Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

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

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

• G13. Abandoned Articles for creation submissions - see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 for instructions.

float

float

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

XebiaLabs

• XebiaLabs · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I've made a copy of the deleted page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fishbones123/sandbox

Page was deleted as "A7. Lack of notability." I'd make a case this is a notable company for the following reasons:

XebiaLabs was written about in the Boston Business Journal

The company was listed on the Deloitte Fast 500 at #15

XebiaLabs CEO's profile is listed on Bloomberg:

The company was founded in 2008 and has over 80 employees. Customers include General Electric, Expedia and Xerox.

XebiaLabs is already listed as an example company on a Wikipedia page

(I have no idea when that was added as an entry)

XebiaLabs' competitors have Wikipedia pages:

- XebiaLabs is partners with this company:

XebiaLabs' funding history is documented:

The company recently received $12.5 million in funding from this a large equity investor

(the original XebiaLabs' entry included a cross link to this company)

The company's products have been reviewed in both Dr. Dobbs Journal and Network World:

I appreciate your consideration. Thank you! -Fishbones123 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

citations

References

@Fishbones123: Hi Fishbones123. I would not have deleted that as an A7 but different admin's mileage may vary. The thing is, it's not as if this was clearly outside A7's ambit. Mostly because the article did not provide obviously reliable sources, and what you did cite (now seen at the draft) are naked URLs which does not make the sourcing look good at all (indeed the Boston Business Journal you flag looks at least from the URL like a blog post, which would usually be a worthless source). Look at any decent article and look at the citations. They provide, for example, the reference's title, date, publisher, author, page, etc. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners#Information to include.

Most of what you've said above is frankly irrelevant to an assessment of notability. The issue is whether the topic has been written about in detail in reliable sources that we can actually find and cite (and from which the factual statements in the article can thus be verified). Full stop. But the article was not deleted on notability grounds, as you said it was. Rather, it was not "A7. Lack of notability"; it was "A7 no indication of importance..." You might think I'm just playing a semantic game but I'm not at all. A7 is a speedy deletion criterion – a line in the sand that regards what's currently present in the article. Notability, by contrast, is about the topic and if it is notable regardless of what's currently present in the article.

We don't decide notability at speedy deletion but only after an advertized discussion, such as at articles for discussion, where the topic is regarded. What that also means is that there is no precedent set by speedy deletion, whereas there is by a deletion discussion. You are thus free to recreate the article, just as you have at the sandbox, and there's no need to undelete the article. Or if you want, I can undelete it and move it to your sandbox so the edit history is retained, though it doesn't much matter since you're the sole substantive author. But it should not be in the article mainspace not just because the sourcing is meager, but because it reads rather promotionally, oh, not with the full scale puffery we often see, but it still reads in the world of "ad-speak". Anyway, go find some better sourcing and cite those sources more transparently. If there are no other sources, Wikipedia should not have an article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the thoughtful reply! I will work on getting more documentation and taking the steps you recommended. If you could undelete it and move it to my sandbox, I would appreciate it. I'm still rather new to this and appreciate your help.

Fishbones123 (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fishbones123: You're welcome. Though you might have already noticed, I undeleted and history merged the page with your draft a few days ago and forgot to inform you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:BON PHARM

• Draft:BON PHARM · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Serjarust, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Serjarust (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not done It was a blank submission, so there is nothing to restore. I have no issue with you trying to create a new article at that location, however. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

LifeLogger

• LifeLogger · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

If a competitor of LifeLogger can have a wikipedia, so can LifeLogger, very plain and simple -184.65.114.23 (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There are also tons of articles about LifeLogger... on major tech sites, such as Slashgear.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.114.23 (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was deleted as a result of a deletion debate. Admins will not undelete pages that were deleted with discussion here; go to WP:Deletion review instead. The article has also been deleted twice as an A7 and once as a G11. None of those deletions are eligible for REFUND. Also, you can't use the existence of other articles as an argument for yours, and vice versa. If anything, this article should be protected against re-creation, especially given the AfD. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sooraj Pancholi

• Sooraj Pancholi · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

The article was deleted via AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sooraj Pancholi. I just request you to restore deleted history 'cause the article is currently passed in WP:GNG, and per "Afd" The result was "Redirect", so why admin deleted the article. Actually i'm not agree with this decision and today's i want to back deleted history becauce history has useful content. -Chander 15:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Admins won't restore whatever was present prior to the AfD here. You need to make your case at WP:Deletion review. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chuka Eni

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chuka Eni · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Revzp84, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Revzp84 (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not done Revzp84, The reason I'm declining this is because you already have the article on your user page. I'm going to move it to Draft:Chuka Eni and tag it as a submission. You need to work on sourcing it better, but you should also tone down the article's tone since it does come across as a little promotional in how it is written. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

ProofHub

ProofHub Reason for Undeletion : I just want to know the reason for deletion of my article as I have mentioned all the resources and I have taken all the measures to make it neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit098 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The claimed reason given is that it was an unrepairable advertisment. This is criterion G11. See Wikipedia:CSD#G11. Myself I think it could be edited to remove the bit about businesses of all sizes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning

• Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

PRODded while I was banned and was unable to address the concern (if was any valid; I have no idea now). -M.Altenmann >t 08:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC) --M.Altenmann >t 08:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Fort Mill Magazine

• Articles for creation/Fort Mill Magazine · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Lisamctigue, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Lisamctigue (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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. see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fort Mill Magazine Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Dhing!

