Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
→‎BGVPN: new section
Line 520: Line 520:
*{{revisions|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BGVPN}}
*{{revisions|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BGVPN}}
<i></i>I, 88.100.54.79, request the undeletion of this [[WP:AFC|Articles for creation]] submission deleted under [[WP:CSD#G13|CSD G13]]. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. [[Special:Contributions/88.100.54.79|88.100.54.79]] ([[User talk:88.100.54.79|talk]]) 17:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
<i></i>I, 88.100.54.79, request the undeletion of this [[WP:AFC|Articles for creation]] submission deleted under [[WP:CSD#G13|CSD G13]]. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. [[Special:Contributions/88.100.54.79|88.100.54.79]] ([[User talk:88.100.54.79|talk]]) 17:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

== BGVPN ==

*{{revisions|pageName}}
reasoning -[[Special:Contributions/88.100.54.79|88.100.54.79]] ([[User talk:88.100.54.79|talk]]) 18:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

==Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BGVPN==

*{{revisions|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BGVPN}}
<i></i>I, 88.100.54.79, request the undeletion of this [[WP:AFC|Articles for creation]] submission deleted under [[WP:CSD#G13|CSD G13]]. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. [[Special:Contributions/88.100.54.79|88.100.54.79]] ([[User talk:88.100.54.79|talk]]) 18:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:01, 8 September 2013


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.

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

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

seibukan karate academy jlt

It is an wiki of academy and i was developing it please restore it.Thanking you Sidisfamous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidisfamous (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion (NAI LAC)

paymenex

reasoning -Fulginic (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC) The Images has been removed, and I think is ok now to stay Fulginic (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This page is not tagged for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contec Medical Systems and Shanxi Jerry Medical Instrument Company

These articles were speedily deleted when I wasn't looking for supposedly failing criteria A7 but if I recall correctly one of the sources used in both of them is literally titled something like "List of notable Chinese medical device manufacturers", an industry analysis that is explicitly identifying these companies as among the major Chinese medical device manufacturers. So well beyond just fulfilling the lower-level "importance" standard of A7, these topics are not only notable but the articles already contain sources specifically addressing their notability. -▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The only reference in each case was a list called "Key Portable Medical Device Vendors Worldwide". Just being on a list with the word "Key" in its title is not enough to establish Wikipedia:Notability, which requires references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If you can find more, ask user Kudpung (talk), the deleting admin, if he will undelete or userfy them for you. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you, as an unbiased and uninvolved admin within the Wikipedia system, are willing to swap in an alternative non-speedy deletion reason when the articles did not actually fail the stated A7 criteria since their content did in fact indicate that the company is a key portable medical device vendor globally, and A7 clearly states that it doesn't require the same standard as notability-related deletions do, I can hardly expect any better treatment from the deleting admin. And I already invested quite a bit of time in finding that citation (or at least much more time than appears to have been spent examining the articles and considering whether they met the CSD by the deleting admin) to try to show good faith and ensure that these topics are valid for inclusion under Wikipedia guidelines.

So thank you for the offer, and thank you for at least confirming that the articles said exactly what I remembered they did, but I am not willing to put out another research effort on the long odds that Wikipedia's own rules will be followed next time, as it seems most likely that my half-hour or hour of poring through scientific articles and search results will again be thrown away with a few seconds' thought. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 05:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:MadonnaTheFirstAlbum.jpg

True, it was uploaded by a banned/blocked user. However, this image is or has been significantly known to Europeans. Removal was a mistake. Please add it back to Madonna (Madonna album) with {{Extra album cover}}. -George Ho (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please upload it yourself. See if you can find an online version from a reliable source for this cover. I see there are several around, but mostly what I see is blogs or low quality pics of the CD. Then upload it yourself. The banned user has no ownership of this and you are free to do the job yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambang_Trihatmodjo

Very public figure, Indonesian equivalent of the page is quite sizeable, possibly deleted by Sudharto regime crony -Jamesrlforsyth (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done Contains gossip and no references. However feel free to write a few sentences on the topic yourself, with a couple of sources. The chances are good that your article will be better than the one that was there, which only mentioned his family relationships. I can see no evidence of political interference here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tahrir Monologues

