Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:06, 24 June 2018

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 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, restored as a draft 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. Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7, G4, G5, G11 or G12 be undeleted here.

Note that requests for undeletion are 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

Speedy-deleted articles - see WP:CSDRFU
G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions – see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 for instructions.

Please enter the page's title to request its undeletion:

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Draft:Texas Research Initiatives

Draft:Texas Research Initiatives · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

(a) The proposed article is based on State of Texas legislature documents, which are in the public domain; (b) There is much debate but little centralized knowledge on the "Emerging Research Institution" requirements and similar programs in Texas —97.98.78.51 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reference for state publications in Texas being public domain? —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content wasn't taken from Texas legislature documents, it was taken from a variety of government and academic websites, including [1], [2] and [3]. It is entirely possible for works of the Texas government to be copyrighted, even if they do fall under that category. [4]. Hut 8.5 21:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see link: http://www.house.state.tx.us/help/website-policies/texas-public-information-act/

Also note that there is no (c) copyright note in the document linked below, or in any similar documents cited in Draft:Texas Research Initiatives

http://www.house.state.tx.us/_media/pdf/committees/reports/82interim/House-Committee-on-Higher-Education-Interim-Report-2012.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the Draft:Texas Research Initiatives was to centralize information originating from State of Texas agencies. University of Texas System is an agency of the State of Texas. Please undelete the articles and I and others could reword it based on the Texas House documents which are in the public domain. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could also be invoked the Fair use “Fair use is the right to use portions of copyrighted materials without permission for purposes of education, commentary, or parody". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Federal_and_state_laws_are_not_protected_by_copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done These arguments will not work here as for fair use it must be not replaceable, and this article text could be rewritten by someone to express to facts. Also the content was not "laws". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion speedy deletion under G12 has been applied too harshly to this particular draft article. Please restore it so that the copyright issues can be addressed. Thank you and good luck to the soccer teams of your countries in the 2018 FIFA World Cup! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How? G12 legitimately only applies if the article at large's text has been lifted from copyrighted sources and there's no non-infringing revisions existent in the history and/or it'd be impossible to remove the violations without fundamentally rewriting the article. Admins are not going to restore an article deleted for that reason and risk inviting a lawsuit against Wikipedia on copyright grounds. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was only a draft article. Undelete it and it will be fixed. The concept of "emerging research university/institution" occurs in several places on Wikipedia, but it is not explained anywhere. It is why I started the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

Texas_State_University#Research -- wrong information, reference to in existing web page;
Education_in_Texas#Public_colleges_and_universities -- outdated information;

Here's a similar page: Texas_Emerging_Technology_Fund to the one I wanted created.

Please be reasonable - thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[5] does not say that Texas state works are in the public domain, it says that people have the right to access government documents. It doesn't follow from this that government documents aren't copyrighted. The absence of a copyright symbol means absolutely nothing as copyright exists automatically unless explicitly disclaimed. It also isn't true that none of the pages you cited have a copyright statement on them, [6] is marked "© 2018, State of Texas, Office of the Governor, Texas Economic Development". We don't allow copyvios anywhere on Wikipedia, including draft space. It is, after all, illegal to publish copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder, no matter which namespace you publish it in. None of this means that you can't write an article on this topic, you just have to write it in your own words. Hut 8.5 06:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hut 8.5 I can address all these issues, but I do not have access to the article any more - like you administrators apparently have. The subject is an important one to many people as I tried to explain above, so please, be so kind and undelete the draft article. Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, we can't restore copyright violations under any circumstances, as you saw from the notice when you posted this request. It's not a case of being "kind", you are asking us to do something which is actually illegal. The most I can do is provide you with the sources used in the draft to help with any rewrite. Hut 8.5 17:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hut 8.5, it would be very helpful to have the source back - thanks. And if I start a new draft article, can it have the same title i.e. "Texas Research Initiatives"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that you can grant me access to the sources of the original draft article. Could you please do so? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the sources on the IP's talk page. Hut 8.5 16:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Hut 8.5, but I thought you will release the wiki source, not just the references. It will take me a lot of effort to rewrite the article based on references alone. You can remove the sections you believe are infringing others copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "sources" I meant the references which were used in the article, not the wiki markup of the page. I'm having a hard time seeing any significant piece of text in the deleted draft which is not riddled with copyright violations, and as I've said we do not restore copyright violations. Hut 8.5 18:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Research Initiatives was only a draft article and obviously imperfect. After a warning about the alleged copyright issues, I would have fixed the article right-away. As of right now, I lost any motivation to rewrite it from scratch. Please follow this link ^[1] and read how damages in copyright infringements are calculated. Who do you think would have written a 3-4 page court complain, pay $420 to file it in court and get zero in return? Because any judge would have found the similarities with the cited references fair use ^[2].

