Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 13

Administrator instructions

Danny Galm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

played in a fully pro league meanwhile. 92.74.93.113 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, any evidence to go along with that? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How did we get the rule that someone has to have played in a professional team rather than simply be part of one to be notable? Discussion probably. Does anyone know where that discussion is located? I think the Athlete guidelines are flawed and knowing how they came into existence would go a long way to get something better in place. (It's still possible for someone to be notable and still not get a separate article because there's too little to say. Inclusion guidelines need more nuances that give options for merging and stuff like that.) - Mgm|^(talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

first pro league match was on Feb 5th 2009, where he played for Stuttgarter Kickers against Fortuna Duesseldorf. One other match followed. See German kicker magazine: [1] --94.216.100.170 (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete per the AFD closure saying that the deletion was until he started a match. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per Stifle's reasoning.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per above. Note that the closing admin said "If he ever plays, drop me a message and I'll restore it", and since they are still actively editing it might be easier to leave a message on their talk page rather than coming here. Hut 8.5 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Socotra Rock.png – closed as page nominated 1) is on Commons, not this project and 2) has never been on this project. This is likely an error in the nomination, but we can't review the intended page without knowing what it is. If the Commons page is intended, discussion needs to occur on Commons, not here. – GRBerry 19:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Socotra Rock.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) orphaned map image, no specific article provided Yeahsoo (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion.This map was just a cut and paste from some map, and marked with EEZ area with no resources provided.--Yeahsoo (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep Are we looking at the same image? When I looked at the page it contained the name of the original image showing exactly where it came from. As long as the original has a free license, it's perfectly okay to make something else from it. - Mgm|(talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Can the nominator please clarify this listing? The image mentioned is on Commons and has never existed here, the FFD discussion link goes to yesterday's log (which isn't closed yet) and the image isn't listed there, and it's unclear whether it is requested to delete or undelete an image. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Furthermore, the nominator has endorsed the deletion of whatever deleted image he presumably intended to nominate for DRV. Recommend closure of this DRV; the nominator can relist a valid one when he figures out what he wanted to list. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn We should keep the image as it obviously is not orphaned as per the "Used in" list referencing the Socotra Rock page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThymeCypher (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn Originality of images is somewhat a slippery slope - aren't all photographs "original" to the photographer, drawings to the drawer, and maps to the mapmaker? There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Fab Four (tribute) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This new page I put up was totally revamped from the previous one, and I added at least a dozen reliable sources and more information to show exactly why this notable band deserves to be on Wikipedia. My original page was deleted over a month ago and I understand why, but according to this page a user is allowed to put up a page again if they "find more evidence to prove the notability of your article," which is exactly what I did. I also had another admin look at the article before I posted it, and they said it was fine. The admin who deleted my page, Accounting4Taste stated that my page was deleted just because it had been deleted before. I feel like he/she didn't take any time to look and see how much different/improved this new article is. The new article had been up for almost a week with no complaints, so I really think that it should be restored. Thank you. LindsayG0430 (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute, was essentially a snowball delete decision on the grounds of lack of notability. Several established editors took part and the decision, closed just over a month ago, was pretty much unanimous. Not everyone at DRV has access to deleted data and if you could provide the new sources which you feel establish that this subject meets requirements, it would do a great deal to help your case. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 22:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion Restore In the original deletion debate the band was deemed non-notable because most of the sources pointed to the band's own website. Since that issue is handled in the recreation, I don't think G4 applies here. Either it should stand uncontested or it should be properly discussed again. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For reference, the sources in the new version are as follows: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. I haven't gone back and looked at these yet, just copied them out of the last edit of the new version so people can evaluate them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I endorse my own closure of the previous AFD, but would overturn and relist this as the new page overcame the main issue in that AFD, which was the lack of third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand why you haven't, then?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the most recent deletion was by Accounting4Taste. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, that makes sense.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and relist. I don't think "overturn" is quite the right word because Accounting4Taste's deletion was correct but now we have new information.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about "overturn", but I don't see the need to relist either. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn speedy per above and relist if desired. Hobit (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palringo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reasons are no longer valid. ~

I have made a copy of a new version of the Palringo article in my namespace: User:ThymeCypher/Palringo I believe the article should be allowed to exist now, as the reasons for deletion are no longer valid.