The copyright claim is not true. I own this content, actually this website copied the content from our official Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/TahrirMonologues/info -Ethar91 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK to prove that this is your facebook page you can edit your TahrirMonologues/info page to add a copyright license that permits anyone to make any kind of use or modification of it. This would be the text CC-BY-SA-3.0 along with the attribution your would like. A CC-0 license is OK too. This means you get no attribution. If you do add this license let us know. However the deleted article contains no references to show notability. I would suggest that you find some. Also the tone is wrong for an encyclopedia entry. Use of "we" is inappropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

England (band)

Could somebody userfy this article (eg: to User:Ritchie333/England (band)) so I can look at it and see if it's notable enough for mainspace? The article was deleted as an expired WP:PROD on 11 April 2007 by Nakon (talk · contribs), who has now retired. Since then, the band has had a lengthy feature in a commercially published book "Mellotron" by Nick Awde and has a handful of trivial coverage in other sources eg: AllMusic, Mellotron (official site), JCR Music. Normally, I'd just create the article again, but I'm sceptical that there's enough to meet WP:GNG, and I'm hoping the original article might have other sources. (Though, frankly, I'm not holding my breath on that one). -Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've userfied it to the title above. Get ready to be disappointed. No source at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it unsourced, it is of a completely different band - "my" England were a late 70s progressive rock band who released one album on Arista Records. Could you delete it again as it's completely useless for my purposes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and as a perk, my bubble-bursting-quota is filled for the day so I can focus on other evil deeds.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look for good sources, and found squat but apparently they reunited and gave a performance of the album in 2005 at the "baja prog".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The band seem to be right on the edge of notability but not quite there - one album on a major label (I can't easily verify the other two releases aren't self published) is halfway to criteria 5 to WP:NMUSIC, one of them allegedly went to work with Jeff Beck, (google:Martin-Henderson+jeff-beck) one with Queen (google:jamie-moses+england+garden-shed) and one with The Pretty Things, but aside from the band's own website, none of that's verifiable. The band has an article on German Wikipedia here, but it's cited entirely to primary sources so would get wiped at an AfD here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: With a band from the 70s (unlike many other subjects) there really may be some excellent sources in music magazines from the time; but most of those never make it online not even in a secondary mention of where to look; the situation where only members or people who followed them from the early days could provide the sources. If you are really keen, you might try emailing to see whether they have clippings they could scan and send to you at nfo AT gardenshedmusic DOT com.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've parked a userspace draft in User:Ritchie333/England (band) and that's as good as I can get it with the one print source and various online sources I've drummed up. I'll see if the band have got any other news / magazine sources I can cite. Michig (talk · contribs) is a bit of a subject expert in this area, so he might be able to give further advice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dialog i35

This article is not an advertising or promotion. -Jpchamathdj (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might exist, but how does it meet our notability criteria ... its only "references" are to its own website? Because of those two things, it qualifies as "advertising or promotion" ES&L 13:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brough Family Organization

The article was deleted through a G4 process, however the article that was up was substantially different that the prior article, and contained plenty of sources to pass GNG. At the very least a deletion discussion should have been held, so I am requesting undeletion as the deletion of the page was mishandled. -99.240.160.85 (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done G4 is only for pages that are virtually the same as what was deleted before; something with any substantial changes is not eligible, and something that's gotten dozens of edits over several months is nowhere near eligible. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACCC Conductor

this was my first effort. it was deleted in minutes for being too self promotional. I would like an opportunity to edit it. I was unable to add graphs or photographs that would have served to make it more generic. This is an important topic about an important product that is having a profound impact on the world's power grid. Please give me a chance to improve the discussion. Thanks -Dave Bryant (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Dave Bryant/ACCC Conductor. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaz789/sandbox

I, Jaz789, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Jaz789 (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done "Userfy" means to move a page from mainspace to userspace, i.e. going from an article to your userpage. Any page beginning with "User:" is already in userspace, so it can't be userfied any more than water can be made wet :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senpai Kanji

reasoning -Senpai Kanji (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1= Senpai Kanji

2= I don't see the reason you guys wan't to delete this page everything that i write in it it's true please don't delete them