P.S. Wikipedia exists because of the content that is dded, not deleted, and maybe administrators should be also concerned about not driving editors away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

You're not getting this: we don't restore copyright violations, ever. We have a policy as part of our commitment to being an open source encyclopedia. If our commitment to providing freely licensed content means that we don't get to have an article on Texas Research Initiatives then I'm sure we can live with that. This is not purely about legal considerations, but I'm sure you'll recognise that it isn't OK to do something unethical or illegal just because you aren't likely to get caught. Fair use is only allowed here under some very restrictive conditions, this text did not remotely qualify. As you've already been told here the mere fact that you could have rewritten the content means you can't claim fair use for it. Hut 8.5 21:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hut 8.5 You used we four times, but you did NOT consult with other editors before you deleted my draft article. I continue to claim that I made fair use of information originated by the government of the State of Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.78.51 (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information cannot be copyrighted, so you don't need to make a fair-use claim to use information from a website. You would need to make a fair-use claim for text from the website. When the article was deleted, the amount of text used was deemed to be excessive—beyond the bounds of our criteria for non-free content. The infringing text will not be restored. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Wikipedia's fair-use criteria are more restrictive than fair-use/fair dealing laws for a reason, and it's to encourage people to write their own content rather than just copy-paste. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SSC State

SSC State · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I acknowledge that the article was created prematurely since I used the title I found in a Wikimedia Commons file. However, i think I could improve upon it if userfied. Please userfy this to my user name. —Thylacoop5 (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice to its outcome, I would encourage whoever deals with this request to read the deleted article's talk page, User talk:Cordless Larry#OR tag, User talk:Thylacoop5#June 2018 and, for that matter, this. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily going to publish this to mainspace. I would simply like to review the content, and if unsatisfactory, I will simply leave it be. Thylacoop5 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend against undeletion of this article; the article's author has a history of concerns regarding POV over Somali subjects. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Because it was deleted in accordance with WP:A10 as a duplication of the existing topic Khatumo State, I recommend improving that article instead. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:WarnerMedia/Comments

Talk:WarnerMedia/Comments · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This page (originally at Talk:Time Warner/Comments) is not, and has never been, a "test page". It should instead just be redirected to Talk:WarnerMedia. —GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done although the page hasn't had any actual content for years. Hut 8.5 06:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anca Pop

Draft:Anca Pop · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Love on the Brain, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 14:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 06:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kensei Taba

Kensei Taba · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

just need to have some help on have My Late Instructors Bio not removed. please send me to someone who can help me publish this probperly. I'm sorry if I have not followed the proper steps but will learn so i do not make the same mistakes and waste so many editors time.

Peelsan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelsan (talk • contribs) 04:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done – this page was deleted as a blatant advertisement under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. This does not necessarily mean a suitable article on this topic cannot be created. If it is a notable topic, e.g., multiple reliable, secondary, published sources that are entirely independent of the subject have written about it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), then a neutrally written article may be possible. This one was written like a commercial. Hut 8.5 06:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peelsan: In addition, please be aware that Wikipedia is not a place for memorials. The subject of an article must meet our notability guidelines, and be written in a neutral tone. Your article didn't have either quality. See WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Notability. For a brief overview of what is required for publication, see Wikipedia:Golden rule. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usertalksuperwitharchives

Template:Usertalksuperwitharchives · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I used this template on my old user talk page (User:DrStrauss) and found it useful but it has since been deleted. I'm happy for it to be refunded to my user namespace if I will be the only one using it. —StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse:

Done, restored to User:StraussInTheHouse/Usertalksuperwitharchives. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dbouchaffra/sandbox/Djamel Bouchaffra's Biography

User:Dbouchaffra/sandbox/Djamel Bouchaffra's Biography · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Dbouchaffra, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Dbouchaffra (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done – this page is a copyright violation. Taken from [7] or similar. Hut 8.5 21:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FK Žarkovo

FK Žarkovo · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

PROD-ded in 2015, but they were just promoted to the Serbian second division. The information in the article should still be generally relevant and the club should easily pass WP:NFOOTY. —SportingFlyer talk 19:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Please update it. Hut 8.5 21:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Levin

