Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions or to address the pending deletion of any page.
Shortcuts:

Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all.

This page is only for requesting undeletion of articles or files which have already been deleted. If the article you are concerned about is still visible, but has a warning message (template) at the top, please do not post here, but follow the instructions in the template or on your talk page.

Note that requests for undeletion is not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.

Instructions for special cases

Contents

Copy of User:Leisure Pirate[edit]

Hello, I am requesting a copy of my recently-deleted user page as it went against Wikipedia's No Web Host rules. I simply want to copy the content I posted there- a dozen or so infoboxes I made for personal use, and put them elsewhere as required, probably my Sandbox. I'd be grateful for any assistance given, and I apologize for not abiding by one of the site's rules.

Many Thanks. -Leisure Pirate (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done Sorry, but I can't see what purpose restoring this would serve. Not only that, but a look at the information in the data boxes also shows that aside from the WP:NOTWEBHOST concerns, there's also a bit of vandalism there. I can't see what possible positive use it would be when you link the Adriatic Pact to cumshot. The only possible use I can see is for vandalism purposes and not only is that not allowable on Wikipedia, but it can actually lead to your account getting permanently blocked from editing. Your best bet here is to just accept that the material has been deleted and edit in a beneficial manner from here on out. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Even if this was going to be posted on an outside source, it is still inappropriate for you to create hoax/vandalism infoboxes in any context. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Tokyogirl79: I wouldn't be so harsh. The user's edit history does not show any sign of such vandalism, and the page itself really looks playful more than harmful from what I remember. Imagining virtual polities with different political regimes than historical ones is really a benign game, as is playing with wiki syntax. I'm the one who first notified the user that this did not fit user pages policies, and they acknowledged it immediately. I'd say let the kid have his toy back and play elsewhere, as he politely requested. All signs show this could be a future constructive contributor to Wikipedia, there's no use being too iron-handed here imho. Place Clichy (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I for one can't see why it was deleted in the first place. I see that some of the templates included the user page into mainspace categories and that's how another user noticed the page itself, but other than that annoyance what's the problem? That a userpage has some templates and what-not which would've otherwise gone unnoticed until the end of time? @Leisure Pirate, to you have email enabled? If so, I'll just email you a copy of the page. The better path for all involved would've been to fix the transclusion/category issue and ignore the page. And @Tokyogirl79, don't you think "Your best bet here is to just accept that the material has been deleted and edit in a beneficial manner from here on out" is a bit extreme given the situation? They futzed around with their user page, they weren't generating hoaxes or vandalizing articles. Is this how we treat people who break a rule (under a broad interpretation, IMO) they probably didn't know existed? Protonk (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I can see no good reason for someone to have a userbox created in that manner. The problem is that it's not that they did this once, but several times in the infoboxes. The infobox would show up as linking to various historical events, but would actually be linking to things such as the following: "fail, cumshot, anus, bum, cock, poo, willy" and so on. Why create that? Why create it at all? By most standards that'd be seen as vandalism. I didn't block him because there wasn't really a history of vandalism, but I can't see where he'd really be able to use that in any beneficial manner anywhere on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Maybe he didn't outright state that he was going to try to insert it into one of the articles here on Wikipedia, but it's hard to imagine that this would be used for anything other than vandalism somewhere. We've deleted stuff like this as vandalism and declined to restore them for less than this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm aware of the content of the page. I'm also aware it's a user page, literally the least important and least restricted set of pages on the wiki. And apart from a relatively narrow set of restrictions (which the page didn't really violate, if it was User:Leisure Pirate/Template testing nobody would've batted an eye), we shouldn't waste time policing userspace for venial sins. I wasn't convinced it violated NOTWEB and I'm even less convinced that the user is guilty of vandalism pre-crime. Obviously there's room for disagreement, but imagine that Leisure Pirate just wanted to play with templates. Someone came by and deleted their user page and in asking to have the content restored they were treated like a petulant child who broke a rule and needed to know why they were bad instead of an adult who didn't know we had these rules. If we assume LP is editing in good faith, that's a pretty awful introduction into the community. Protonk (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • More to the point, if you're right and LP was building up these templates in preparation for a spree of hoax edits to european countries, we can just revert the eventual edits to mainspace and block the account. Nothing is really lost by restoring the content and nothing is gained by keeping it deleted (with 570 some edits to infoboxes I bet they've got the hang of it). If they're merely experimenting with templates and linking to fail/cumshot/etc. because it's more fun than not, then all we've accomplished by asserting they're a vandal in training is piss off a member of the community. In the future when someone brings up Wikipedia in conversation, their experience will be "I broke some obscure rule, then got yelled at for making a contrite request to have my page restored." Protonk (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree. If @Tokyogirl79: does not object, I will restore the content to a sub-page of the user's space. I will refrain from trouting, much as I am tempted. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If you promise to watch it like a hawk, go ahead. I just see it as something that'd be inevitably used for trolling. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy Corner[edit]

