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
m Archiving 16 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 145) (bot
XiuBouLin (talk | contribs)
241 edits
Line 210: Line 210:
:I have no problem with it and I'd initially restored it to transfer, but then rethought it since it'd really be best for [[User:Sergecross73]] to be the restorer. Sorry about that. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[user talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style='color: #19197;background-color: #FFFFFF;'> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 11:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
:I have no problem with it and I'd initially restored it to transfer, but then rethought it since it'd really be best for [[User:Sergecross73]] to be the restorer. Sorry about that. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[user talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style='color: #19197;background-color: #FFFFFF;'> (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']] 11:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
::I thank you for that, because I'm actually against it. The community has been very clear that it does not meet the notability requirements right now, through an AFD, a rejected DRV, and now two speedy deletions. The article wasn't especially well written, and had [[WP:BOMBARD]] and unreliable sources in it, which I fear will only confuse people reviewing it in the future. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but to be blunt, this fanbase doesn't seem very familiar with the most commonly accepted interpretation of meeting [[WP:GNG]], what constitutes a reliable source, or what ''significant coverage'' means, and I don't especially have confidence in this new editor of 3 weeks to break this trend. I'd rather it be dropped for a while, and/or created from scratch. Otherwise I already see how this is going to play out. In a couple weeks it'll be attempted to be brought back. I'll say no, because nothing has changed and it still doesn't meet the GNG. Then I'll be the bad guy because I cancelled out a few weeks of misguided work. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 14:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
::I thank you for that, because I'm actually against it. The community has been very clear that it does not meet the notability requirements right now, through an AFD, a rejected DRV, and now two speedy deletions. The article wasn't especially well written, and had [[WP:BOMBARD]] and unreliable sources in it, which I fear will only confuse people reviewing it in the future. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but to be blunt, this fanbase doesn't seem very familiar with the most commonly accepted interpretation of meeting [[WP:GNG]], what constitutes a reliable source, or what ''significant coverage'' means, and I don't especially have confidence in this new editor of 3 weeks to break this trend. I'd rather it be dropped for a while, and/or created from scratch. Otherwise I already see how this is going to play out. In a couple weeks it'll be attempted to be brought back. I'll say no, because nothing has changed and it still doesn't meet the GNG. Then I'll be the bad guy because I cancelled out a few weeks of misguided work. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 14:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
:::[[User:Sergecross73|Sergecross73]] and [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]], I completely agree that consensus reflected that it did not meet notability requirements. I have never been underneath admitting that I'm new, but I've also never been underneath asking for help when I need it. The reason I joined Wikipedia is because I read an article about exclusionism on Wikipedia, which it the camp that I'm in. I don't have any allegiance to Heaven Sent Gaming, and I don't particularly like to read comics or play video games. I don't understand what "this fanbase doesn't seem very familiar" has to do with anything, that's not an insult, nor is it relevant to this article's future. I can't move it to main-space without an admin anyway, and I will be periodically asking experienced editors and admins once substantial revisions to the article are made. I'm just concerned that without the original revisions this will become a COPYVIO down the road, especially since the article wasn't exactly a stub. I would like the experience in bringing an article from the AfD grave. Though, if you don't trust me, a user interested in this sort of thing, like [[User:BOZ|BOZ]] could move the article to a Draft page. [[User:XiuBouLin|XiuBouLin]] ([[User talk:XiuBouLin|talk]]) 06:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


==Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Hockessin Montessori School==
==Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Hockessin Montessori School==

Revision as of 06:54, 3 August 2014


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

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

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

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

Instructions for special cases
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

Southwest Arkansas

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

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

WCWC Legacy Championship

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

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

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

The Red Door Casino Online

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Special K Software

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

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

Nanowar of Steel

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

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

groot drakenstein games club

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beer in Edinburgh

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


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

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

I, 129.93.64.8, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 129.93.64.8 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[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.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Emmet Yngson

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

Yes, it's ONLY for articles about notable people. the panda ₯’ 18:10, 28 July 2014 (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Popi Marden: Abstract Artist

I am collecting contributors before re-submission and they are very slow with their contributions but this is a great man worth the time to create a great article of historical proportions... please have 6 months more of patience for Bruce "Popi" Marden... thank you -209.179.72.54 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[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) 22:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nanowar of steel.jpg