N Not done. Hi Senpai. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of knowledge about things that the world has taken already taken note of by publishing about them in reliable sources. We have a number of guidelines and policies that work together to attempt to keep this place an encyclopedia, and not some other kind of site, such as notability, verifiability, no original research and our policy on what Wikipedia is not. The entry you attempted to write fell afoul of a number of those policies and guidelines. The fact that the entry was true is not the issue at all. There are a lot of sites on the Internet where you can write about yourself and your anime roleplaying exploits. This is not one though. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Betrayer

article about a band that I am currently a member of with material that is not copyrighted. No violation has been reached due to the material being written by a member of the band and all pictures taken by friends of the band not professionals. -BTB518 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:Your content was not deleted because of a copyright violation. It was deleted because CSD:A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Per the rationalle, you will need to either request userfication or explain why the band does indicate importance/significance. Also, it might be a better idea for you to not write the article as you are in the band and therefore have a Conflict of Interest in writing about the band. Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't write articles about your own band. They almost always get speedy deleted, and then stay deleted. See WP:GARAGE Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FC_ingenieros_y_arquitectos

I do think this article have it's space on Wikipedia, this company is actually holder of the "Premio a la Excelencia" which is the more notable recognition here in Guatemala. Although they are a quiet company, they do work for the biggest project (Oakland Mall, Miraflores...) and have own a reputation within the influencing people in Guatemala. -Jeromecaruso (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Monmouth arkeologinen seura

I, Marianne Terese Olenius, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Marianne Terese Olenius (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: I can email you the text, but before userfying it I have to ask, what do you want it for? It seems to be a translation into Finnish of Monmouth Archaeological Society, which is already on the Finnish Wikipedia at fi:Monmouthin arkeologinen seura, so it serves no purpose here on the English WP. By the way, as it is a translated page, you should have provided attribution to the authors of the English article by placing fi:Malline:Käännös (the Finnish equivalent of Template:Translated page) on the talk page of the Finnish article; I have done that for you. JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somatics

Today, I received a call from a distressed colleague that the page for "Somatics" was deleted from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somatics&action=history.

Wikipedia used to have an excellent page on Somatics, listing many methods within the field, but that was removed recently.

I teach Somatics at a public University, and there are many, many universities offering courses in Somatics, so it is a real discipline. It is an emerging field, with journals, practitioners, academics and books on the topic.

There are numerous organizations under the umbrella Somatics (here is a link to the methods under Somatic Movement http://www.ismeta.org/orgs.html, many of which themselves have pages for their techniques in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Technique, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laban_movement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_studies, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilates (which is often taught at a somatic practice), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolfing,

So, in deleting the Somatics page from Wikipedia, readers looking for information on this discipline will turn to other sources (readily available on a web-search for both Somatics and Somatic Movement) yet at the same time, Wikipedia, in removing the page, leaves the implication that this internationally recognizes use of the word and all it refers to, isn't legitimate. -173.17.40.102 (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The article was soft deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somatics (2nd nomination). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done as a contested soft delete, the article has been restored upon request.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Charles

He is a Blackpool F.C. Player, And a Northern Ireland U20 International he featured in the summers milk cup!!!!If the page is not undeleted, I would like my source code for it back please, I'm his uncle. -DaPlayerX (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) DaPlayerX, if you are a relative of a subject, you probably have a conflict of interest and should avoid editing the article. If Charles truly is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, somebody else will probably write an article on him eventually.
Admins - the subject has a small amount of coverage in reliable sources here and here so I'd personally have preferred a PROD or AfD over an A7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - the notability standard for footballers at WP:NFOOTY requires that he should have actually played for Blackpool, and at present it seems he has not, yet. Ask again as soon as he has played, and the article will be restored. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forza Supplements

reasoning -Miranda race (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC) This article has been deleted, without warning, by Smartse. I believe the article fulfils the proper criterion since it is "about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view". The article - which was originally reviewed and passed by Akusite - was fully referenced with articles from The Daily Mail, Norway Today, The Daily Star and a number of other major UK media outlets. In no way could it be construed as advertising, unless the rule differs for products from McVities and Kraft, on which I based the submission. The references also support the page's claim to notability, though UK editors would already know the subject because of the intense interest in the subject here.[reply]

Thank you.

The page was deleted because it appeared to be unambigious Advertising. Please explain how you intend to resolve this. That there are other companies that may have pages with a advertising bent, WP:OTHERSTUFF clearly indicates that this is not a valid argument with respect to deletion. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polari Magazine

I, 2ndstararts, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 2ndstararts (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why (just after the page was deleted) are you wanting the submission restored when you were notified 30 days ago that the submission was in danger of being deleted? What do you intend to do to improve the AfC submission to make it appropriate for promotion to mainspace? Hasteur (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion without warning/discussion or due process

reasoning -Miranda race (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of this page seems to be purely without merit. It was reviewed, soon after creation, and found to be notable/impartial and properly referenced. Again, with references from UK newspapers of record, the article was fully substantiated. Please restore.