It is a new article being translated and the game is popular in most regions of China. -杨肇峰 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: A similar article, with the same illustration, was deleted (or rather, turned into a redirect) in 2009 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Corner. I have not time tonight to compare the articles in detail. I will do that tomorrow (unless any other admin likes to decide what to do). JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done The article is sufficiently changed from the earlier one that I think the best course is to restore it and re-nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion to let the community decide. I will wait a week before I do that, to give you some time to improve it. In particular, you need better references to establish WP:Notability, and you need to update the dead links. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Mount of Delta[edit]

Mount of Delta is Owned by Prince Ned Munir Nwoko, He added the name Munir recently when he got converted from Christianity to Islam. His name was mentioned on Arthur Okowa Ifeanyi's page here on Wiki because he lost to Arthur Okowa Ifeanyi in Delta State Nigeria. I am not related to him. I went to visit the mount and loved it, i felt i should let the world know too. I'm new to wiki and i am ready to learn -Listen2star (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. @Listen2star:, this page has not been deleted. Deletion is being discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/Mount of Delta, and that is where you should comment, but read WP:DISCUSSAFD and WP:Your first article first. JohnCD (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Cab 20[edit]

Enter your I don't understand why this page was suddenly deleted. I was simply providing information on a band that recently became known. The significance of the group was many things from the appearing on the show shark tank, their style, and indie sound. The page was also said to have been deleted because of advertising reasons, when all of the articles were unbiased. The page may have been missing references and citations but this is my first shot at creating a wikipedia page and i was learning as i was creating the page. I chose the smaller band of Cab 20 as my first article to work on to introduce myself to the Wikipedia because they are not globally known or massivly critically acclaimed, so it was not like i was messing with George WAshington's page. They are known which is the reason for them having an article but the are small enough that it is approachable for a first time user to edit the articles and add information. I did make sure to check all information provided such as names, times, locations, titles, and people involved. I do have all of their albums and have read numerous interviews before adding information. Please let me know if the reason's above are not reasons for adding to the wiki and if new users are even really allowed the ability to add new pages. here and then click the "Save page" button below -BlakeInDisguise (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Of the speedy deletions this article has, the most recent deletion is a G11. Articles meeting this criterion are generally not undeleted either because they require a complete rewrite or they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. We also can't restore A7s on request for similar reasons. Have you tried going through WP:Articles for creation as opposed to just writing an article from scratch in mainspace? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Nizar typeface[edit]

Article contains general information and why they were deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sultanmaqtari (talkcontribs) 04:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. @Sultanmaqtari: Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your newly-designed typeface - see WP:No original research and the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. You may find some ideas at WP:Alternative outlets. JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/euRathlon[edit]

I, 164.11.203.58, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 164.11.203.58 (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • {{ping|164.11.203.58} Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Fazio Sr.[edit]

I, Brianchristner, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Brianchristner (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Brianchristner: Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim Fazio Sr.[edit]

More Published articles about Jim Fazio Sr. are available to document his career as one of the top golf course designers in the world -Brianchristner (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done - a deleted page with this name does not appear to exist. (but see section above) --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ulterius Technologies[edit]

It's a very neutral company bio, just brief and reserving the page to add more later. -Memally (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will give it another shot that better respects the guidelines as set by the Wikipedia community sometime over the next two weeks. If you have any added advice, I welcome it. Right now we are referenced on journals externally, and patents, charter etc.