Mike Levin · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Narayansg (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC) The page on Mike Levin, a congressional candidate in California's 49th district, was deleted after it attracted vandalism from his political opponent in the primary election that occurred on June 5. Mike won the primary, and is the Democratic nominee for Congress in the 49th District. During the discussion regarding the deletion of the page, some administrators (although I do not know who) said that Levin will be notable enough for a Wikipedia page if he wins the primary and the Democratic nomination. Since he has won the primary and the Democratic nomination, this page should be undeleted and put back up.[reply]

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/Mike Levin, 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 Spartaz (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. As a rule candidates for national political office such as Congress are not notable unless they win the general election (WP:POLITICIAN), even if they win a primary. Hut 8.5 21:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies

Draft: List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Asoccer maniac, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Asoccer maniac (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I want to undelete the version from 2016/7 (i.e first edited Dec 2016/last edited ca. Jan 2017). Asoccer maniac (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I have not restored the earlier revisions now in List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions] or your G7'd versions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FK Budućnost Dobanovci

FK Budućnost Dobanovci · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

PRODded in 2011 for no showing of ever having participated in the Serbian Cup. They made it to the 2nd round of the 2017-18 Serbian Cup, and I'd like to recreate the article. —SportingFlyer talk 04:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. @SportingFlyer: please add some content! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olaplex

Olaplex · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I request the undeletion of this page. It was deleted under WP:G11 but It's not a promotion at all. It's essential and useful article since this product has made a lot of news and is a best seller and has been recognized by critics as 'the best hair repair product'. it definitely has the required notability and verifiability. the "Hair care products" category needs this article —CerberaOdollam (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be honest, you're not helping your case what-so-ever with that rationale. G11s aren't restored here on request anyways unless the speedy was invalid, and based on what you just wrote it seems that it was. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done You may start again at Draft:Olaplex and use the WP:AFC process and remove the marketing talk. Take a look at Head & Shoulders to see a hair care product article. Clear (brand) is in an encyclopedic style, but unfortunately has no references. 06:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett:What is the 'marketing talk' that you're talking about?? Which part of that article is a 'promotion'?? CerberaOdollam (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was also copied and pasted from here. We will not restore copyright violations under any circumstances. Because the user has received a final warning about this in the past, the user is now indef-blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK street choirs

List of UK street choirs · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Kelvin Mason (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC) I have added blue interal Wikipedia links to the page[reply]

There is nothing to do here, the page was not deleted, and you removed the prod. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miscellaneous pages with authority control identifiers

Template:Miscellaneous pages with authority control identifiers · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I used Twinkle on Module:Miscellaneous pages with authority control identifiers and assumed it created the correct entry for the Module, but instead it created a request for the Template. I wish to retrieve the Template and will delete the Module later. — ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done please tag the module with {{db-self}} when you want to request deletion. Hut 8.5 21:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jye Bolton

Jye Bolton · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

there is no reason why this page has been deleted. This page is important for the history of both the AFL and WAFL. This man is now a sandover medalist, an E.B Cook Medalist, two time Simpson Medalist, 3 time State player and played over 50 games for the Claremont Football Club. He is an amazing role model for his community and a biography is a must. Please allow page creation for this man. I do not understand why it was deleted on the first place? Thank you. —144.138.241.130 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The deletion log entry is "Pointless article created by blocked user in violation of block", and the protection log entry is "One of dozens, if not hundreds, of articles with identical content created by abuser of multiple accounts who comes back & recreates them if not protected."

Now, it sounds like you can say more about Bolton than "Is an AFL player" (which is all the deleted article said). You're welcome to create Draft:Jye Bolton. It sounds like you've got the basis for a claim of significance. Back it up with some reliable sources, and we can see about getting a proper article moved to the article space. Because of the circumstances, though, the best route is to create a draft and then get assistance, rather than create it to article space directly. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ch Moazzam Ishaq

Ch Moazzam Ishaq · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I want to improve this page to make it eligible fow wikipedia —Sparkychknet (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch Moazzaam Ishaq (Artist) and multiple other salted article titles linked from there. --Finngall ^talk 23:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done and will not be done. @Sparkychknet: The prior articles are in such bad shape that they will not be recreated. I strongly advise against attempting to create an article on him. If you think he is notable, you need to state in your request how he now is notable and what reliable sources confirm that; then we can look at assisting you in creating a draft of a new article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)̦[reply]

And create it in draft space or your sandbox, not main article space. Submit it for review via WP:AFC. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bankstown United FC

Draft:Bankstown United FC · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, 165.125.181.19, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 165.125.181.19 (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Do not copy and paste text from anywhere else like an editor did earlier. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Saiyed Anwer Abbas

Draft:Saiyed Anwer Abbas · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Inamabidi, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. inam 07:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Hazem BIO

Youssef Hazem BIO · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The page is important to him for college admission and we can correct any update any missing information/links —Nofal eg (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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/Youssef Hazem, 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 Timotheus Canens (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.