--Miranda race (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered above. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baby-one-more-time-international-cover.jpg

The administrator, who is retired, violated the past consensus, Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_4#File:Baby-one-more-time-international-cover.jpg by deleting the image, citing violation of fair use as a reason. I'm afraid that reasoning no longer holds water. Also, File:... Baby One More Time (International).png must be replaced with this deleted JPG, which should be undeleted in no time. -George Ho (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Condos

Article about a future condo skyscraper in Montreal, misjudged as advertisement. There were two newspaper article references from two different local newspapers to support my article. There seems to have been deletion without anyone even checking my references. -Mtlfiredude (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There wqs nothing to indicate that this (as yet unbuilt) building is or will be notable. Instead, we get the names of the companies selling condos, and a "how many are sold" item. Thus, it was deleted as an advertisement intended to sell the remaining condos. See also WP:CRYSTAL. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eden primary

Foldgate (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the request Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Hackers

Frist there is many pages in wiki for hackers and hackers groups and no page acess egypt hack the best team in middle east why no one respect this please this page important for egypt and egypt police don't delete it this page help internet police in egypt to arrest this hackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivapepa (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. See WP:Your first article for what an article needs, particularly the need for references for verification and to show notability. JohnCD (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syndicate Z

The A7 tag is wrong, I believe we might not be notable to everyone right now. But at the end of this week, we are releasing B.E.R.G.S into an Alpha-Phase. At this point I can link the Google Play account with a link to the game. G11 is even more wrong, we are not advertising ourselves to you, I believed we described our product from a neutral point of view and would be happy to rewrite it if you believe it was too promotional, even though I think it's encyclopedic. -Jimsta28 (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is exemplified by "we might not be notable to everyone right now. But at the end of the week, we are releasing...". I can't see the text of the page, but your rationalle suggests that A7 may be appropriate. The subject of the article has to be notable and verified by an independent reliable source before we can accept an article. CSD:G11 is used to indicate that the entire article is not a encyclopedic article, but instead using Wikipedia as a vehicle for raising awareness of the subject. Finally, the pronouns you use in the text (we, our) indicates you might have a conflict of interest in writing the article. Consider using the Article Wizard to help you learn the best practices and give you an opportunity to correct the submission without being at risk for instantaneous deletion. Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"They are all University of Waikato students completing degrees in the Computer Science field. Their only project so far is an un-released game called B.E.R.G.S (Barcode Enhanced Resource Gathering Survival Game)... ", etc., in violation of WP:PROMOTION, WP:COI and WP:UPANDCOMING. The "sources" are their own DeviantArt page, their own Twitter account, their own Google+ account, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OAGIS

Originally deleted as commercial content, there was clearly some valid content and apparently it is commercially notable in its industry. -prat (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - this was a classic "Let's use Wikipedia to tell the world about us" promotional article ("These exciting projects ensure that OAGIS will continue to grow and improve and we invite you to come join the projects... "), largely copied from the organization's website (which means that restoration would have copyright issues) and sourced only to that website and to an article by its Chief Architect. By all means create an independent, neutral article if you can find significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. I came to look up OAGIS on Wikipedia from an academic journal article. prat (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Amendola (musician)

I'm not sure why this page was speedily deleted, as I had done a lot of work on it after I had tagged it for COI and put some effort in to repair the article. Was there some issue with the style or sources? -Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by User:Wam'tchire, a sock puppet of banned user User:Morning277. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... okay well then I'll try to find those sources again and resubmit it or something; then again I'd only put in an hour or so on the article so it's no biggie. Thanks for letting me know :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

john w james

reasoning -Waistdeep124 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. At all. This is a relative that has passed away may years ago. He is a prominent artist, and has a contribution to society. What is your basis for deletion?>???????