sayaka katsuki[edit]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -90.148.254.251 (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Did you try all reasonable forms of capitalisation (incl. allcaps)? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • X mark.svg Not done - it was Sayaka Katsuke (link above updated), and was deleted as a copyright violation, and also as promotional. Wikipedia cannot host copyrighted text, even temporarily, unless a formal copyright release is made, and that is seldom worth doing because copying from a Facebook page is unlikely to make a satisfactory encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lynda Elimon[edit]

I, Naight, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Naight (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


The submission was deleted because I didn't work on it for 6 months. Now, Ms Elimon who has agreed to edit the submission herself; if it can be restored, she will provide information I didn't have when I tried to do the article. -Naight (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment @Naight: Per WP:Auto she should not be editing it. If that is the only reason for the request, it should not be done. If you plan on working on it yourself, it can be done.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Appy Pie Inc[edit]

I, Cxs107, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Cxs107 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Cxs107: Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Athili Venkata Koteshwara Prasanth Babu[edit]

I wish to have the article undeleted because he is the person who is responsible for a company as a Chairman and making a debut film with an experience in film making. I am trying to improve the quality of information by collecting as much as possible with references. I can let you know the reasons if any specific questions raised in favor of deletion. If my reasons are not satisfiable then you have your freedom to delete the page. -Cravihere (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Fascination_location_2014.jpg[edit]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Wizzywikky (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I took this photo. Please undelete it.

@Wizzywikky: We need to know what license you release the image under. See WP:ICTIC. Many editors go with CC-by-SA-3.0 or PD-self, but as the work is yours, you choose the license to release it under. Once you give us a license, we can restore the image with the license you choose. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying @TLSuda:. I'll go with CC thanks. (I'm not really bothered though.)

januarytonight[edit]

I'm not sure if it is my laptop's fault or not, but I am new to Wikipedia and after editing a few pages I have found that I can no longer access my account, which is titled "januarytonight." I was notified after my third edit that one of my edits was deleted, but I was confused as to why. My first and fourth edits are still in place, but whenever I click on my account at the top it tells me the page "Januarytonight" does not exist. I am worried I sourced my fourth edit wrong (I left the source as a single link) and that is what triggered the deletion of my account. At least I believe it has been deleted. I'm truly sorry for immediately editing material without reading into the guidelines, and I will do so promptly. Is there any way my account can be undeleted, if it has been deleted in the first place? -Januarytonight (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Januarytonight: don't worry, your account has not been deleted. Your user page User:Januarytonight doesn't exist, only because you haven't yet put anything there. That page is available for you to say something about yourself and your Wikipedia activities, if you choose, to help communication within the project, but it's up to you. See WP:User pages for more detail. Some more advice on your talk page soon. JohnCD (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/hoccomocco pictures[edit]

I, WilliamPollock, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. WilliamPollock (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @WilliamPollock: Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Slugga[edit]

I, MariuszWolfe, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. MariuszWolfe (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@MariuszWolfe: Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review: please complete it and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Read WP:MUSICBIO for the relevant WP:Notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Encho Jude Ejob[edit]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Encho Brown (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done and will not be done. You are not an international footballer - this was a silly hoax, copied from Neymar with the names changed. In any case, Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself. JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catherine Miller[edit]

I, Katkins indiana, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Katkins indiana (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Katkins indiana: Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sporadic late onset nemaline myopathy[edit]

(This user used the preload form for AFC undeletion, but did not specify the name of the AFC draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) EdirolUA25 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Southwest Arkansas[edit]

The Southwest area of Arkansas is referenced in many existing Wikipedia articles. Outside Wiki, it is referenced by various government agencies and private organizations. -PGWatson (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Surely you jest! No page's ever existed under that title! Are you sure that the page's title is correct, including the namespace prefixes (User:, Wikipedia talk:, etc.)? Also, please do not wikkilink the article name inside the template; the template does that by default. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done - no, I can't find any trace of such an article either, in AfC space, draft space, anywhere. You will have to tell us the exact title of the deleted page you mean, or the name of the account that created it. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

WCWC Legacy Championship[edit]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -JeffAkin (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Was deleted under A&, belief it was about an event, etc. It is about a championship that is tied to s msjor, independent wrestling promotion. Not an event, but part of a regionally televised program.