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

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Newbrough

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

Lulahiinthesky is her Instagam/twitter

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

Abhaya_Kshethram

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SHIM

I, Matanys, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Matanys (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[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. GB fan 12:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

numeer nabi

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

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

Ian Holt

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

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

Esmond Shahonya

this article is authentic bio of esmond shahonya -Karlmarx776 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2014 (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/Esmond Shahonya, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Eurasia-America

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

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

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

I, Alcapurrias, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Alcapurrias (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[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. @Alcapurrias: You will need a lot more sourcing than what you have there. Personal recollections are not sufficient for verification purposes. Also see WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dean G. Smith

I, Secretphilosophy, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Secretphilosophy (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[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. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Sent Gaming

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

  • Given that the page was deleted and salted to prevent further re-creation, I would recommend that you talk to the closing admin or to the one who deleted the reposted page, User:Sergecross73, and potentially go through WP:DR. Given that it was deleted so many times and since you are a fairly new user, it would be best to go through the proper channels to get this userfied. On a side note, I do have to ask if you are someone who was paid or otherwise asked to create the page. If so, then I recommend reading over our WP:COI policy and disclosing this up front. It's not that you can't edit, just that you have to make sure to be open about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether someone paid me? What are you talking about? I'm a newb, who would pay me to write on Wikipedia? I will contact User:Sergecross73 about this, thank you for pointing me in the correct direction about this, you partook in the deletion discussion in favor of deletion, I don't understand why Wikipedia is being so hostile towards New Mexico related articles. DocterCox (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were probably asked that because a number of editors defending the article's deletion have clearly been staff from HSG, or people "recruited" by them, acting in their own self interest rather than here to build an encyclopedia. Your user page indicates you know SmileLee, the founder of HSG, so it doesn't seem like that far-fetched of a idea. Also, it's connection to New Mexico had no bearing on its result to be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Sergecross73, I don't know anybody at the organization in question, could I take a swing at the article? It was salvageable (since it wasn't primarily advertising). I would like to get User:Smile Lee's response about your statements, that's a highly speculative and far-fetched accusation, according to his user history he's been editing Wikipedia since 2006‎. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only accusation is that people related to HSG have been recruited to defend/"keep" the article. Judging by how many flawed but similar, non-policy based "keeps" we're given, it's almost certain to have happened. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an extremely hurtful accusation, I'm a Christian and I've never made any profit from Heaven Sent Gaming. HSG is a personal project that both my fiancée Isabel and I cofounded together, so I'm not the founder, I'm the cofounder. I've never indicated that I wanted HSG to have an article, especially considering that when the article was created I had my Cloudflare protection off. Isabel has never been interested in Wikipedia. And, since I know Isabel's work schedule, I can safely say that during the vast majority of the edit times in the AfD, she was usually at work, or sleeping, when the other individual(s) posted. Our editor, Jason, has been acting a little squirrelly, and he does share our internet connection, but I'm not aware that he's done anything on Wikipedia and his browsing history is none of my business. So, I personally don't know any of the people involved in the AfD's, and I don't know the person who created the article. Heaven Sent Gaming does not make me any income, so I would never ask someone, or pay someone, to do something like this, and I kept my edits on the article to a minimum, I was forced to restore the article at one point at the request of other less experienced editors. I'm distraught that my company being the center of this, though I am comforted by the fact that the article space has been salted. Because of this, I do feel safe with a user like XiuBouLin taking responsibility for the article, and bringing it to DRV when its ready. One last thing, I don't know DocterCox and the user page doesn't indicate that