One reason was that the product was non-notable, and that is no longer true as this product now has over 1,000,000 unique registered users all over the world. The second reason was that the article was written as an advert, and I have tried my best to make my copy not as such. ThymeCypher 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation but Not with that content, three of the sentences start with "Palringo is currently the most versatile instant messaging client available", "Palringo is unique in the fact that" and "Unique to Palringo, it also offers a technology called Palringo Local". The article with current content is not WP:NPOV and gives WP:UNDUE attention to what great functions it offers users. The sources are four links to the subject website and one to a month old custom computer website. Demonstrating WP:N in WP:RS shouldn't be hard though given articles on voip news and cnet. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with it given the rewrite. Move it on in. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Relist Updated the article in my namespace to be hopefully more compatible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThymeCypher (talk • contribs)
• Permit recreation Improved enough to stand. The CNET ref. in particular is a good source. DGG (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation (and undelete the history if relevant). Now improved enough. (I do think the article should explain it's a walkie-talkie concept perhaps compare it to Skype or something. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - proposed article is well referenced using reliable sources, and written neutrally. Can't see a problem with it. waggers (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Grace (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I would like you to restore the article Alexis Grace based on the discussions here Talk:American_Idol_(season_8)#Alexis Grace contestant page deletion. and here User talk:Fritzpoll#Alexis Grace. and here User talk:Fritzpoll#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination). and here User talk:Jauerback#Alexis Grace. Thank you. 23prootie (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination). No indication has been presented as to how the deletion process was not correctly followed. Note: this was at DRV on February 28th where the snow keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace was overturned. Fritzpoll's closure was correct. The nomination may misleadingly suggest that users are in general agreement that the article should be restored and this is a mere procedural rubber-stamping step, but this is not the case. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Gross mis-application of ONEEVENT. Most importantly, suitable sources exist, starting with http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/feb/16/14idolweb/. There are no apparent grounds for BLP concerns. A season on american idol is not *one* event, but a season of events. Starring as a finalist on american idol is far beyond a mere "event". AfD1 and AfD2 are at extreme odds, and AfD looks more like a "no consensus", with the closer opining on policy (erroneously at least in part, WP:BIO is NOT policy), and without reference to the most important thing that guides our editing - the sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Request: Aspects (talk · contribs) has requested that this article be userfied (the request was made at yesterday's DRV). I am merging it with this request as it will be moot if this DRV undeletes the article. If it does not, the closing admin should consider the userfication request. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete history, retain redirect While it is perfectly acceptable and in fact common practice to redirect talent show contestants that haven't done anything outside the show, deleting the history was entirely unneccesary and only makes it harder to create a proper article in the event she does expand beyond the show. If repeated recreation is an issue, the redirect can be protected. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural question—Are we evaluating the totality of the discussions on this, or only the close of this particular AfD?—I think Fritzpoll's close was a correct reading of the consensus if we're taking into account all the relevant discussions (including particularly the 28th February DRV where good points were raised). I think it was not a correct reading of the consensus if we're only taking into account the second AfD. My preferred outcome is the one Mgm suggests.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose undeletion many anon users would recreate the article, in fact it is create protection. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment American Idol contestant pages tend to be stable. The only thing that struck a nerve was deleting the article.--23prootie (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anon users can't create articles. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, Fritzpoll has explained his closure of the AfD in a satisfactory way. The basic premise stands that a wikiproject cannot declare guidelines as overruling BLP policy, if there is going to be an exception to the BLP1E policy for American Idol contestants that needs to be discussed at WT:BLP specified in the policy itself. I don't object to an undeletion of the history, my only concern with that suggestion is that this might invite to 3RV wars. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] ([[::User talk:Usrnme h8er|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Usrnme h8er|contribs]]) 15:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the beauty of the article being create protected. No warring. Regular editors can't edit without first discussing it and admins stupid enough to wheelwar are easily dealt with. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons specifically states this:

"If the event is significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article for the person is sometimes appropriate. :Individuals notable for well-documented historic events, for example John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category."