X mark.svg Not done - this does not seem to be notable enough (see WP:Notability (summary)0 to warrant a stand-alons article. It has been redirected to the main West Coast Wrestling Connection where it can be described. JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Red Door Casino Online[edit]

Could you please explain why the page was deleted I provided content and references as I was building page and recieved first notice before it was finished then I finished page page and now I cannot find the info I provided or coould even save to update all that coding is now gone -Mar Vance (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it fails our notability requirements for businesses, and is thus ineligible to be in an encyclopedia the panda ₯’ 00:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mar Vance: Yes check.svg Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Mar Vance/The Red Door Casino Online. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact Bbb23 (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space. Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and the relevant notability guidelines - articles that are not in compliance will be deleted. JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Special K Software[edit]

I, 72.37.171.196, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 72.37.171.196 (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. This was restored last December after a similar request, but was then left untouched. I will restore it again only if you give a definite assurance that this time you do actually intend to work on it. JohnCD (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Nanowar of Steel[edit]

I can understand why this article was deleted in 2008. But six years later, the band has 3 albums. They have gained a fair amount of notability worldwide among metal fans. The article has 8 interwikis, each having a few references in their own language. Here are some references.

@Dodoïste: Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please update it with references to show how they now meet WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks ! I'll do my best (I'm not a native english speaker and I'm usually editing fr.wiki). Dodoïste (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

groot drakenstein games club[edit]

Groot Drakenstein may be a games club, but it has a significant history as a club, having the oldest turf wicket in South Africa. It was a club started by the expats of England for the local farmers to play against touring teams. This club has a strong and rich tradition and history, and while still being a sports club, it has had some of the greatest cricketers touring South Africa come and play there. As well as play a pivitol role in the social welfare of the area by starting projects to help previously disadvanteged children in the sport of cricket. Over and above that, Nelson Mandela, when let out of Victor Verster Prison asked to be driven past the ground specifically because he had heard of its rich tradition and history. -196.212.25.98 (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done We generally don't restore WP:A7 deletions here, but the biggest issue is that the entire article is copyvio from this page. The thing to remember about organizations is that longevity and popularity do not always translate into notability. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Also, notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) by the club's association with notable persons. Nor does the good intent of the club give notability. You must show notability by way of reliable sources that are independent of the club itself. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beer in Edinburgh[edit]

I, Jimmy jamesk, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jimmy jamesk (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


Can i have the Beer in Edinburgh undeleted please? I want to fix it to get it onto wikipedia. Thanks Jimmy

  • @Jimmy jamesk:Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert B. Daugherty Water for Food Institute[edit]

I, 129.93.64.8, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 129.93.64.8 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Jan Emmet Yngson[edit]

I,JeanGan , request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. I don't understand.. it says FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA.. why are you need to delete it? this wikipedia is only for an actor or some kind of famous people? please give me a reason so that i can understand.. -JeanGan (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's ONLY for articles about notable people. the panda ₯’ 18:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Popi Marden: Abstract Artist[edit]

I am collecting contributors before re-submission and they are very slow with their contributions but this is a great man worth the time to create a great article of historical proportions... please have 6 months more of patience for Bruce "Popi" Marden... thank you -209.179.72.54 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Nanowar of steel.jpg[edit]

Following the restoration of the article Nanowar of Steel this monday morning, I request the restoration of its unfree logo. Thanks, Dodoïste (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC) -Dodoïste (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ashley Newbrough[edit]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Friedamay91 (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Ashley Newbrough is a working actress. In 2013- 2014 Ashley recurred on ABC's summer guilty pleasure Mistresses as Kyra, Harry's (Brett Tucker ) fun loving young girlfriend. Ashley was a leading actress, Sage Baker, in the critically acclaimed CW Privileged with her costars Lucy Hale and Joanna Garcia.