John

Do you mean John Wells James? There's an actual article there now, instead of the advertisement you once created, full of peacock words and florid phrases. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Ian Darling

I, Mobyjaws56, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Mobyjaws56 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why (just after the page was deleted) are you wanting the submission restored when you were notified 30 days ago that the submission was in danger of being deleted? What do you intend to do to improve the AfC submission to make it appropriate for promotion to mainspace? Hasteur (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kirsikkapuisto

I, Vahvistus, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. I will have another go at finding the references needed. Vahvistus (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/smart wiki

I, 49.14.205.149, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 49.14.205.149 (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Please read WP:Your first article for advice on how to write an acceptable article. JohnCD (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CJC-1293

While I agree that this article is not the most prominent chemical on the market, deleting the only easily searchable reference to it doesn't seem to be the answer to me, as compound is still on the market. Harm Reduction dictates that information should be available somewhere, so if not here on Wikipedia, I beseech that you allow me to view the contents of the article (and talk page) once again that I might upload them elsewhere. -Enix150 (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user Smartse (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. Just being on the market is not enough to have an article, unless it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hemu

I, Hemubhati, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Hemubhati (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sports coach UK

I, 80.193.85.150, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 80.193.85.150 (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Please undelete this draft, so I can edit it according to advice from your editor. Thanks. John Driscoll[reply]

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. This reads as the organization using Wikipedia to tell the world about itself: "vision of excellent coaching, every time for everyone..." etc; but Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. If it is to be accepted it needs to be written in neutral terms, citing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to show that the organization is notable. JohnCD (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Soifer

person relevant, -Jackinovaaantes (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally indicated for deletion because of poor references, now is well documented in several reliable sources

  •  Not done The article above is not from the English Wikipedia. All Wikipedia projects have different deletion criteria and undeletion processes. Admins on the English Wikipedia do not have access to deleted articles on other languages ES&L 12:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milon Gupta

Please do not delete. I am new to wikipedia -Milongupta (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Mainspace article is being nominated for deletion because the article wasn't yet ready for mainspace, and the editor sent the page back to Articles for Creation to allow you to improve the article without the immenent threat of deletion.
  2. The AfC page is being nominated for deletion because large portions of the article appear to be taken from an external site in violation of copyright.
While the move to AfC space could be contested as non-conraversial, the AfC copyright violation is non-negotiable. Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Not done. This was a Copyright violation from http://harmonicaclubofgujarat.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/tribute-to-milon-gupta-indian-mouth.html. Wikipedia cannot hold copied material without a formal copyright release, but this material would anyway be unacceptable because it was far too promotional in tone. Wikipedia articles must not be puff pieces, but require a neutral point of view. To learn more about Wikipedia, read Wikipedia:Your first article and (if you are connected with Mr Gupta's family) the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, I moved it to AfC, but then examined the edit history and noticed that the creator has removed a notice from MadmanBot (talk · contribs) alleging copyright infringement. I ran the duplicator report and had no option but to add {{db-copyvio}} to the submission. It's possible the article's subject is notable, and the creator is a fan rather than the (deceased) subject. After incidents like this one, I'd rather assume good faith and give articles that might be nationally well known but totally unknown elsewhere more of a chance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Gupta is probably notable enough for an article, but this text couldn't be kept for copyright reasons, and anyway neede a complete rewrite for promotional tone. I have added some advice on the author's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weatherfield Businesses

I would like this article userfying so as to use it's contents for an article on Corrie Wiki -Paul2387chat 12:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Behrens

I, Bekittrell, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Bekittrell (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

i want to learn more about it -99.34.112.34 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: what is the title of the deleted page you would like undeleted? JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DailyFlag for DailyBread

reasoning -Nancarrowiki (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2013 (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/DailyFlag for DailyBread, 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 KTC (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.
There is still a draft version at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dailyflag for DailyBread which you can work on in order to produce a draft for consideration by KTC or by Deletion Review. That draft has not been deleted; you were notified of pending deletion because it had not been edited for six months; but if you now make any edit, that deletion will not take place.
What is required if it is to be accepted as an article is evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability; see also Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Warning:The draft at AfC is eligible for deletion right now under CSD:G13, if you do not make a change there is a possibility of the draft being nominated for speedy deletion. If you do not make even a single change, the page will be deleted. Please take the appropriate steps to improve the page. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It did in fact get speedy-deleted, but I have restored it. @Nancarrowiki: please add references to show notability and submit it when you are ready. JohnCD (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Houck

I, 96.246.65.70, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 96.246.65.70 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.. If this is accepted as an article, the title will need some disambiguation, e.g. "John Houck (artist)", to distinguish from the existing article John Houck about a different person. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Golden Duke