Please note that Youssef Hazem BIO was moved to Youssef Hazem prior to the AfD. Technically, all that existed at this title was a redirect to the deleted article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Campa-Najjar

Ammar Campa-Najjar · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd | afd2 | afd3 ) · [revisions]

He is the Democratic nominee for Congress in California's 50th District and he has won the primary so he is notable at this point —Narayansg (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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/Ammar Campa-Najjar, 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 A Train (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. @Narayansg: Please note that winning the primary is not winning an election, so per WP:NPOLITICIAN, he is still not notable. Further, the article was redirected, not deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jarvis

Peter Jarvis · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

WP:REFUND applies as there was a deletion debate "with little or no participation other than the nominator". No other editor supported deletion, and one editor (myself) favoured retention, citing the relevant criterion. One other editor commented on the acceptability of the images, but that is not relevant to article deletion. No editor suggested that my justification might be invalid. The nominator did not mention PJ's recording history in the proposal —Davidships (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done WP:Articles for deletion/Peter Jarvis closed as a soft delete, per the closing admin (Premeditated Chaos). —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Jacob Ziegel Medal

Draft:The Jacob Ziegel Medal · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Prof Crawf, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Crawf (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 3991

GJ 3991 · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I've done some digging and can find quite a bit of mention of Gliese 3991 (mostly under the name G 203-47). Furthermore, it's the host system of the 9th nearest white dwarf, and the nearest compact white dwarf binary system. —exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. @Exoplanetaryscience: it should not be too hard to improve this article! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dooney Boys

Dooney Boys · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Codo2411 (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previously deleted article contained copyrighted martial if restored any copyrighted content will be removed.

Admins will not restore copyright violations, end of story. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kilo G

Kilo G · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Codo2411 (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC) The previously deleted article contained copyrighted martial if restored any copyrighted content will be removed.[reply]

Admins will not restore copyright violations, end of story. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I have re-deleted it in accordance with WP:G4. Notwithstanding the copyvio, we won't restore articles that have been previously deleted on the basis of a deletion discussion. You have to talk to the deleting admin about that, not request restoration here. And due to repeated disruptive recreations, the article is now protected from recreation except by extended-confirmed editors. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tre-8

Tre-8 · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Codo2411 (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC) The previously deleted article contained copyrighted martial if restored any copyrighted content will be removed.[reply]

Admins will not restore copyright violations, end of story. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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/Tre-8, 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 ansh666 (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. This wasn't actually marked as being a copyright violation anywhere. Hut 8.5 06:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:MAKE Santa Fe

Draft:MAKE Santa Fe · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Arlo Barnes, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Arlo James Barnes 03:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at other good-quality hackerspace articles to see what would be good to include. Arlo James Barnes 03:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples of sources you want to add to the article? I've restored this once already and no changes were made afterwards. Hut 8.5 06:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Cite DNV/sandbox

Module:Cite DNV/sandbox · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Work-in-progress module. If this is the module I'm thinking of, work had started in the sandbox but hadn't yet created the main template. —Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Hut 8.5 06:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: Could you also undelete Module:Cite DNV/doc · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: the only content on that page was a request to delete Module:Cite DNV/sandbox under G8, there isn't any point in restoring it. Hut 8.5 17:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chuck Baggett

User:Chuck Baggett · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I want to see my user page that was speedily deleted. I don't want it restored for public view, I just want to see it to copy it, and then I'll make a user page that fits the requirements —Chuck Baggett (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)--Chuck Baggett (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well it had a link farm to many social network pages related to your user name. It had a job ad: "20 years experience designing, printing, and cutting graphics and lettering for signs. Skilled in Flexisign. I'm interested in legitimate job offers or other income opportunities." and periodic table mnemonics. Is there anything there for you. The ad should not stay, the link farm was excessive. the mnemonics were pretty harmless. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:FreeCEN

Draft:FreeCEN · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, DenCol, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. DenCol (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't finished working on it, and didn't reralise it would be deleted after 6 months of not working on it. Sorry! —DenCol (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 3522