Lulahiinthesky is her Instagam/twitter

Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Abhaya_Kshethram[edit]

I need this article back to live. Since article is about a famous NGO in india, which also got awards from APJ Abdul Kalam, Former President of India -Heykarthikwithu (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user Yunshui (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. GB fan 13:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SHIM[edit]

I, Matanys, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Matanys (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. GB fan 12:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

numeer nabi[edit]

article has notability sources and has enough refrences and plus addition of improvement tag has been added "Save page" button below -Artistcare12 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: this article has not been deleted. It was proposed for deletion, but you removed the PROD template, as you were quite entitled to do. It may still be nominated at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. JohnCD (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That "article" is in extremely poor shape, and should not be in live articlespace until extensive editing to bring it to even the most basic standards. It's not delete yet (it's a BLPPROD) so there's nothing to undelete, and your "attempt" to make it compliant by adding imdb as a source is unfortunately incorrect. I'd be willing to move it to your userspace or to articles for creation before it does get deleted. the panda ₯’ 13:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ian Holt[edit]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Ianholtwriter (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done What little content there was there is inappropriate for a biography. If you wish to write an article about yourself, please use Articles for creation. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Esmond Shahonya[edit]

this article is authentic bio of esmond shahonya -Karlmarx776 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esmond Shahonya, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Afro-Eurasia-America[edit]

This article should be I deleted to discuss information on Afro-Eurasia before the Bering Strait disappeared. as such I recommend the resurrection of this fine article in order to achieve this, for such to happen in the year of our lord two thousand and fourteen. May Christ be with you -Pablothepenguin (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done The article was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro-Eurasia-America. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and is not not the place to try to publish theories or original research. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Juan Rosa Blanco-Cartagena[edit]

I, Alcapurrias, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Alcapurrias (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. @Alcapurrias: You will need a lot more sourcing than what you have there. Personal recollections are not sufficient for verification purposes. Also see WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Federation of Writers (Scotland)[edit]

I, 86.149.226.166, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 86.149.226.166 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done There is nothing to restore really, it's a paragraph and then a "see also" link to the organization's website. Which is obviously not enough for an article. You're better off just starting from scratch. Please review the notability guidelines before you do. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dean G. Smith[edit]

I, Secretphilosophy, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Secretphilosophy (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Heaven Sent Gaming[edit]