I, Jmayer, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. J.Mayer (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maharloka

I, Bhavasindhu, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Bhavasindhu (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reinstate the photograph of Dugald Campbell Patterson

reasoning -Raymond Reitsma (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reinstate the photograph of Dugald Campbell Patterson, to the article, based on the following rationale:

The photograph of Dugald Campbell Patterson is historically significant. As a British Columbia pioneer, this photograph has been used to supplement articles in the Burnaby Now newspaper, the Royal City Record newspaper, and is available on the Heritage Burnaby website. The photograph also appears with the accompanying biography on the History of Metropolitan Vancouver website. The photograph is a family photograph which has been used in public for over 100 years.

 Done - that sounds a good case, but you have to add a formal {{Non-free use rationale}} template to the file, as explained in WP:FUR. I have reset the clock on the di-no-fair-use tag, which gives you seven days to do that. JohnCD (talk)

Brian_Penny

deletion states no sources mentioning me, however every single source (including the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, and other very reputable media sources) mentions me, and I was in the process of adding government sources, such as http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/25277/1_Brian_Penny_Redacted.pdf to further establish significance when my page was deleted. Proper deletion process was not followed. This is not cool. -Versability (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. You have completely misunderstood Wikipedia: it is absolutely not "Your New LinkedIn". It is not for self-promotion, or any other kind of promotion. Among the strict guidelines you mention are Wikipedia:Autobiography: "Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. We want biographies here, not autobiographies" and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If a Wikipedia article "brings a level of prestige in itself", that is because it means that people other than the subject think he is interesting or important enough to write about in an encyclopedia.
Maybe you should do a follow-up blog post entitled: "Attempting to use Wikipedia as your personal LinkedIn is likely to cause embarrassment."
As the article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Penny and has now been salted for repeated re-creation, it will not be restored here. You should first approach the deleting or salting administrators, whose names you can read here; then, if your concerns are not met, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit history for this user, it seems nearly every edit is for self promotion. Perhaps the editor in question could also agree to not adding his own name to Wikipedia articles at every opportunity. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO!!! Maybe I'll do a follow-up expose entitled, "How I offended a couple elitest Wikipedia editors, who removed an article that was clearly sourced via legitimate academic, government, and media sources simply to prove a point." My page had been reviewed by various editors, and nobody had a problem with it all year until I advertised it on one of the many mainstream blogs I write for and offended a couple wiki-nerds. So long as you allow personal bias and politics to override legitimate sourcing, you will never be the legitimate source you so wish you were. Censorship in this manner is akin to Hitler's Nazi regime. Just because you don't like what I say about you doesn't give you the right to change history. Good luck to you, Wikipedia...this means war... Versability (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin's Law! You've won a one way, all expense trip to being blocked. We've weathered greater storms than what you could muster up. Hasteur (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since he's threatening further off-Wikipedia efforts to damage us, beyond the damage he already has done with his articles advocating spamming and autobiography, do we need to take this to ANI as well? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. It is hard to seriously consider anyone an actual threat when they post comments like "this means war" - apparently without intent to be humorous. KillerChihuahua 16:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Netop Remote Control

Undelete to perform the requested re-build of the page -Kantonus (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hemanth G N

reasoning -Hehemanth (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ziad Ghanem

I, JoJo Iles, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. JoJo Iles (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeva Sathish

reasoning -Mr.indianwriter (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC) notable and very substantially covered in reliable independent sources. " He is the one among the youngester who created an world record in theatre acting and also honored by notable personalities in india. He is also listed in Internet movie database, recongnised by universal records USA ( links given )and notable person who has made an extraordinary contribution in the field of theatre arts. " It is worth considering. Sources are relisted Jeeva sathish at IMDB Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4756008/bio Jeeva sathish recognition at universal records USA , URDB http://r.urdb.org/BRZ http://recordsetter.com/world-record/theater-performance/5294#contentsecti[reply]

Not done - this page has not been deleted, and its deletion or retention is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeeva Sathish. You are welcome to comment at the deletion discussion (indeed, it appears that you already have, whilst logged out), however, please do not persist in removing the AFD template from the article; continuing to do so will result in your account being blocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Xsyon

(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.) 24.182.27.229 (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably related: User talk:Vireya Hasteur (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you intend to improve the article that had lain dormant for a very long time and how that the page has been deleted, you feel the need to request undeletion? Hasteur (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, yes. Copyright, promotion, BLP are a no immediately, and any draft article that has not been touched in ages we need to know if it's going to be ameliorated or if they're just using Wikipedia as a webhost ES&L 21:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Besan Shennib

Available sources and citations to be included. Creator of page not notified prior to deletion -Rizhad Krol (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:795px-Combos.JPG

It was a picture of a bag of Combos that I took myself. How could it have been "non free"? -Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The front outside of the bag itself is non free. Do you want to have a fair use rationale to go with that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done pleased to be of assistance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MGBworld

reasoning -Mr Mohit Bahl (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Muthu S A

reasoning -121.242.42.35 (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC) sss[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Animal Jam (Online game site)

I, 76.169.25.63, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 76.169.25.63 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I just want to copy it to my commputer and then will delete it again. There is now an article on the same topic.

Bogusz Banderski

reasoning -BoguszeQ (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] 

Bogusz Banderski

in addition to the completely different case as I wrote the article I'm an activist .... an article about me on Wikipedia allow greater reach to my shares that I do on the internet :) like i wrote already WIKIPEDIA IS -FREE- ENCYCLOPEDIA !!!

Rose Guitarinaal

reasoning -Darkmaverick99 (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LegendRJL/BRN

This template was speedy deleted under criterion T3 because it was a duplicate and unused template. I would like it to be userfied because I want to make some modifications and apply them to the relevant articles after I have finished them. Thanks. -Pizza1016 (talk | contribs | uploads | logs) 07:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Reynders

reasI don't know who to turn to now, but my page is deleted and this is now fair, i did everything you asked for, when i see other pages with even almost no references on it, or links that aren't working than i think it is not fair for a objective and sincere page i made about that professor. I demand an explination?Wavesurfer2013 (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC) -10:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Wavesurfer2013 (talk)[reply]

  •  Not done If you have fully read the AFD Discussion, you'll find that references are not the sole issue - the bigger issue seems to have been notability. The explanation is there in plain, clear writing. Just because the person exists does not make them encyclopedia-worthy, and the discussion through the community appears to have been very objective and valid. Please do not make arguments about other articles - it's usually not a good argument to make and usually means we simply haven't gotten to that article, yet. That said, articles that have been deleted via community discussion cannot be undeleted here - if you believe the process was not followed, then you may make a policy-based argument at deletion review - however, in my mind, the person is NOT YET notable enough for an article based on the English Wikipedia strict standards, no matter how much work you put into it ES&L 11:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Econsult Solutions

Abruptly ended discussion and provided the originally author not enough time to establish notability and references. The Article was established as a stub and then immediately deleted as "advertising" when it fact there was nothing promotional in the original articles text. The article was restored and then modified by other authors and the original author was left out Pretzelfactory (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC). The "agreed" conclusion to delete was premature and uninformative about what was agreed upon. Especially note that Economic Consulting is a tool of Economic Theory, and those that perform the service are cutting edge in exploring the dynamics of what is "theory" and making it "real". Therefore, the knowledge/experience of Econsult Solutions is significant to that process!! Please re-establish the article -Pretzelfactory (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Pretzelfactory (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2013 (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/Econsult Solutions, 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 Secret (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. GB fan 11:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:SOLUTION. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Passion for Skiing

I, Stewater, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Stewater (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Olga Marçal Correia da Silva

I, 109.48.215.185, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 109.48.215.185 (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Marçal Correia da Silva

reasoning -Dangarbe (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC) At present there is no changes needed to the page, as they have to do with past events. Upcoming events, which have been planned by Committee will be postponed as soon as they are in place.[reply]

 Not done. The page Olga Marçal Correia da Silva has never been created. The draft page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Olga Marçal Correia da Silva was declined in May 2010 because it did not demonstrate that the subject met Wikipedia's inclusion criterion of WP:Notability, which requires references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", see also WP:Notability (summary). After that, it was available to be worked on, but was eventually deleted because it had not been edited for over three years. I have restored it on request, but this is in order to give you a chance to develop it to show notability 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) 16:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BGVPN

I, 88.100.54.79, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 88.100.54.79 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BGVPN

reasoning -88.100.54.79 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BGVPN

I, 88.100.54.79, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 88.100.54.79 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=572083042"