I do believe that Alexis fulfills this criteria given that she is one of the front-runners currently still in the competition in a television show spanning more or less six months watched by at least 20 million people internationally, if the President of Malta has his own article then why not her. (likewise if some Prime Ministers of Italy, like Tommaso Tittoni, Luigi Facta, and Fernando Tambroni, have their own articles despite serving only a few months then why not her)--23prootie (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I looked at the AFD and I don't see anything resembling a consensus for deletion. I respect that the closing admin weighted the arguments and saw delete as more compelling, but at minimum the AFD should have been relisted for additional comment. Townlake (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The relist policy doesn't permit relisting discussions with more than one or two contibutors. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It should if discounting votes during your closure would leave you without any reasonable policy based comments. Also, if there are few comments, 1 votes can make a lot of difference to the outcome. It's quite reasonable to relist if the position isn't abundantly clear or if counting of the votes (after evaluation) doesn't give a clear consensus (and if the consensus is likely to change with additional comments) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Back to my procedural question again, then. There have been a lot more than two contributors to the discussion if we include the first AFD and the Feb 28th DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Stifle - your central point is well taken, though (as you know) policies and guidelines aren't the same thing. Townlake (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete The first AFD was overwellingly to keep. So someone wasn't happy and forum shopped for a different result. I don't think that is how it is suppose to work.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion and endorse Fritzpoll's reasoning in closing the discussion as Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse Deletion as in-process and warranted. Eusebeus (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to no consensous' Really a crazy situation. As described above, this isn't anything close to a ONEEVENT situation. One event doesn't happen over a period of months. Otherwise a whole lot of bands would be ONEEVENT as they are only being covered/reviewed for a single "hot" song and then fade away. IMO this is a case of TOOMAINSTREAMFORMYTASTES.Hobit (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This discussion pretty much moots the deletion of this article.--23prootie (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it matters, I'll be happy to take the article as a Userfy, and improve it according to any instructions the closing admin chooses to leave. (I can't see the article so I don't know if it was just poorly V/RS'd.) But yeah, with that all-contestants bundle-keep, it seems strange to have this singular deletion stand. Townlake (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion well reasoned close by the closer; no wikiproject can make notable that which the community as a whole considers otherwise, lest we have WikiProject Telephone Book determining that having a listing in a telephone directory makes you notable or other shenanigans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the closes mentioned by 23prootie do seem to indicate that we have a general sense of notability about these people. It would be very odd to claim that all of them have notability but this one doesn't. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That gets into an other stuff exists argument. At this point I'd rather concentrate on reintroducing a good article on this subject instead of just saying she gets one because everyone else did. It's a kinda bureaucratic point, but we have to be careful with BLPs; they really do merit individual consideration (as is alluded to in today's bundle keep). Townlake (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Closer inappropriately discounted the comments of several editors, myself included, who pointed out amount of 3d-party press coverage which would be sufficient in almost any other context. Closer gave inappropriate weight to several editors' comments who only objected to Wikiproject criteria and made no effort to address compliance with GNG. Closer inappropriately discounted opinions of those who disagree with his reading of BLP1E -- it is one thing to discount comments not based on policy. But it is wrong to discount votes based on a reasonable policy interpretation held by many editors just because the closer has a different one. BLP1E is being turned into BLPIDONTLIKETHIS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Per WP:BEFORE, obvious redirects and/or merge candidates should be discussed on the article's page. With the protected redirect in place, it is not possible to evaluate the former article on its merits. Repeatedly bringing articles like this to AFD when the search term is so obvious and WP:BEFORE is so clear amounts to forum shopping and should not be encouraged. Neier (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a further aside, WP:BLPDEL specifically says that Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed.. There are other tools in the box besides AFD; and perhaps it is time we started to use them the way they were meant to be used. Neier (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlatPress – Userfied as requested. – Stifle (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
I would like the FlatPress article restored to my UserPage so I may improve it and reconcile the issues that resulted in its deletion. DavidB64 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]  Done at User:DavidB64/FlatPress. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

American College of Pediatricians – Speedy deltion as copyvio endorsed without prejudice towards a new version properly based on sources. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The original deletion request is here. The result was delete, however, I think the deletion request should be reviewed by an administrator. -Axmann8 (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC).[reply] My reading of the Afd close (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_College_of_Pediatricians) is that is was speedy deleted as a copyright violation without prejudice against recreation, without direct copying of copyrighted material. If you try again, start with independent sources, not http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10002&art=162&BISKIT=1249745275 --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion On the grounds that it was copyvio and is a non-notable "think tank" front for right wing causes against abortion and gay rights - a 1 employee one at that according to the Boston Globe. Additionally, please refer to this diatribe left by the requester of this review, User:Axmann8, on my talk page. It's obvious from this user's userpage - covered in nOBAMA and Sarah Palin images - that the user of course has issues with the fact that this conservative article has been deleted. Of course the user obviously felt I have an agenda as well but as I stated at the AFD discussion, it's a non-notable organization. It's not even a college as in "educational" college.. it's a college as in association. If it were a notable organization such as the American Family Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association or American Academy of Pediatrics (notice American Academy of Pediatrics versus American Academy of Pediatricians), then I'd be more than willing to support its inclusion in Wikipedia. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 10:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] The number of employees is irrelevent. The group has several major court cases either active or pending (a quick review showed one before the WV Supreme Court and another in Florida.) It also has a number of people working for/with it. It may only have one "employee" but a lot of non-profit organzations have small staffs who coordinate other activities with groups of volunteers. When I was looking at this case, I was actually leaning towards keep, when I realized it was a copyvio.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. I don't think copyvios should ever be undeleted (recreating a new page is preferable), but in this case i saw no proof of notability. The only sources were the organisation trying to get attention, nothing reliable and indepedant.YobMod 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Speedy deletion seems reasonable enough, although a little unwelcome. Hadn't had a chance to personally check the article for copyvio. The organization is pretty clearly notable, per gnews, gscholar, gbooks searches, and I had added one Boston Globe ref among others mainly on it, which is why I unprodded it prior to the AfD. This DR seems a bit premature, just needs to be restarted as a stub with no copyvio. Of course size and political stance is utterly irrelevant to deletion.John Z (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. Size and political stance are irrelevant. Avoid the copy vio and make it less of an advert, and I have no problem with the recreation of the article. It might go through AfD after recreation, but as far as I am concerned, if it can be recreated without the copyvio then DRV is not necessary.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] (ec)Comment as the closing admin, I have no problem with the recreation of the article... assuming that it avoids the copy vio material. IMHO, articles that are speedily deleted should be recreatable without much fuss---assuming the concern is addressed. The only time, IMO, that DRV of a speedy deleted article should be required is if the author believes the article should be recreated "as is." The problem with this article is that a huge section (40+%) of the article was definitely lifted directly from the College's website and 3 sentences from the intro were possibly lifted from another source. I say possibly because the intro was verbatim what an online dictionary used, but I couldn't determine if the online dictionary was cloning Wikipedia or not. But the entire tone of the article read as an advertisement and as something that was likely copyrighted. Again, my personal feeling is that an argument could be made for keeping the article, but as written, it needed to be deleted. My suggestion to Axmann is to recreate in his user space (or offline) avoid the copyvios/advertising and if it avoids the copyvio issue, I'll be happy to move it back to the mainspace myself. I am a supporter of keeping articles when people are willing to work on them and getting them to a condition worth keeping, but copyvios cannot be allowed. NOTE: This does not mean that the article won't go through AfD and get deleted that way. There were legitimate concerns about the tone, sources, and notability of the group. My speedy is not an indication that it is or isn't notable, but rather a copyvio/blatant advertisement. Fix those, and then we can proceed from there. Normally I would offer to Usify the text, but I can't do that with a copyvio.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Request for speedy closure. Axmann, the person contesting the deletion, has been blocked for a week for disruptive editing. I think it is pretty clear that we can't restore a COPYVIO and I'm fine with the article being recreated so long as it is not an obvious copyvio/advert. I think somebody ought to go ahead and close this DRV, this seems pretty straight forward to me. Axmann can recreate the article without the copyvio, but needs to be aware that unless he can establish independent notability, that the article might be sent to AfD.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I remember seeing this at AFD. Spartacus's actions here have been proper throughout. Nothing more to resolve here. Townlake (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Copyvio is pretty clear-cut. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion as a copyvio. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC).[reply] Endorse deletion as all above, but no objections to recreating a non-violating version. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Cassandra Whitehead (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

I would like to restore Cassandra Whitehead article based on the discussion here. Actually, it was listed in AFD three times. I just want it to undelete the article and retain the redirect page. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article has been deleted per the discussion you linked with a redirect in place that has also been discussed at an RfD initiated by you. Could you therefore clarify what you think is wrong with the AfD or what else you think has changed since? --Tikiwont (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears that the nominator wants a history undelete, and I've no issues with that. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]