in wikipedia is ok and have emailed this email correspondence to permissions-en at wikimedia.org.
Brianbjparker (
talk)
14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I need that page again. --- Toshio Yamaguchi ( tlk− ctb) 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
reasoning - Bparslow ( talk) 14:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
This section on road safety, was the result of established research in 1986, when 3 AA (UK) personnel were killed on the hard shoulder, while helping a motorist. The suggestions were adopted by the AA and police forces. They were also adopted by the many people who have attended my courses. The results have also been published [1]. It is difficult to report negative results, but it safe to assume that it has saved hundreds of lives.
It is surely a valuable contribution to road safety, which should not be deleted.
1. ^ Parslow, B & Wyvill, G Seeing in 3-D, Course 42, SIGGRAPH 2001, Los Angeles
reasoning - Bparslow ( talk) 14:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In this article, my advice on how to avoid being killed have been deleted. It has given the opportunity to give all the ways in which, authorities can change the road layout to avoid crashes, but has removed the most important advice to driver about to turn across traffic. The problem was expounded in an article in what is now called The Guardian, and this advice appears in the papers of SIGGRAPH 2001 [1}
Surely it is not the policy of Wikipedia, to delete advice that can save lives.
1. ^ Parslow, B & Wyvill, G Seeing in 3-D, Course 42, SIGGRAPH 2001, Los Angeles
Article was deleted without discussion. It had been a useful article for several years. It included details of a notable lawsuit (sued by Blendtec for tens of millions of dollars for copyright infringement.) The company produces by far the most popular and well-known high-performance blender/juicer units. I have no connection to the company (I don't even admire them now due to their copyright infringment), but I spent a lot of time on the article at one point (on the lawsuit) and I feel it should not have been deleted, and that the company more than meets WP guidelines for notability. The article was still a stub -- if someone wanted it to be expanded, it should have been tagged, not deleted. The deletion amounts to censorhip in my mind because it removes details about the copyright lawsuit which Vitamix famously lost. EDIT: I notice now via Google's cache that the article had a PROD tag which I did not see because I hadn't checked my WatchList for quite a while. I do agree, looking at that last version, that the intro to the article sounds like an ad and that stuff needs to be weeded out and redone. But the Legal Disputes section of the article is important, accurate, well-referenced, and encyclopedic. I think that alone, even beyond the company's decided notability, merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Softlavender ( talk) 05:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC) - Softlavender ( talk) 05:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)