The page was apparently deleted due to overref, advertisement, passing mention references, and notability issues, I did not take part in the original deletion discussions, but I would like to salvage the content of the article. I would like it restored and moved to my user-space so it can be fixed. I would also like to know what steps I would need to go through, after the article is up to code. Do I go to DRV afterward, for them to see when its ready? -DocterCox (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming (2nd nomination), it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user IronGargoyle (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. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that the page was deleted and salted to prevent further re-creation, I would recommend that you talk to the closing admin or to the one who deleted the reposted page, User:Sergecross73, and potentially go through WP:DR. Given that it was deleted so many times and since you are a fairly new user, it would be best to go through the proper channels to get this userfied. On a side note, I do have to ask if you are someone who was paid or otherwise asked to create the page. If so, then I recommend reading over our WP:COI policy and disclosing this up front. It's not that you can't edit, just that you have to make sure to be open about this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Whether someone paid me? What are you talking about? I'm a newb, who would pay me to write on Wikipedia? I will contact User:Sergecross73 about this, thank you for pointing me in the correct direction about this, you partook in the deletion discussion in favor of deletion, I don't understand why Wikipedia is being so hostile towards New Mexico related articles. DocterCox (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You were probably asked that because a number of editors defending the article's deletion have clearly been staff from HSG, or people "recruited" by them, acting in their own self interest rather than here to build an encyclopedia. Your user page indicates you know SmileLee, the founder of HSG, so it doesn't seem like that far-fetched of a idea. Also, it's connection to New Mexico had no bearing on its result to be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Sergecross73, I don't know anybody at the organization in question, could I take a swing at the article? It was salvageable (since it wasn't primarily advertising). I would like to get User:Smile Lee's response about your statements, that's a highly speculative and far-fetched accusation, according to his user history he's been editing Wikipedia since 2006‎. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My only accusation is that people related to HSG have been recruited to defend/"keep" the article. Judging by how many flawed but similar, non-policy based "keeps" we're given, it's almost certain to have happened. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's an extremely hurtful accusation, I'm a Christian and I've never made any profit from Heaven Sent Gaming. HSG is a personal project that both my fiancée Isabel and I cofounded together, so I'm not the founder, I'm the cofounder. I've never indicated that I wanted HSG to have an article, especially considering that when the article was created I had my Cloudflare protection off. Isabel has never been interested in Wikipedia. And, since I know Isabel's work schedule, I can safely say that during the vast majority of the edit times in the AfD, she was usually at work, or sleeping, when the other individual(s) posted. Our editor, Jason, has been acting a little squirrelly, and he does share our internet connection, but I'm not aware that he's done anything on Wikipedia and his browsing history is none of my business. So, I personally don't know any of the people involved in the AfD's, and I don't know the person who created the article. Heaven Sent Gaming does not make me any income, so I would never ask someone, or pay someone, to do something like this, and I kept my edits on the article to a minimum, I was forced to restore the article at one point at the request of other less experienced editors. I'm distraught that my company being the center of this, though I am comforted by the fact that the article space has been salted. Because of this, I do feel safe with a user like XiuBouLin taking responsibility for the article, and bringing it to DRV when its ready. One last thing, I don't know DocterCox and the user page doesn't indicate that they know me, he simply stated that we were both interested in a posted list from Wikiproject New Mexico. Smile Lee (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Even if all of that is true, it doesn't change that a bunch of HSG fans gave a bunch of bogus "keep" !votes and the website plain and simple does not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. It failed an AFD, a speedy deletion, a deletion review, and then got deleted again. It needs to be dropped for a while. Overwhelming consensus by people who actually know policy are consistently saying it doesn't meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 00:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I know policy as well, again, I've been here quite a while. I'm very aware of definition of notability on Wikipedia, I don't think I'll ever be notable for anything (low self-esteem ftw), but removing my bias, my company might meet WP:BARE since it has a book about it and whatnot. The speedy deletion, and deletion review, were due to obvious over-enthusiastic inexperienced users attempting to restore it, which is why I support the salting. User:XiuBouLin kept a cool-hand during the DRV and 2nd AfD, so I think he would be good fit. He's also interested in AfD and DRV in general, this will give Xiu practice in getting an article restored. The article space is salted, so I don't see the danger in giving it a go. Smile Lee (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Stepping back in here for a second- I didn't mean the COI comment as an insult or accusation, just that the page had some people coming in that looked like they were editing on behalf of the company. Because DocterCox didn't have many edits, I figured that it'd be a good idea to just ask outright if they were aligned with the company somehow. If he was, then that's fine- it just means that he'd have to be more cautious than most with how he goes about trying to get a copy of the article. I've noticed that a lot of paid editors (not saying anyone here is one) tend to not be overly aware of the various policies, partially because a lot of them are sort of thrown in here by their employers and told that submitting the article would be simple and that they pass GNG and so on. It's still on the editors to know guidelines, but through my interactions with some COI and paid editors I just get the impression that some COI/paid editors are kind of deliberately thrown into the lion's den. If it doesn't work out, the company can always blame an overzealous COI editor and that sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that I never particularly accused SmileLee, I just said that it looked like a organized/recruited effort to some capacity. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's fair enough, I'm just glad to have this clarified. I'm pretty sure it was probably some type of well-intentioned fan effort that spun out of control. But, who knows. Regardless, since the article was pretty well-sized, it would be a shame to let the prior editor's efforts go to waste. Xiu seems to be interested in the AfD and DRV process, and since that user is also interested in building the article, I think we would be safe letting XiuBouLin take the reigns. Smile Lee (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Hockessin Montessori School[edit]

I, Kitschweb, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Kitschweb (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done It looks like it is WP:COPYVIO from here and the official website, among other places. It's very closely paraphrased in many sections, so much so that it becomes a copyright violation issue. You'd have to completely re-write the content in your own words. Even if the school was willing to give up the original content as fair use, it's still highly advisable to write it in your own words because the page would always be tagged as containing copyvio and in almost every case I've seen, the content is eventually re-written anyway in order to avoid any negative attention. Also, several parts of the page were fairly promotional tone, which is probably because it was taken from the school's website. That's the other problem with using copyvio- in most instances the content is written to promote the subject and would still be unusable even if the content was given up as fair use. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

HBA Learning Centres[edit]

Hi please see the following website for notability of HBA https://training.gov.au/Organisation/Details/31261. It is a Registered Training Organisation (tertiary education) in Australia. Also please see the website http://www.hbalearningcentres.com.au/. Please let me know what else may be necessary for recall. -Tadface (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)--Tadface (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I've moved it to your userspace at User:Tadface/HBA Learning Centres. Generally speaking, I normally do not restore articles that have been deleted via WP:A7, but this does appear to be a school that awards degrees so it may pass notability guidelines with a little work. I would recommend that you not restore it to the mainspace until it has been approved by the original deleting admin. I've also marked it as an WP:AfC submission, as AfC (articles for creation) would be a good place to submit it because it could help soothe any concerns about the conflict of interest you have. Tagging it as an AfC adds the template at the top, but also gives you a link to the AfC help desk. I also recommend going through the WP:TEAHOUSE as well if you have any other questions. I'll post a bit more on your talk page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2C2P[edit]

I, Pgupta87, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Pgupta87 (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done Not only is the page promotional in tone, but it also appears to have copyvio from the company's website. Even if the content is given up as fair use, you would still have to re-write it to fit our WP:NPOV policy. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Continuing Church of God[edit]

I, TheologyWriter, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.

Save page.

I did edit this as I was asked to, but did not receive a response until last night that it was deleted. I am happy to do additional edits if my added edits were not considered to be sufficient. Wikipedia does report about Church of God groups with origins in the old Worldwide Church of God, and the Continuing Church of God is third in terms of internet popularity according to Alexa, has hundreds, if not one thousand members around the world, and produces printed literature in five languages.

Anyway, the article on the Continuing Church of God has been deleted and I cannot find it to edit it. I am again happy to add additional references as this is what I was originally asked to do, and I did do this months ago. But can add more.

TheologyWriter (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • User had created article and had it declined in December. They recieved a notice June 30th that the page was eligible for G13 and in danger of being deleted and encouraged them to make even a single character change. On July 30th HasteurBot nominated the page for deletion because no change had been made in the 6 months + 30 days window. If the user doesn't work at fixing the page it doesn't speak well to the amount of effort they're going to invest in the page. Furthermore the username along with the subject matter suggests that there could be a conflict of interest. Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I.V.ChalapatiRao[edit]

Renwned educationist in India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsubr (talkcontribs) 16:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Surely you jest! No page's ever existed under that title! Are you sure that the page's title is correct, including the namespace prefixes (User:, Wikipedia talk:, etc.)? I also checked Draft and AfC; both came up empty for the name as written and the name with spaces. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 17:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my Sig should not be there. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Center for Theory of Change[edit]

I, Eleberthon, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Eleberthon (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: It's copyvio from the official website and much of the content is either taken outright or closely paraphrased. Even if you can get the organization to give up the content as fair use, it's still fairly promotional in how it's written and would need to be re-written. Also, the sources seem to be about the theory itself rather than the organization and I do want you to be aware that notability is not inherited by the theory itself having notability, but that's just sort of an aside. Mostly I'm just worried about the copyvio so I'd personally recommend that you just start from scratch with a new AfC version. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Atomic Betty.jpg[edit]