GJ 3522 · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun. It satisfies GNG with coverage in 67 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. —James500 (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Now you can see it would have been less effort to rewrite the page than request its undeletion! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 3192

GJ 3192 · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 23 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 30 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. —James500 (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Now you can see it would have been less effort to rewrite the page than request its undeletion! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_An

David An · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Performer Page. Had no notifications for why it was deleted —Hdigg (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: deleted based on this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David An. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pichpich failed to notify you when they nominated the page for deletion. The proper practice to notify writers that a page they wrote is nominated for deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett, before you blame me here, note that I notified the page's creator which is what I'm supposed to do. Obviously I can't access the article's history but I don't know what Hdigg's involvment with the page is. Pichpich (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Hdigg did was add, then remove, an image from the article, with a net effect of zero. I wouldn't have seen the need to notify that user either. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So there's no reason for Hdigg to be notified. Pichpich is right, there is no obligation to inform Hdigg. I should not have implied that notification was required for the requester here) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An Yuexi and others

An Yuexi · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I'm a new page patroller and remember patrolling a number of articles created by Loveo2ofan. It turns out the editor is a sockpuppet of the blocked User:Boyhoodjams and all their articles have now been deleted per G5. IIRC, virtually all articles created by the user are about notable Chinese actors and decently referenced, and I feel it's a loss to Wikipedia to delete them indiscriminately. Please restore them or at least move them to draft space so they can be vetted again. The list of deleted articles is at [8]. —Zanhe (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to talk to the deleting admin(s) about those rather than request restoration here. I must say, restoring them simply by request sort of defeats the purpose of G5. For good material to be kept, it must be created by editors who aren't socks. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Thanks. This is the first time I've encountered a situation like this and wasn't sure how to handle it. Will talk to the deleting admin. -Zanhe (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LP 658-2

LP 658-2 · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Also known as Gliese 223.2, it's starting to seem a bit repetitive to undo the militant nearby-star deleting. Just see Gliese 3991's request. —exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Hut 8.5 19:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dorsey

Draft:Chris Dorsey · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Iha777, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Iha777 (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by RHaworth. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Celeris

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

Please restore Celeris (presently a redirect to one of the company's notable products) as it existed at the close of the AfD, to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Celeris. The only reason it was AfDed (barely) is because of lack of paper sourcing; the vast majority of material on old videogame companies is offline, in hardcopy gaming-related magazines of the era. It definitely does have possibilities. If probably 1–2 more sources had been present and had not been entirely Virtual Pool-specific, the article would have been kept. I asked the deleting admin to restore it, and the response (which may have something to do with a long series of unpleasant encounters between myself and that editor) was just "Sorry, I'm not interested unless you can provide sources indicating it has at least a chance of being kept if restored.", which utterly misses the point. If I already had them, I could simply re-create the article without bothering to ask, since it would already be substantially improved and would survive AfD. If I keep this in my userspace, for the time being, it'll periodically jog my memory to go digging again. I have no connection to the company or its products (other than I've used one of briefly). William A. Spinks (almost entirely my work) is a GA now, after a long period of development – including stalled development – that required off-line work to do, like contacting the local history desk at the public library in late-life home area for leads on whether he was the same William A. Spinks who was involved in the early oil industry in California (he was, and I sourced it). I know what I'm doing. — — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: at the time of deletion the article was two sentences long, and only said that they were known for making the Virtual Pool series and that they'd developed a version of it for tablets/smartphones as well. The only source cited was the company's website. I don't think it's going to be of any use in a rewrite whatsoever. Hut 8.5 22:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Was there a larger version? Maybe all the sources were coughed up in the AfD itself, along with the other notable game they developed (we have an article on it), etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It did once have a couple of sentences quoting a developer about why there hadn't been much progress on Virtual Pool 3 Gold, but that was removed in 2015 as outdated and it didn't cite any independent sources. It was never significantly larger than it was when it was deleted. Hut 8.5 22:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Humphrey (drummer)

John Humphrey (drummer) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

@Explicit:, this was an expired PROD. Please userfy, as he is a member of at least two notable bands, and his name should at least be redirected to one of them. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Helena Basilova

Draft:Helena Basilova · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, 81.64.166.127, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 81.64.166.127 (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LP 993-115

LP 993-115 · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 23 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 14 sources in the SIMBAD database which I looked at yesterday. The fact the proposer was unaware of all but one Xarchiv source is cause for concern. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed the nearest stars as they likely to be notable. —James500 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 3378