they know me, he simply stated that we were both interested in a posted list from Wikiproject New Mexico. Smile Lee (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if all of that is true, it doesn't change that a bunch of HSG fans gave a bunch of bogus "keep" !votes and the website plain and simple does not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. It failed an AFD, a speedy deletion, a deletion review, and then got deleted again. It needs to be dropped for a while. Overwhelming consensus by people who actually know policy are consistently saying it doesn't meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 00:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know policy as well, again, I've been here quite a while. I'm very aware of definition of notability on Wikipedia, I don't think I'll ever be notable for anything (low self-esteem ftw), but removing my bias, my company might meet WP:BARE since it has a book about it and whatnot. The speedy deletion, and deletion review, were due to obvious over-enthusiastic inexperienced users attempting to restore it, which is why I support the salting. User:XiuBouLin kept a cool-hand during the DRV and 2nd AfD, so I think he would be good fit. He's also interested in AfD and DRV in general, this will give Xiu practice in getting an article restored. The article space is salted, so I don't see the danger in giving it a go. Smile Lee (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stepping back in here for a second- I didn't mean the COI comment as an insult or accusation, just that the page had some people coming in that looked like they were editing on behalf of the company. Because DocterCox didn't have many edits, I figured that it'd be a good idea to just ask outright if they were aligned with the company somehow. If he was, then that's fine- it just means that he'd have to be more cautious than most with how he goes about trying to get a copy of the article. I've noticed that a lot of paid editors (not saying anyone here is one) tend to not be overly aware of the various policies, partially because a lot of them are sort of thrown in here by their employers and told that submitting the article would be simple and that they pass GNG and so on. It's still on the editors to know guidelines, but through my interactions with some COI and paid editors I just get the impression that some COI/paid editors are kind of deliberately thrown into the lion's den. If it doesn't work out, the company can always blame an overzealous COI editor and that sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that I never particularly accused SmileLee, I just said that it looked like a organized/recruited effort to some capacity. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that's fair enough, I'm just glad to have this clarified. I'm pretty sure it was probably some type of well-intentioned fan effort that spun out of control. But, who knows. Regardless, since the article was pretty well-sized, it would be a shame to let the prior editor's efforts go to waste. Xiu seems to be interested in the AfD and DRV process, and since that user is also interested in building the article, I think we would be safe letting XiuBouLin take the reigns. Smile Lee (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with it and I'd initially restored it to transfer, but then rethought it since it'd really be best for User:Sergecross73 to be the restorer. Sorry about that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for that, because I'm actually against it. The community has been very clear that it does not meet the notability requirements right now, through an AFD, a rejected DRV, and now two speedy deletions. The article wasn't especially well written, and had WP:BOMBARD and unreliable sources in it, which I fear will only confuse people reviewing it in the future. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but to be blunt, this fanbase doesn't seem very familiar with the most commonly accepted interpretation of meeting WP:GNG, what constitutes a reliable source, or what significant coverage means, and I don't especially have confidence in this new editor of 3 weeks to break this trend. I'd rather it be dropped for a while, and/or created from scratch. Otherwise I already see how this is going to play out. In a couple weeks it'll be attempted to be brought back. I'll say no, because nothing has changed and it still doesn't meet the GNG. Then I'll be the bad guy because I cancelled out a few weeks of misguided work. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73 and Tokyogirl79, I completely agree that consensus reflected that it did not meet notability requirements. I have never been underneath admitting that I'm new, but I've also never been underneath asking for help when I need it. The reason I joined Wikipedia is because I read an article about exclusionism on Wikipedia, which it the camp that I'm in. I don't have any allegiance to Heaven Sent Gaming, and I don't particularly like to read comics or play video games. I don't understand what "this fanbase doesn't seem very familiar" has to do with anything, that's not an insult, nor is it relevant to this article's future. I can't move it to main-space without an admin anyway, and I will be periodically asking experienced editors and admins once substantial revisions to the article are made. I'm just concerned that without the original revisions this will become a COPYVIO down the road, especially since the article wasn't exactly a stub. I would like the experience in bringing an article from the AfD grave. Though, if you don't trust me, a user interested in this sort of thing, like BOZ could move the article to a Draft page. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Hockessin Montessori School

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

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

HBA Learning Centres

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2C2P

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Continuing Church of God

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

Save page.

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

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

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

  • User had created article and had it declined in December. They recieved a notice June 30th that the page was eligible for G13 and in danger of being deleted and encouraged them to make even a single character change. On July 30th HasteurBot nominated the page for deletion because no change had been made in the 6 months + 30 days window. If the user doesn't work at fixing the page it doesn't speak well to the amount of effort they're going to invest in the page. Furthermore the username along with the subject matter suggests that there could be a conflict of interest. Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hasteur, the purpose of this process is specifically to accommodate later requests. There is no time limit. I've restored the page, tho the article is unlikely to be accepted unless much improved--it is presently written as a confusing cross between than article on the church, and a bio of the founder. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DGG My point is how much effort is the user going to put into it when they had a month of time to make even a single character change... Hasteur (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I.V.ChalapatiRao

Renwned educationist in India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsubr (talk • contribs) 16:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Center for Theory of Change

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

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

File:Atomic Betty.jpg

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

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

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

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

Abbey Road Medley

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

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

Varadraj Swami

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pratigya

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

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MUSO

I, Jce2013, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jce2013 (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sychopath (Rap Artist)

I, Jahquan3, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jahquan3 (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was away studying abroad did not have time to correct needed changes and update -Jahquan3 (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parisam vaippu

Parisam vaippu is the most ancient Hindu devotional ritual in the world which shows the Araya community is closely related with the God. The Tamil word “parisam” means dowry. The ritual “Parisam vaippu” is performing on the day of Shivarathry at Chengannur(Kerala, S.India) temple by the Arayans by means of the father of kannaki. It is a traditional right of Arayans giving parisam to their daughter during their marriage. The King Chenkuttuva had constructed a temple in memory of Sree Kannaki at Chengannur during A.D.205. since, then the” Alappattu (a coastal region of Kollam district, Kerala) Aryans” are performing “Thiru Chengannur Sivarathry” and “Parisam Vaippu”. As far as the Arayan community is concerned, the parisam vaippu is not only a traditional ritual but also a grand marriage of their daughter sree parvathy Devi with the Lord Shiva. The ritual “Parisam Vaippu” and shivarathry celebration have been registering in record book by the administrator of the Chengannur temple since A.D 205. Arayars or Arayans are the descendants of suryavamshi koli-Shakya kshatriyas.[1] -Arayasamajam (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ arayasamajam.blogspot.com, mutharayan.blogspot.com
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user PaintedCarpet (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. What the article needs, if it is to be kept, is references to reliable, published sources to verify what it says. Blogs are not considered a reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emperor Hiroshi

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Emperor Hiroshi (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Emperor Hiroshi:  Not done - sorry, but that is not what Wikipedia user pages are for. More explanation, and a suggestion, on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NetBrain Technologies, Inc

I submitted my article for review and find it very questionable to go ahead and delete an article, without cause...the reason for review I thought was to give the writer suggestions and help to fix any problems...not immediately be deleted. I sent article for review and it mentioned it would take weeks and that 916 articles were ahead me...so for article to be deleted after all my work is completely wrong. So, yes please replace article into my sandbox and offer any suggestions for improvement. thank you sincerely. Melinda aka TurnerPaige -Turner Paige (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's already been done. See User:Turner Paige/NetBrain Technologies, Inc. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeffery David

I, LoganJoehl, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. LoganJoehl (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across more credible sources for the producer and wish to edit and resubmit the Wiki page -LoganJoehl (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done (For the PROD restoration) The page was deleted due to it being very promotional in tone. The AfC copy has some issues with promotional tone, but has more content and I'd suggest that it would be better to clean that up first and submit it to AfC rather than recreate the PRODed page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Priscilla Bowden Potter

I, 72.83.70.40, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 72.83.70.40 (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We would appreciate an extension in time to revise this article. Many thanks for your consideration.

quinki

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Jaisingh19 (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about an community which is working to create a knowledge base for the improvement in field of Artificial Intelligence,It is not popular because its data will be used in some applications silently.We just wanted to put some information about this project for world that this knowledge base also exist at some extend

Vicky Leandros

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Vl.eu (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Hi! Sorry my english is not very good ;-) ... Vicky Leandros is born 1952! In the letter which I have specified as the source can also be seen! In IMDb.com even the correct year (1952) is specified. The website "www.vickyleandros.com" is shut down. The website "www.vickyleandros.gr" no longer exists. Can these two not be deleted at Wikipedia? This is confusing.[reply]

The official website is called "www.vickyleandros.eu" and is in German and English. Bye, vl.eu

  • Not done This page is to request the undeletion of pages that have been removed from Wikipedia entirely. The page itself still exists. Since it looks like one of your attempts to change information was reverted, I would recommend that you discuss any page changes on the article's talk page. As far as your English goes, it's not that bad! If you want, there are people on Wikipedia who are bilingual and would speak your native language. For example, if you speak Greek then you can approach someone at WP:GREECE and ask for help translating and explaining things in your native language. If you speak German, you can go to WP:GERMANY and do the same. You can post in your native language, but the only requirement is that you post below it in English as well, summing up what you're saying. This way if any English-only editors come in, they can also comment and help you with any questions you may have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gerarld Egbe

Following your utmost supplication for a written permission prior to any form of modification, duplication, exchange, and/or the non-illicit storage of information on your service, I hereby submit this application for the abovementioned subject matter.

For the sake of consideration and/or time constraint in going through greater depths in information using this portal is suitable and would certainly save time and reduces cost. However, I am aware of not failing to realize the authentication and copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerarld Egbe (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ted Neward

I, Akatyayan, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Akatyayan (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=619640670"