Please undelete all revisions of this fair-use image so that I can have a look at them. The current image at Atomic Betty is of terrible quality. -Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dogmaticeclectic: We don't undelete non-free files just to have a look. The image is the same image at [1]. If you think the current uploaded image is not a good quality image, you could replace it with another non-free image. It doesn't have to be the deleted image. Remember, though, that non-free images are supposed to be lower quality per WP:NFCC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:TLSuda, could you please confirm whether all revisions of the image are the same as that one? It seems to have been deleted more than once. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The deletion log shows only a single upload of that image. And it is identical to the one identified by TLSuda. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dogmaticeclectic: What Amatulić said. I did think it was odd to have one two deletion, but only one upload. All of the description pages were for the same image, which is for the same image as above. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
That's strange, since I clearly see two deletion log entries for that page, not one... but I suppose they could have been for the same image. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I mean to say two deletions. I agree that it is strange, and I've never seen this before. It may be because the original upload & delete were in 2005. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@TLSuda: Images have to contain source info (preferably to an available source), so normally refusing to undelete an image and pointing to the source is completely sufficient. However, we should try to say 'yes' wherever possible at REFUND. I don't think there's a smidgin of harm to the encyclopedia or our non-free content goals in restoring an image temporarily so a non-admin could verify that. If it isn't used in an article, it'll be tagged for deletion by a bot in a few days (even if we all forget about it) and if it gets used, that's great too. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Bot's don't automagically tag every orphaned non-free, otherwise we wouldn't be finding them all of the time. If we can just give the source, we don't have to worry about the image not being deleted later. We are minimizing purposely unused content. Its also better for the WMF foundation's mission of promoting free content. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so then restore it and don't forget about it? Restoring an image deleted 8 years ago for 20 minutes so an editor who comes here for help can satisfy themselves rather than rely on admin interlocutors should factor into the calculation somewhere. Even if we don't weigh that too highly, the impact of this image on the mission is so marginal I have trouble differentiating it from nothing. Furthermore, where's the rule forbidding us from undeleting an image like this (e.g. not a copyvio or whatever) to have a look? That's not a deletion policy or guideline as I remember them. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Protonk's remarks above are correct in general (and I appreciate that at least one administrator is willing to stand up for regular users here). However, this particular issue has already been resolved as a link to an identical image has been posted above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Basically, there is absolutely no reason to post a non-free image, even temporarily, when we can post a source and link image. It also documents the source publicly so any future non-admin could find this discussion again. This is the same as linking to a non-free image that doesn't meet WP:NFCC. It is the whole reason for {{External media}}. If you feel that isn't sufficient, you could've restored yourself. If it is sufficient, why go through the trouble? TLSuda (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't restore it because by the time I got to the thread the issue was mooted (by an external source being available). Once Dogmaticeclectic was satisfied the external resource matched the deleted image, there's no reason for me to restore the image. But the problem here isn't that the image is still deleted or that the response is insufficient. We shouldn't be telling editors there's some rule that exists to prevent what is essentially a non-controversial restoration when we can just instead restore the content (especially if the rule doesn't exist). REFUND doesn't exist to educate people on the importance of NFCC or the vagaries of deletion policy. It exists so that editors can have a low stress, low friction route to have content restored. If we can't do it here, we can explain why (sometimes that's a good object lesson), but if we can, the admin responding should consider the purpose of the board when choosing to make a restoration decision. We've made it explicit in the case of PRODs (see the edit window text), but that's really just a specific example of a broader goal. Behind every request is a person who just wants to get back to doing what interests them. If, rather than letting them do so when it is possible we refuse on a technicality, we've failed them. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Pick at the Stick[edit]

I, Xhoven, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Xhoven (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Abbey Road Medley[edit]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -58.69.89.65 (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I would like to request that this separate page "Abbey Road Medley" stay and not be deleted. Since the information put on the "Abbey Road" page is very limited and does not help to educated people wanting to learn more about this piece or critics who would like to further scrutinize each detail of the song. Furthermore, I would personally wish that this page be further improved on by other Wikipedia users to help contribute to the development of information regarding improtant classical pieces made by the Beatles and members who were involved in the recording of their songs. I sincerely thank you for your consideration!

  • X mark.svg Not done The medley and the album is already fairly well covered at Abbey Road and Abbey_Road#Medley. Please understand that if you find the other article lacking, the proper course of action is to improve the existing article as opposed to creating a new article about the same subject. The main problem that I found is that while it started off as mentioning the medley, it largely covered the album as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Varadraj Swami[edit]

i would like submit more detail don't delete the page. "Save page" button below -Balaji tiwari (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. We do not undelete G4s as G4 deletions are dependent on an existing XfD debate; WP:Deletion review is the proper venue for G4s/XfDs.
It's deleted now in accordance with WP:CSD#G4. So...
X mark.svg Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varadraj Swami, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user FreeRangeFrog (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pratigya[edit]

I, Haphar, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Haphar (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Article is on one of the top films in India in the year 1975,(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_films_of_1975) it is referenced with imdb links, not sure why it was deleted. It has a prominent cast and whose lesser films have articles, looks like a wrong deletion.

  • Yes check.svg Done. The page was deleted because the submission hadn't been edited for a year. After a certain amount of time, drafts which aren't being worked on are deleted. The submission was declined because the film doesn't appear to be covered by multiple, independent sources which is our basic inclusion criteria for articles on the encyclopedia. I've restored the page but in order for it to be moved to "article space" it has to meet that threshold. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)