• Dhing! · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This is an article I created myself for helping others around the world recognize my contributions to society. I you look up each reference, you will see that I have truly created many new inventions and social movements. None of the article was a hoax whatsoever. The article was true and accurate, as the references will provide more detailed information. There really has been a conspiracy to cover up my fame and I really have donated trillions to the world. There was no dishonesty on my part. -16:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Sozimosy (talk)

Yeah, and I'm really a little blue Bori. We don't tolerate jokesters and are more than happy to remove them if they insist on treating Wikipedia as a liar's bench. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

keyvan dehnad

• Keyvan Dehnad · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

the person was requesting for deletion of page have no knowledge and ability to judge about Judo and Keyvan Dehnad A Referee from International Judo Federation Olympic Sport "Save page" button below -Dehnad (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was deleted as a result of a deletion debate. Admins will not undelete pages that were deleted with discussion here; go to WP:Deletion review instead. Whether or not he had "knowledge and ability to judge" is irrelevant. We require articles to show notability by having multiple reliable sources, and this is especially important for biographies. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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/Keyvan Dehnad, 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

keyvan dehnad

• Keyvan dehnad · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

this is your require articles to show notability by having multiple reliable sources http://www.intjudo.eu/pictures/calendar/563_1_1.pdf."Save page" button below -Dehnad (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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/Keyvan Dehnad, 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Tallinn

• List of bus routes in Tallinn · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

Restoration of a SOFTDELETEd article. -Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• This shouldn't be done as the user simply has a pathetic issue with me and my nominations and is only requesting to make some WP:POINT, He probably won't touch the article whatsoever, Also in other discussions consensus has been to delete these articles as most are unsourced and can never really be sourced, and then they fail NOTDIRECTORY,CHeers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article was only deleted a second time because nobody noticed you propose it, hence the SOFTDELETE. If you want it to stay deleted, I think some explanation as to why the previous decision Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Tallinn was wrong would be needed. Some honesty about the consensus to delete these lists wouldn't go amiss, either. The truth of the matter is that many of these lists currently exist on Wikipedia, including several (like this one) that have explicitly survived even after you've tried to make the various NOTthis or NOTthat arguments, or otherwise claim they have this issue or that issue. If anyone is trying to push some point, it's the person who keeps saying things about these lists which don't turn out to be true when properly investigated. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

In 2009 AFDs were a lot less stricter, These days It's a lot more stricter, Most AFDs have to be relisted 2 or three times if no one !votes - This never occurred with this AFD which leads me to believe the "deleter" agreed with me in that the article failed NOTTRAVEL & all that, I will admit hands up some of my AFDs haven't gone so well but whose does?.... Not everyone on this place agrees with each other (and there's been more than once where I've disagreed with Charles and vice versa}, Back in 2013 A discussion took place between quite alot of editors and it was decided these all failed WP:NOTDIR & all that (I for the life of me can't remember where the discussion happened since between then and now I've had rather alot of discussions ), All of what I've said on AFDs have been true and other than you everyone agrees with me (I'm sure if they didn't someone would've been said something back in 2012/2013.), Personally I see no real benefit to un-deleting this and I'd no doubt it'll only be re-nominated and then deleted again, Cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not done Notforlackofeffort, I have to agree with Davey on this one. Bus routes are not automatically notable and multiple similar articles on bus routes have been brought to AfD and deleted. Even if it was restored it would very likely be deleted via AfD (See these precedents for example). I think that in this instance deletion review is really the only way to go, so your best bet is to open up a case there and provide plenty of sources to show that this particular set of bus routes is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. However again, I have to caution you that there is a large precedent for list articles of bus routes to be deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're using those examples as precedents? OK then, let's take them in order:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Downham Market

Downham Market is a tiny place, it is in no way comparable to a European capital city like Tallin. The person deleting it even said, "Comparing Brooklyn and London to Downham Market does not add up". Also note there was considerable disagreement on the issues of NOT and NOTE, and the entire discussion involved only 6? people.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illawarra bus routes

Illawarra appears to be a suburb of Sydney, so again, not really comparable to an entire city. Also note that this 'discussion' attracted comment from precisely two people, and involved zero actual back-and-forth debate (meaning that Davey's extremely poor reasoning - "We ain't a directory of bus routes." - which is provably false if taken at face value to mean Wikipedia doesn't have any lists of bus routes, could not be challenged. This is little better than the outcome of a proposal by Davey which nobody else even notices, which is what happened in this case

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Stowmarket & Needham Market (2nd nomination)

See Downham Market. Also note this 'discussion' was as poor as the Illawarra one, and involved only one more person (making it a whopping three!)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronx Bus Routes

Jesus Christ. This discussion happened in 2005!!!!! Also note that Wikipedia has lists of bus routes for every New York Borough, including the Bronx - see Lists of bus routes in New York City

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_Midlands_Stratford_Road_bus_Corridor_(2nd_nomination)

Based on the title, I don't think the contents of these 'bus corridor' articles would have looked at all like the content of the typical Wikipedia bus route lists. If they did, at best, they were attempts to list all the bus routes that go down one particular road, which I think you can appreciate is about as far removed as listing all the bus routes in a capital city as you could get.

Also, please note that every one of those recent discussions is either being started by, or commented on by, one of either Davey or Charles, and more often than not, attracts very little comment from anyone else, let alone any proper discussion.

Tokyogirl79, I hope you understand why, given the above, I do not think there is any reason why I should be taking at face value this claim that "multiple similar articles on bus routes have been brought to AfD and deleted". You have in fact not provided a single example of a list of bus routes of a major city ever being deleted, and the examples you used to show this is the case for lists for smaller places is hardly convincing, given the lack of participation/poor quality of discussion.

By contrast, and despite the repeated claims of Davy that this is supposedly a consensus now that there's been some kind of awakening in understanding of NOT, as of right now, as 2014 draws to a close, Wikipedia has several such lists (London, New York, Toronto, Bangkok etc etc), many of which have even survived attempts to delete them. I can see no evidence in the above examples or in your general reasoning, that the Tallin list would in all likelihood not survive AFD, and I see no reason why the choice to SOFTDELETE it, which explicitly says can be reversed for any reason, should be ignored just because Davey is making all sorts of wild and unsupportable claims about how the debate would have gone if people had noticed it.

That Downham Market page did at least point me to [[1]]. And as you can see, the only thing it actually says about routes lists, is that "Articles about individual bus routes are rarely notable, recommendations to merge into a suitable list article are common." Which seems to me to fly in the face of this claim that such lists are usually deleted.

If Davey wants to say things like "All of what I've said on AFDs have been true and other than you everyone agrees with me", I guess he's entitled to, even though it's clearly a total lie based on the evidence. As the links you provided show, quite a lot of people dispute his logic, even for smaller places. As such, I don't think it's all surprising that he apparently can't remember where this huge discussion that occurred in 2013 that decided bus routes lists violate NOT (notice how he can't even consistently remember which rule it was decided they do violate, sometimes it's NOTDIR, sometimes it's NOTRAVEL, other times it's something completely different). In my experience, I would say it's a fair bet that such a discussion either never took place at all, or it perhaps involved at most 5 people, two of which will have been him and Charles no doubt. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I can still make a judgement call and not restore a soft delete if I think that there is a very valid chance that this would be deleted via AfD- and I can guarantee that Davey would take this back to AfD if I restore it. For every one bus line that makes it through AfD there are dozens that don't and it's very, very rare that a list article about bus lines passes notability guidelines. Now if you can give me some sort of proof that this bus line would pass notability guidelines (which again, is fairly rare) then I'll restore it and open the AfD up again, but I'd like some proof that this would actually pass an AfD. I still think that deletion review would be a better option because while this was a soft delete, Davey is going to contest it and that can sometimes move a lot faster than an AfD would. However if another admin wants to restore it, I won't overly contest it- I just think that it would be restoring it just to have it deleted again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'll ping some other admins in for their opinion. (@Fuhghettaboutit:, @Graeme Bartlett:, @Amatulic:) I just really have to stress that my rationale here is based on the fact that the majority of bus list type articles (and similar list articles for other transportation routes) have closed as delete recently and I don't know that this would turn out any differently since I have no reason to believe it would be otherwise. I really hate to use the term "waste of time" when discussing things like this because it is often used in a very negative context, but I just can't see where this wouldn't end up with a delete if it was restored. Other than the argument that soft deletes should be restored, you haven't really given me anything to show that this particular bus route would be one of the rare exception to the transportation routes list rule. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• My opinion would be to restore a soft deleted article. However since it is declined once I would not go from this point and restore it. Instead I would support a deletion review, especially since there has been a couple of stron opinions presented here. To support the existence of the page I would recommend that contributors look for book or independent web pages that cover the topic, as these are likely to exist. In my opinion WP:NOT does not directly apply to this topic, and so a local consensus at AFD or deletion review should be able to completely establish if this topic is suitable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Graeme Bartlett, if you want to restore it then I'll bow to your decision. I just kind of feel like it's giving the condemned prisoner five more minutes before flipping the switch. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very slightly torn, but overall I come down pretty strongly on undeleting. I am only torn, because I would have strongly favored deletion had I participated in the AfD in 2009 and think they got it quite wrong there. I won't go into that in detail as beyond the scope and mostly irrelevant here. While I believe in WP:BURO and WP:IAR and will defend their use when a real goal is served, I don't see much here to warrant application and I also think that process is important if there is no overriding reason to invoke them. The second nomination was a soft delete which has a very specific meaning and promise ("the article can be restored for any reason on request"). Despite my feelings about the 2009 discussion, by not undeleting we are essentially deleting out of process, because we should see this as little different when reversing a softdelete is purely ministerial. To put it another way, you would agree that had there been no second AfD and the article was live right now, you wouldn't delete it if tagged with {{db|first AfD got it wrong and recent precedent is to delete these types of articles}} would you? Let it go to AfD again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79: "Other than the argument that soft deletes should be restored, you haven't really given me anything to show that this particular bus route would be one of the rare exception to the transportation routes list rule." I ran through every single one of your examples, showing how it's not reasonable to consider any of them a precedent. You haven't come up with any better examples, so I can only presume they don't exist. That presumably explains why I have not yet found any evidence of any rule prohibiting such lists (indeed such a claim flies in the face of all available evidence).

As to whether or not the 2009 outcome was correct or not, looking closely, except for the notability argument, I'm not actually seeing any significant difference between what happened then, and what has been happening recently. A tiny amount of people claimed the list violates NOTthis and NOTthat, and when asked to explain how or why, they give no answer. One person claimed it should be deleted because it was a bus timetable, and when it was pointed out was not, they somehow turned that into the reason to delete! I've seen all that sort of nonsense in recent cases. The keep side, by contrast, gave detailed explanations why such a list was appropriate, reasons which appear to be as valid today as they were then. I've certainly seen no evidence that any particular NOT rule has been developed or expanded in the time between 2009 and 2014 which would mean a re-run of the 2009 discussion wouldn't end up as keep.

Which brings us to notability, which is a completely different kettle of fish to NOT type arguments, and which wasn't really addressed in 2009. Would the list be deleted this time around if nobody can find sources to establish notability? Perhaps. The point is that such an argument has not been had for this particular list. Indeed, the very fact that such lists are apparently supposed to be judged on a case by case basis for notability (which seems to me to be a complete waste of time when pretty accurate predictions can be made for the general class, given the right pre-conditions such as size of area/operator), shows that by definition there mustn't even be any Wikipedia rule which says these lists are not appropriate (which brings us back to the point that several already exist on Wikipedia, as listed many times already).

It should be noted that the person who wanted to delete this list in 2009 was a self-confessed purger of 'listcruft' (which makes me think of Charles and his aversion to 'buscruft'). Note that his reason was "As was decided by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taichung bus routes this is indiscriminate information." Note that Wikipedia has the list List of bus routes in Taichung. So, this idea that these lists are indiscriminate information can't be all that robust or solidified, as this is now the second time I've seen a list that someone says was previously deleted for good reason, has actually been recreated, without apparently anyone noticing. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Donald K Stewart

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donald K Stewart · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

(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.) Maud2013 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This page has been deleted multiple times as an abandoned draft article. As Articles for creation, the Draft space, and user subpages are not to be used to indefinitely host material inappropriate for the encyclopedia, what exactly would you do to help make the draft get accepted as an article? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Maud2013: Declined pending further information. This is your second undeletion request for this page and you did not make a single edit after you requested its undeletion over six months ago, on March 1, 2014. As above, we are not an indefinite hosting service. I am willing to restore it again, but only if you provide some definite assurance that you actually intend to work on it (i.e., by providing citations to better secondary and independent reliable sources and to cite them using inline citations for basic transparency and verifiability). Please advise. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wild Ones Natural Landscapers

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wild Ones Natural Landscapers · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Janeta-401, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Janeta-401 (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Janeta-401: 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ashik mahinabad

• Ashik mahinabad · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Maneger007 (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not done I'm sorry, but the page didn't have anything on it and looked like it was a test page. Even the re-created page didn't really have any content in it. Offhand a search for this person doesn't really bring up anything to show that he's notable enough to warrant an entry. I found his blogs, but having a blog and existing as a person aren't enough to really qualify for an article on Wikipedia per WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

brexelant

• Brexelant · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This article is not for pormotion or advertising, I will also improve this article -Sajal1010 (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Not done I'd prefer that you re-wrote the article from scratch. While it wasn't over the top promotional, it was just promotional sounding enough to where I can see where it was tagged and speedied as such. Since the page was only a few sentences long and you'd have to essentially re-write the page in order to make it fit NPOV guidelines, there's really no reason for this to be restored. On a side note, I would probably recommend that you include this information in the overall article for Zee Laboratories, which is up for deletion due to notability issues. Individual products are rarely notable outside of their parent companies and I'm not really bringing up a whole lot to show that this product line is particularly noteworthy enough to merit an article. Here are the news reports used in the article ([2], [3]), but I will caution you that both articles are essentially saying the same thing- that a notable person is hawking the products. This doesn't really show a depth of coverage for the product line and an association with a notable person does not automatically grant notability for a product line. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Punjab Rural Support Programme

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Punjab Rural Support Programme · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Dr.faizanali, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Dr.faizanali (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Various file information pages

• File:Naked Without You (song) cover.jpg · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:Membersfrance.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:Lizard Range, near Fernie, BC, Canada.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:Iza 143.pg.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:Human Darren Criss.jpg · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:Happyfeetscore.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:F1spirit msx.jpg · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:Triomillais1.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:TimeTravellersWife.jpg · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:The health centrum.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:Roxanne, Roxanne excerpt.ogg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:Polyneuridine-Aldehyde Esterase Reaction.png · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• File:Zeynep Ucbasaran 01.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The files all exist on Wikipedia, but the textual file information pages have somehow been deleted. Please undelete the textual file information pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: All done where I can act.

1. File:Lizard Range, near Fernie, BC, Canada.jpg has no deleted edits so it does not look like there was ever any text information other than the comments attached to past versions which you can see.
2. File:Iza 143.pg.jpg is a mystery. It has no deleted edits and has the "create" button like it's a file from the Commons but it doesn't exist there and is local. I'm stumped.
3. File:Roxanne, Roxanne excerpt.ogg is used in two places neither of which are the plac mentioned in the FUR I undeleted, so that needs to be fixed.
4. File:Polyneuridine-Aldehyde Esterase Reaction.png is unused, and needs to be used to remain as a fair use file.
5. I'm not sure what to do with File:Zeynep Ucbasaran 01.jpg which was deleted at commons under the free licenses provided as lacking permission.
6. File:Membersfrance.jpg and File:Triomillais1.jpg were unused and were actually meant to be deleted entirely as licensed only for Wikipedia use, but instead only one revision was deleted, now deleted entirely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

1. File:Lizard Range, near Fernie, BC, Canada.jpg: As the file information page seems to be lost, I have created a new one, using information from the upload log summaries. As this information doesn't contain sufficient source information, I have added some "no source" and "no licence" tags.
2. File:Iza 143.pg.jpg: As the upload log summary doesn't contain sufficient source and licensing information, I have tagged the file with {{subst:nsdnld}}. Hopefully, the uploader can provide the missing information.
3. File:Roxanne, Roxanne excerpt.ogg: The fair use rationale is for Roxanne, Roxanne, which is a redirect to one of the articles containing the file. As far as I know, a redirect is accepted in fair use rationales, so the file seems to have a fair use rationale for one of the articles. The file currently doesn't have any fair use rationale for the other article.
4. File:Polyneuridine-Aldehyde Esterase Reaction.png: This is not listed as a fair use file, so the file does not need to be used.
5. File:Zeynep Ucbasaran 01.jpg: This should be deleted per WP:CSD#F11. Since something strange has happened, I deleted the old "no permission" tag from 2012 and added a new one, for deletion in one week.
6. If the two files you mentioned have a Wikipedia-only licence, then they should indeed be deleted as they currently are. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A. Z. M. Iftikhar-ul-Awwal

• A. Z. M. Iftikhar-ul-Awwal · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I have created this page a few years ago and the page was deleted stating that it should have at least one source that directly support the content. If you see that page there are many references that supports the contents. Moreover, I can also provide new references for this page and make some edits to the page in accordance with the references. The page is regarding a person who is an eminent historian and academic in Bangladesh. These are some admins in wikipedia who are maliciously deleting relevent academic references regarding the highly cited academic works by this professor as reference spam, and has also deleted this page. As a former student of this distinguished historian, I would easrnestly request to restore the page. The academic website of the person is: http://www.du.ac.bd/department/common/facultymemberdetail.php?memberid=FMHIS73034&bodyid=HIS -Locomotive999 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Locomotive999: Not done. Hi Locomotive999. You are incorrect as the basis for the deletion. A user tagged it for deletion as a biography of a living person with no sources early in its history. which lasted just a few edits. You made numerous edits to the page after it was removed. It was then found to be a copyright violation more than a month later (from the edit summary "entire page seems to have been lifted from Open Library (where the page was created in 2008, years before this page)". You should know this as the entire page was replaced by the large notice listing it as a copyright violation, stating where the source was that was alleged to have been copied from, directing anyone looking to where the listing was at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and – you removed the tag and replaced the prior content two hours after that happened (and were rightly reverted). It was then deleted as a copyright violation after a seven day holding period. We do not undelete copyright violations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of my request. The Openlibrary information was written by me, and is based on the information available on the the information link I have provided you before. Reproduction of my own written article cannot be called copyright infringement. Furthermore, I personally know the person and I have created the page with his permission. So could you please advise me what I can do about restoring the page by aligning to the wikipedia policy? If you kindly restore the page, I can edit the article with other new references available. Thanks, User:Locomotive999 27 December, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Locomotive999: You'd have to file a ticket through WP:ORTS that gives Wikipedia permission to use the text. However there are still two problems with the page. The first is that you would still have to show reliable sources (WP:RS) that are independent of the subject himself to show that he passes notability guidelines. The second is that some parts of the article are somewhat promotional in tone and would have to be re-written to meet NPOV guidelines. This is sort of a double edged sword when it comes to copyrighted material, as you can give permission but in most cases the material would still require a re-write to fit other policies. In this particular instance the article comes across a lot like a CV/resume, complete with words like "renowned" and other terms that could be considered WP:PUFFERY. It's not the worst I've seen, but you'd probably still be asked to re-write it eventually even if you do file a ticket through ORTS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Locomotive999: Hi Locomotive999. Further on from what Tokyogirl79 said, a copyright problem is raised even if you are the author, and copyright can be violated by you even if you own the content. This is because you are putatively attempting to retain non-free copyright ownership over your content, but give a license to Wikipedia for its one-time use. We cannot accept such a limited license.

  The reason why is that content displayed on Wikipedia (with some exceptions) bears a free copyright license that allows our readers to take the content and re-use it (even for commercial purposes). That is the explicit promise to readers: "this content you're reading is freely-licensed". See the bottom of every Wikipedia page where it says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License..." This is quite different from when you see content at some random website where someone who owns the copyright of material is allowing its use there, with no such promise to the readers.

  Thus, for us to use this copied and pasted content here (even were it appropriate to make up the body of an article), you would have to release the copyright to the world under a free copyright license compatible with our licenses (or into the public domain), and you would have to do that in a verifiable way, such as by changing the external site to show its release, or sending a missive through the OTRS system (as mentioned above) in a manner that shows you are actually the owner of the content with authority to release it, and do so in a suitable manner (see WP:DCM for some specifics). By the way, I look at your desire to aggrandize yourself here with great distaste. It is not forbidden, but it is in my view a misuse of Wikipedia and one I would be greatly embarrassed to undertake. That's just me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Shivam_Sai_Gupta

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

Shivam Sai Gupta is a notable public speaker and software developer who has been featured in hundreds of articles in prestigious publications including The Times of India. He was considered the "youngest programmer" in 2010 by some magazines. -27.106.46.23 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tigran Maytesian

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tigran Maytesian · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, 95.67.102.245, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 95.67.102.245 (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the article is significant as it goes about a prominent contemporary Belgian-Armenian violinist and scientist whose notability is evidenced by a lot of independent reliable sources published -95.67.102.245 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

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 18:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

umesh upadhyay

• Umesh Upadhyay · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The page is related to an eminent personality in the Indian media -122.177.68.236 (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. -- GB fan 13:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

an insignificant harvey

• An Insignificant Harvey · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The film has sufficient supported references to proof it is a full length feature film and is notable under the guidelines, as it appears to have had significant release and media coverage internationally -Vitality Media (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. -- GB fan 13:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Devil Dub

• Devil Dub · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

A9 after several years of existence because there was not yet a band article, now there is. -87.178.245.96 (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- GB fan 13:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, please also undelete File:Devildub.jpg to complete the article undeletion. 93.222.87.6 (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- GB fan 18:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Suneris, Inc.

• Suneris, Inc. · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Suneris, Inc. was nominated for speedy deletion under A7 and G11 and was deleted very quickly (within 5 hours), leaving no time for discussion. (See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Suneris.2C_Inc.) Suneris is a corporation that has been the subject of much media attention over the last four years and has been producing interesting medical technologies. I don't see why A7 or G11 would apply. The subject of the article is significant and there are substantial references that support it. -Freemanscott1123 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's sourced doesn't mean G11 doesn't apply (G11 is more an issue with the article's tone and content, as opposed to its sources). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Kuwait Financial Centre

• Kuwait Financial Centre · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Dear Editor,

Kindly request you to state down the advertising points associated in the article for Kuwait Financial centre. The organization in one of the reputed firm in Kuwait and supports many social economic events in the country which is now added to the article. The intention is to represent an oldest investment bank of Kuwait -Anischief (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anischief: Encyclopedia articles don't have sections on "key milestones". I was going to say that sentences like "Since its inception, Markaz has focused on the development of its human resources as an essential element of success and growth" are straight from an advertisement brochure, but then I realized in this case they literally are, since you blatantly infringed on the bank's copyright by copying and pasting the content from there. Don't copy and paste copyrighted material again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

umesh upadhyay

• Umesh Upadhyay · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The reason was deletion states that unverifiable sources were provided. However, the information on the article was correctly sourced with the individual mentioned in numerous leading newspapers articles in India. He is presently the President News of Network 18, India's largest news network and certainly a notable figure in the Indian media. -14.141.31.228 (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. -- GB fan 12:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/W.H. Bagshaw Company

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/W.H. Bagshaw Company · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, 95.93.88.72, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 95.93.88.72 (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done the article is a copyright violation of http://www.whbagshaw.com/the-oldest-pin-manufacturer-in-usa/ -- GB fan 12:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony White

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony White · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Creativeforrest, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Creativeforrest (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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 12:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Willy Monfret

• Willy Monfret · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

I would wish to have Willy Monfret undeleted because i believe that the last year he got more noticeable for Wikipedia. He played the lead role in Nicki Minaj's short movie The Pinkprint Movie, which led to him being known worldwide. His fans are searching him online and can't find anything about him on Wikipedia. Hope this will be reconsidered and thank you in advance -Louiseenv (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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/Willy Monfret, 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 Black Kite (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 13:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

CSpace

• CSpace · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -50.82.34.88 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Page was deleted due to dubious notability. The service in question was recently revealed to be a top concern for the NSA as a means of providing anonymity to terrorists (as can be seen on page 20 here http://www.spiegel.de/media/media-35535.pdf which was sourced from this article here http://www.pcworld.com/article/2863972/tor-truecrypt-tails-topped-the-nsas-most-wanted-list-in-2012.html)

 Done The article was restored in January of 2010 to a user space draft. I have now moved it to the draft namespace, Draft:CSpace, so you can work on it. -- GB fan 18:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sobia_Khan

• Sobia Khan · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Please undelete my article named Sobia Khan. I will improve it by giving more information and references. Sobia Khan is a popular actress of Pakistan and has contributed so much for entertainment industry in Pakistan. She deserves a place on Wikipedia. Thanks. -Touseef1983 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

McCall College

• McCall College · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Article was deleted before I could return to edit. I do not have a copy of all my work and would appreciate the recovery of the work so that the article can be modified. -DrLBWilliams (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Actually it is not deleted, but is here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/McCall College Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Darick Robertson

• Darick Robertson · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I own the photo and copyright to the photo and have provided reference to said image already -Darick Robertson (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC);

• The image was clearly labelled as by Aaron Munter. Who owns the rights? You or him? In any case you need to email OTRS to formally confirm the license and release before we can act. We almost certainly need to hear from Aaron too. you probably should read Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Techmoan

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

Because it took me a long time to write the page and I would at least like the content back if the page cant be restored on wiki. Or could it please be returned to the draft stage so I can work on it and meet the requirements before republishing it? I do understand it my need to be rewritten for wikipedia but I would like my writing just for my own use as well, and as a starting point to re write the page. Thanks. -The barbarian of Trevor (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have userfied it to User:The barbarian of Trevor/Techmoan. Work on it or take whatever content you want to go somewhere other than Wikipedia. As far as I can tell this is simply not an appropriate topic or an article, and cannot be until Techmoan gains the type of independent coverage in reliable secondary sources that are needed to show notability and allow verification of content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harden Askenasy

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Harden Askenasy · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Mdujovny, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Mdujovny (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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. Clue: To show notabiliity we need what others have written about him, rather than his own writings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

talk:Articles for creation/Bertheau's law

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bertheau's law · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, The vertigo, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. The vertigo (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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. see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bertheau's law Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, 88.203.164.1, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 88.203.164.1 (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Welsh Local Elections 2012

• Draft:Welsh Local Elections 2012 · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, 94.5.187.3, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 94.5.187.3 (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

101 Ranch Oil Company

• Page name goes here · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Jcmcapital (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Page Name: 101 Ranch Oil Company This is a significant article about CONOCO's first oil well and CONOCO's founders, with much of the information already provided to the CONOCO museum, Ponca City. At some point someone deleted the footnotes, and I have no idea how to restore them. I could use your help. Jim Murray (McCaskey's youngest living grandson).

• There is nothing to undelete here. You will see that what was in the notes section is now in the references and further reading sections. see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=101_Ranch_Oil_Company&oldid=475289369 for a version before User:Yutsi made a change to split this up. Other versions can be seen in the history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bob Wingo

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bob Wingo · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, DonegalWinner, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. DonegalWinner (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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 15:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Virgin_Atlantic_Flight_43

• Virgin_Atlantic_Flight_43 · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Virgin Flight 43 Emergency Landing is an ongoing current event. Speedy deleting it under A7 makes no sense, please reinstate the article. People look to wikipedia for unbiased just-the-facts content for current events around the world. This is one. As time passes it's likely that this article will grow to include links to the AAIB report for the incident. Speedy Deleting it while the event is ongoing and people are looking for information about relatives etc is very unhelpful. Does popularity (views) not get considered when speedy deleting an article?

 Not done. Please read WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. It seems very unlikely that this incident will be notable enough for an encyclopedia article - see also WP:EVENT. I do not think it even meets the lower standard of WP:AIRCRASH for mention in an airport, airline or aircraft article. You can discuss this with the deleting administrator, NawlinWiki, and if he does not agree you can go to WP:Deletion review, but my advice is that you will be wasting your time, unless this story turns out to be more than "airliner makes emergency landing with undercarriage problem, nobody hurt". JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism

• Cultural Marxism · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -207.180.139.66 (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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 and redirected to Frankfurt School after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination), it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Samwalton9 (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. JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phyllis McCrady

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Phyllis McCrady · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

To continue editting Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Cgoodale1 (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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 19:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Productions (US)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Productions (US) · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Bcsheehan, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Bcsheehan (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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 19:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roy Oppenheim

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roy Oppenheim · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

(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.) Sociallyfein (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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 19:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Monroe County, Indiana

• Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Monroe County, Indiana · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This page was deleted as an empty category, but it is no longer empty. -—Granger (talk · contribs) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done I've never restored a category before, so let me know if I borked it up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

bagillt heritage society

• Bagillt Heritage Society · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Article needs further editing to improve relevance and show citations -Chrisowensbagillt (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chrisowensbagillt:  Not done. Wikipedia's inclusion criterion is called Wikipedia:Notability and is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See also WP:Notability (summary). Not many local organizations like this can pass that test. If you think you can provide independent references to show notability, reply below here and I will "userfy" the article - move it into a sub-page in your "user space" where you can work on it; but if not, it would be a waste of your time. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Derwin Pereira

• Derwin Pereira · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I would like to request an undeletion of this entry, since the entry's subject is a well-known public figure in Southeast Asia, and heavily involved in US and Indonesia's relations. The deletion was originally made because the entry was written by a banned user: I'd like to write/edit the entry from scratch, so could you please remove the ban? -10:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Mollmichaella (talk)

• I'm somewhat leery of doing this since the sockpuppet in question (User:Mamadoutadioukone) is someone who frequently made up new ones. You're a brand new user and I'll be painfully honest: the first question on everyone's mind is whether or not you are a new sockpuppet of Mamadoutadioukone. I'm actually mildly tempted to run you through SPI just to make sure that you aren't related to this person because the socking has been fairly persistent. If you're not related then this SPI will clear you of that concern. If you are, then this would result in the new account getting blocked as a sockpuppet. What is kind of pushing me to do this is that you've created a new article (Lazada Indonesia) that is fairly promotional in how it was written. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Mollmichaella: I agree with Tokyogirl and, unless she gets there first, will add your account who has added your account to be checked as part of the SPI (sockpuppet investigation). If you are not connected with the Mamadoutadioukone ring of paid editors, you have nothing to fear. In any case, the existing article will not be undeleted: what you should do is, prepare a draft at Draft:Derwin Pereira and, if it is accepted, ask MER-C, the administrator who protected the title, to unprotect it so that the draft can be moved to the main encyclopedia. I am sorry if this all seems unwelcoming, but Wikipedia suffers greatly from paid promotional editing, and will become just another internet advertising site unless we can control it. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. I understand that you need to look into this, and I absolutely don't mind. I have no connection to the banned user, and I'd be more than happy to upload the draft as suggested. As for Lazada Indonesia, I was just writing about it as part of my interest in Indonesia, and it seemed appropriate, following many mentions of the website in the press around the festive shopping season. If you all agree it's not a suitable entry, I can start a conversation in the Talk Page regarding suggested edits.Mollmichaella (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:File-Tej_Narayan_Pandey.jpg

• Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:File-Tej_Narayan_Pandey.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I have taken this photo from my personal camera.so i would like to request you please do not delete "Save page" button below -Ankit Tiwari (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• It is not deleted yet, but go to File:File-Tej Narayan Pandey.jpg click edit and add some text to say that you took it yourself on your camera, when, and also decide what copyright you want to give it. I recommend CC-BY-SA-3.0. However File:Tej Narayan Pandey.jpg is a duplicate of the same problem, and the metadata does not look it came from a camera, so what else have you done to the image? It looks like it's off a web page. Perhaps taken from http://hindi.pardaphash.com/news/--730255/730255.html or off facebook. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Angel Sessions - Would like to remove the issue and resubmit

• Angel Sessions · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

My article was deleted for 2 reasons. First, for a reference to IMDB about a movie that Angel was in, however on the page was her bio. That was the problem. The other issue as to do with information in the "infobox" namely Singer/Songwriter. I can remove that, however I see many other article with the exact same title. Why is it an issue on my article. Angel is a Singer/Songwriter. Can I re-paste the code and start over or do I have to wait for you to undelete my article first. Thanks. Demetrius Guidry -16:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)108.251.108.176 (talk)

@Demetrius Guidry:.  Not done. The page Draft:Angel Sessions was deleted because it was a copyright violation, copied from IMDb. I know that IMDB article has your name on it, but copyright has serious legal implications, and it is not enough that someone on the end of a wire says he wrote it. We have to be certain that the actual copyright owner understands and agrees to the terms of Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license, which allows any reader to copy, modify and re-use for any purpose including commercial. If you want to release this material for use in Wikipedia, the way to do that is explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

CAMP: A FASD Community

• CAMP: A FASD Community · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

CAMP: A FASD Community is an up an coming nonprofit organization affiliated with DePaul University, Northwestern University, and the American Camp Association. The sole and explicit intent of the article is to organize and concise the over 100 pages of our operations manual, and to make this information available to public. No advertising is needed given the clientele and the organizations we are partnering with. The operations manual for our organizations can be provided to entities seeking validity. -Nicholastassone (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nicholastassone: Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about organizations and companies. 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 organizations or companies 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 also Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.

I am afraid you have not understood what Wikipedia is about - not your fault, we do not explain it as well as we should to new users. It is an encyclopedia, not a notice-board site for up-and-coming organizations to tell the world about themselves. As the organization's CEO, you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and should not be writing about it here, see also the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Angel Sessions

• Angel Sessions · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I am the owner of the IMDB page. I am the person who wrote that article. Do not copy someone else's material and put it in Wiki. To prevent any controversy I will remove the reference to IMDB completely. Also how do I fix the Singer/Songwriter issue. Thanks again. Demetrius Guidry 108.251.108.176 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC) -108.251.108.176 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a case of removing a reference to IMDb: you must either make a copyright release or write the material in different words, without copying sentences or even WP:Close paraphrasing. I don't see any "singer/songwriter issue" except that an early version which was speedy-deleted was titled "Singer/songwriter Angel Sessions." That wasn't the reason for deletion, but in fact we don't put occupations in article titles like that, the right title for an article about a person is just their name, unless something needs to be added to distinguish them from others with the same name. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burt C. Hopkins draft

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burt C. Hopkins draft · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Brittany9476, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Brittany9476 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Brittany9476: 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Fandel

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Fandel · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Reinkefj, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. john (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)