GJ 3378 · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 25 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 51 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. The Gliese catalogue is a catalogue of note. —James500 (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: Because it has a lot of malformed tags, I restored it to Draft:GJ 3378. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 1151

GJ 1151 · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 25 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 49 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. —James500 (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: same as above. Please clean up the error messages that appear. Restored to Draft:GJ 1151. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Game Of Quatrainment

Draft:Game Of Quatrainment · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Prakhar19, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Prakhar19 (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 16:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 514

Gliese 514 · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 25 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 170 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. The Gliese catalogue is a catalogue of note. —James500 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I suggest you expand the article a little though - in its current state it might be better as a redirect. Hut 8.5 16:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 4274

GJ 4274 · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 24 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 59 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. The Gliese catalogue is a catalogue of note. —James500 (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I suggest you expand the article a little though - in its current state it might be better as a redirect. Hut 8.5 16:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 4053

GJ 4053 · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 24 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 57 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. The Gliese catalogue is a catalogue of note. —James500 (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. @James500: can you fix the obsolete templates used by the restored version. Hut 8.5 16:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 1286

GJ 1286 · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 24 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 53 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. The Gliese catalogue is a catalogue of note. —James500 (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Hut 8.5 16:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Linder

George Linder · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

State office holder —FloridaArmy (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: the deleted article was about the producer of The Running Man (1987 film) so I assume you're thinking of someone else. It said nothing about him other than that he's produced that film and cited no sources other than IMDB. Hut 8.5 16:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The George Linder who produced that film does have some coverage in GBooks: [9] [10], including a biography in a book published by Verlag Filmarchiv Austria. James500 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC) I should point out the PROD rationale was plainly invalid and discloses a total failure to look for sources. James500 (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly the one sentence sub-stub in the deleted version isn't going to be much help to you if you want to write an article about the guy. Hut 8.5 18:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That's good enough for me. I couldn't see what was there. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 4063

GJ 4063 · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 24 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 40 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. The Gliese catalogue is a catalogue of note. —James500 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Hut 8.5 16:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 4248

GJ 4248 · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 25 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 37 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. The Gliese catalogue is a catalogue of note. —James500 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Hut 8.5 16:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Untitled Loki novel

Draft:Untitled Loki novel · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, PanagiotisZois, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Induction-induction

Draft:Induction-induction · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

completely rewritten text , move the new page

 Draft:Induction-induction   to the old page   Induction-induction —Mozert1 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Timeline of paleontology in popular culture/sandbox

Draft:Timeline of paleontology in popular culture/sandbox · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Abyssal, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Abyssal (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:William J. Morris

Draft:William J. Morris · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Abyssal, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Abyssal (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Timeline of paleontology in popular culture/this

Draft:Timeline of paleontology in popular culture/this · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Abyssal, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Abyssal (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G 141-36

G 141-36 · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 24 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 17 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed the nearest stars as they likely to be notable. —James500 (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Quan (painter)

Huang Quan (painter) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Definitely a notable painter and I have references for an article, I just want to know what was already written about him. —Timmyshin (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timmyshin: I think you are better off just creating a new page, as the deleted version consisted of one short sentence only (a painter from the Five Dynasties). Alex Shih (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Timmyshin (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LSPM J2146+3813

LSPM J2146+3813 · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 22 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 13 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed the nearest stars as they likely to be notable. —James500 (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Moved to Draft:LSPM J2146+3813 as there are a lot of template errors. Hut 8.5 10:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SCR J0740−4257

SCR J0740−4257 · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 24 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 13 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed the nearest stars as they likely to be notable. —James500 (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. Hut 8.5 10:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Bikes

Guardian Bikes · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Please restore Guardian Bikes to Draft Space for improvement, discussion or conversion to redirect retaining attributions. See also User talk:Sandstein#Guardian Bikes. Confirm I am not trying to circumvent AfD in this. Thankyou —Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 701

Gliese 701 · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 26 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 165 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. This one is also included in the Henry Draper catalogue, which means it is amongst the earliest discovered. —James500 (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 382

Gliese 382 · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article was deleted as an expired PROD. As such it must be restored on request. This is one of the nearest stars to the sun, being less than 26 light years away. It satisfies GNG with significant coverage in 166 sources in the SIMBAD database. As a general rule, PRODs should not be placed on stars in the Gliese catalogue, because these are the nearest and therefore likely to be notable. —James500 (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

[2] ttps://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

[1]

[2]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards