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
Line 467: Line 467:
:<!-- Begin Template:UND -->[[File:X mark.svg|18px]] '''Not done''' - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a [[Wikipedia:Deletion discussions|deletion discussion]]. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place&nbsp;at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunabeats]], 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 [[WP:administrator|administrator]] who closed the discussion, user {{user1|Davewild}}. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]].<!-- End Template:UND - afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunabeats - Davewild --> ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 03:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:<!-- Begin Template:UND -->[[File:X mark.svg|18px]] '''Not done''' - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a [[Wikipedia:Deletion discussions|deletion discussion]]. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place&nbsp;at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunabeats]], 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 [[WP:administrator|administrator]] who closed the discussion, user {{user1|Davewild}}. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]].<!-- End Template:UND - afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunabeats - Davewild --> ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 03:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::I would say that falls under "little or no participation" as opposed to the sublabel [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunadeep]]. But sure, I'll reach out to {{user1|Davewild}}. -- [[User:Firefox13|Firefox13]] ([[User talk:Firefox13|talk]]) 04:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::I would say that falls under "little or no participation" as opposed to the sublabel [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunadeep]]. But sure, I'll reach out to {{user1|Davewild}}. -- [[User:Firefox13|Firefox13]] ([[User talk:Firefox13|talk]]) 04:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Actually, he wasn't active here since Nov 4th, 2015. Can we reevaluate here, or should I go directly to [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]? - [[User:Firefox13|Firefox13]] ([[User talk:Firefox13|talk]]) 04:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Actually, he wasn't active in WP since Nov 4th, 2015. Can we reevaluate here, or should I go directly to [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]? - [[User:Firefox13|Firefox13]] ([[User talk:Firefox13|talk]]) 04:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:08, 4 April 2016

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

182.71.9.131 request

(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.) 182.71.9.131 (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jonathan Leshnoff

Page was deleted due to absence from editing. The person writing the article was researching ways to get the article approved by the Wikipedia editors. -Majorpublishing (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2016 (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OutLawStar (EP)

There was some information I thought was off but I rechecked the sources to confirm it was all correct -Joeyfats67 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyfats67:  Done as a G7 deletion restored at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Groulx

contribs) deleted page Kristin Groulx (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://wiki.polskibreivik.pl/page_Special:Diff/711594148.html) 

   21:58, 25 March 2016 Anthony Appleyard (talk }}

contribs) restored page Kristin Groulx (2 revisions restored: histmerge) 

   21:58, 25 March 2016 Anthony Appleyard (talk -Writemorerightmore (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Writemorerightmore: This was deleted as a copyright issue by Anthony Appleyard, however from what I can tell from the source material it looks like wiki.polskibreivik.pl has a fair use license. It's really, really hard to tell because the website has an extremely poor layout, likely due to broken html. However I will say that the article has a few issues with it, which I'll list as follows:
  1. The article's sourcing is fairly poor, as it relies on a lot of WP:PRIMARY sources like things written by Groulx or people/places/organizations affiliated with her. It also relies on e-commerce sites like Amazon, which are inappropriate as sourcing.
  2. Some of the article looks to be unsourced or isn't entirely backed up by the sources given. This is a huge issue on Wikipedia, since we need the sources to explicitly state the claims in the article. You can't draw your own conclusions from the source material like you could in a personal paper, which is one of the biggest differences between a personal paper/essay and an encyclopedia article. (WP:OR)
  3. Some portions are dangerously close to being promotional, as it contains some phrases that are considered to be PR-speak like "love of theatre". It's not bad, but it does need a lot of cleanup.
  4. There's a lot of detail in the article. This isn't always a bad thing, but the thing to remember is that you need a lot of sourcing to justify going into a huge amount of detail about a given topic. Encyclopedia articles are meant to be brief overviews of someone's life and I'd say that only about a quarter of the article (not including book lists) would actually merit inclusion, if that.
To put things bluntly, this would require a fairly large amount of cleanup, to the point where I'd actually say that this should be re-written from scratch. I'm willing to help with this, if you want, however I don't think that the deleted versions would be all that helpful offhand given how many issues there were with sourcing and other elements. Of course this relies heavily on whether or not Groulx passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG - putting out books and working in various fields does not always guarantee notability.
Finally, I do have to ask: do you have a conflict of interest in this situation? Were you asked to create the article? If so, you need to read over WP:COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something else to take into consideration is that putting in a ton of sources does not make an article seem more notable for having them. If anything, it can actually make someone seem less notable rather than more notable. Offhand I'm looking at the sources and I don't know that any of them will be usable. The sources are either primary, e-commerce sites, or they're considered to be self-published sources like blogs, which undergo little to no editorial oversight. For example, while Bitten by Books is a good blog (I'm familiar with it) it's not one that would pass muster as a reliable source. It takes an awful lot for a blog to be considered a reliable source and one of the most well known book blogs (Dear Author) only barely passes as a reliable source - and even then only in very, very specific circumstances. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finished doing an overview of the page's sources - none of them are reliable sources that can establish notability and the majority of them are ones that actually shouldn't be used on an article at all. You can't use a general link to Ancestry's DNA page to assert that Groulx is a noted genealogist and state what her DNA makeup is - that doesn't back up any of the claims and to be honest, a general interest in genealogy is not the same thing as being someone well-known in the field. I also did a search for sourcing in general and I don't see where she's received any coverage in places Wikipedia would consider usable as a reliable source. My recommendation here is that you look into hosting this information in another site like Wikia, where's the guidelines are far more lax than they are here. If this was restored it'd almost certainly be deleted via AfD, given the lack of sourcing out there. I'm sorry, since I know that this can be hard to hear, but I just don't think that trying to restore the page on Wikipedia is really a good idea at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :@Tokyogirl79: There is no COI. I did meet Groulx in 2008 at a book event and have followed her on her FB fan page since then. I have no relation. Just a fan of her work, as she is well known in Ottawa, Canada where she wrote the books and is a local celebrity. I pulled much information from her IMDB page, and other sources around the internet. I would like help re-writing a page. It is okay if it is much smaller/shorter with less info. I am still getting used to the process of editing on Wikipedia and love writing bios on notable people. Thank you for offering to assist. I accept, if you have time, to review and rewrite. Writemorerightmore (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Writemorerightmore: Well... the problem here is that I'm not quite sure that a re-write will really help matters much. I tried looking for coverage of Groulx, but I can't see where she's actually been the focus of any independent and reliable coverage like newspaper articles or even reviews in trade journals. All persons need coverage to pass notability guidelines and while Groulx seems to have been active as an author and actor, she's never actually gained any coverage for either thing. The most she's had is appearances at various festivals, but festival appearances don't count towards notability on Wikipedia. I don't have any true issue with you trying to work on this via AfD, but I get the strong impression that Groulx is someone who would not pass notability guidelines at this point in time, as she's never actually gained coverage for her acting or writing. At most it would be something to keep in the draft space, with the potential to never pass NAUTHOR/GNG. I think that it'd likely be better for you to create your own wiki in a location like Wikia. It wouldn't be Wikipedia, but it would give you the potential to write about her somewhere, without the rules and restrictions of Wikipedia. I can still help, but I just think that it might be better to focus on some other authors or actors at this point in time, since Groulx looks like she wouldn't pass the fairly strict notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Atkinson (illustrator)

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Illustrational (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Hello - apologies, wasn't aware of the 6th month time limit and other work got in the way - yrs Illustrational — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illustrational (talk • contribs) 11:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Illustrational: 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.
I think you are falling into the trap we call WP:BOMBARDMENT. I have not checked all your 29 references, but #1 is about an exhibition by his art master and does not mention him, #2 and 3 are brief references in articles by or about his pupils, #4 is his own website, #5 is the website of a school where he studied, but does not mention him, the next three are all about the same book which he illustrated. Many others are links to his work. What is needed to establish WP:Notability in Wikipedia's sense is independent references that are about him, and discuss him and his work in some depth. Check out WP:Notability (summary). I suggest that you prune the trivial references and concentrate on finding a few really relevant ones. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Reload Studios

I, Flinn555, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Flinn555 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Flinn555: 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) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Don W. Cleveland

I, SanDiegoDWC, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. SanDiegoDWC (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a personal issue that prevented me from working on the page (updating it to show more documentation). If you undelete it, I will work on it and hopefully the new sources I list will pass approval.

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. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BAF Shaheen College Dhaka Green Thumbs

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Ni.somrat (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ni.somrat:
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/BAF Shaheen College Dhaka Green Thumbs, 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 Malcolmxl5 (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) 18:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Donald William Roy DSO

I, Mailliwtug, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Mailliwtug (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to correct the errors by providing references in the correct way and i also wish to add more information from newspaper obituary articles— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mailliwtug (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 March 2016 (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:David Bawiec

I, Bluestar2003, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Bluestar2003 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluestar2003: 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) 21:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern-Cyprus-geo-stub

The Template "Northern-Cyprus-geo-stub" needed to be created
In Wikipedia, Partially Recognized Countries (PRC) (States with Limited Recognition) and Dependent Territories have their own

  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Articles
  • Headings in an article.

Geo-Stubs:

I wanted to contact the WP Admin who deleted the template: User_talk:Oxymoron83. It writes "Oxymoron83 has not edited Wikipedia using this account since since December 9, 2010" in his Talk page. So, I needed a WP Admin who can re-create the template Template:Northern-Cyprus-geo-stub.

I, Woodgridge, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.Woodgridge (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodgridge:  Not done. This was a variant of Template:TRNC-geo-stub which was protected in 2007 with edit summary "Protected Template:TRNC-geo-stub: as repeatedly stated at WP:SFD, and also as mentioned at various other pages in wikispace, stub templates are not made for disputed territories. Cyprus-geo-stub is used for the entirety of Cyprus". I will ping user Grutness, the protecting admin, for comment on whether this policy has changed. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had just restored this while JohnCD was replying, and deleted it again on that basis. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He writes stub templates are not made for disputed territories in 2007. Now, in 2016, stub templates were made not only for disputed sovereign territories but also for dependent territories. See above for the links.
Also, in Deletion Review info [1] of WP, it writes "3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". "The creation of stub templates for disputed territories" as of 2016 is new information.Please, evaluate the case once again.Woodgridge (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was not merely deleted but protected on policy grounds, and since the protecting admin is still active (he edited today), I would like to hear his views before restoring. JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every sort of stubs (main, geo, sports, universities etc.) for Partially Recognized Countries (PRC, States with Limited Recognition) and Dependent Territories were created and widely used (without any objection) since 2007. Inter alia,
Main stubs: Gibraltar (since 2005), Taiwan (since 2005), Transnistria (since 2006), Kosovo (since 2008), Abkhazia (since 2008), South Ossetia (since 2008), Northern Cyprus (since 2016).etc.
Sports stubs: Kosovo (since 2012), Gibraltar (since 2013), Northern Cyprus (since 2016), etc.
University stubs: Kosovo (since 2009), Catalonia (since 2010), etc.
It is crystal clear that the policy, if any such, is long obsolete. Also, allowing other Partially Recognized Countries and Dependent Territories to create Categories/Templates/Articles/etc. in every area and allowing Northern Cyprus to create Categories/Templates/Articles/etc., but restricting it only in geo-stub (note "Main", "Sports" etc. stubs allowed!) blatantly disrupts standardization.Woodgridge (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for uncontroversial undeletions. The link you quoted was from WP:Deletion review, and that is where you should go if you do not want to wait for Grutness, or if he does not agree with your request and you want to challenge that. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for several reasons.
  • The first is straightforward - the reason for the TRNC-stub types' deletion is that they caused considerable editwarring which - with templates - can have considerable consequences.
  • The second is more straightforward, and more damning. "Northern Cyprus stub" goes against stub template naming conventions so should not exist. Similarly, Turkish Cypriots will be offended by the name "Northern-Cyprus-X-stub", since, by stub naming guidelines that would mean "northern part of the Republic of Cyprus".
  • Thirdly, the stub types you mention above are also false analogies. Gibraltar and the Falklands is recognised internationally by most countries, and Taiwan and Kosovo are by many. TRNC is only recognised by one country. Abkhazia, Catalonia, and South Ossetia are recognised internally as independent and internationally as accepted subdivisions of the countries they claim independence of. As such, the terms are not disputed, only the status of the places. Indeed, if they were types supportive of independence, the Catalonia one would very likely be at Catalunya-X-stub. A better comparison would be with the nonexistent {{Novorossiya-stub}} - another entity only recognised internationally by one country. As for the named Northern Cyprus stub type, that has already been deleted as a re-creation of a deleted stub type.
  • As clearly stated on the Cyprus-specific stubs, they are designed for use on stubs related to the entire island. This is why no flag is used on those templates.
Having said all that, a simple single - correctly named - {{NCyprus-stub}} - seems a reasonable compromise, to be used in conjunction with the generic Cyprus stub types. Grutness...wha? 22:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A further point - after hand correcting all these stubs, not only were the templates incorrectly named, but the person who stubbed all the articles clearly doesn't know much about stubbing. Several of the articles were not stubs, several were manually added to categories, and every single stub template was in the wrong place in the article. Most of that was your work @Woodgridge:, and was definitely a case of "blatantly disrupting standardisation". Please learn more about stubbing if you want to help rather than making more work for stub sorters - and if you wish to create stub templates and categories, please go through the normal process and propose them at WP:WSS/P first! Grutness...wha? 23:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And one further point — nobody recognises the TRNC as a valid-but-not-independent jurisdiction; places like Kosovo and Taiwan are thus recognised by countries that don't recognise them as independent. Nobody says that there's no such jurisdiction as Kosovo: they merely dispute its exact status. The very concept of the TRNC, on the other hand, has no legal basis in the eyes of non-Turks. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) Thanks to Grutness. He solved cleverly the issue. Thanks also to JohnCD to direct Grutness here.
2) A clever WP-programmer to write a bot-code to put "stub" marks based on predetermined minimal number of words in a WP article would be cream on the dessert.
3) I'll give/link to this undeletion discussion in Talk page of {{NCyprus-stub}} created by Grutness.

My other thoughts are as follows (for those who are interested in the issue):
A simple single - correctly named - {{NCyprus-stub}} - seems a reasonable compromise, to be used in conjunction with the generic Cyprus stub types:
A different stub for the country "Northern Cyprus" (just like it was for the other Partially Recognized Countries, PRC) is a must clearly. Thank you very much for the creation of {{NCyprus-stub}}. Both short and concise. This stub is not to be used "in conjunction with the generic Cyprus stub types" (1. Partially Recognized Countries (States with Limited Recognition) have their own Categories/Templates/Articles/Stubs/Headings-in-an-article/... (see above) 2. "Cyprus" common name is allocated to the country, not to the entire island (see below)). Abkhazia/SouthOssetia/Transnistria/Kosovo/Taiwan/... stubs (main, sports, cultre, etc.) are not used in conjunction with the generic Georgia/Moldova/China stub types. I think the main problem stemmed also from the fact that "the word "Cyprus" (as common name) used for thousands of years for the entire island was opposed to be used as such in WP, and allocated (as article name) solely to "Republic of Cyprus" in WP. Anyway, thank you very much for your very clever compromise offer; I fully adopted your approach/compromise.

The TRNC-stub types' caused considerable editwarring:
Edit-warring in sovereign countries whose legality were disputed is normal. Similar edit-warring was happened before for Abkhazia, Kosovo, South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc.

"Northern Cyprus stub" goes against stub template naming conventions so should not exist. Turkish Cypriots will be offended by the name "Northern-Cyprus-X-stub", since, by stub naming guidelines that would mean "northern part of the Republic of Cyprus":
I analyzed stub naming of WP thoroughly here. There are "SouthSudan-bio-stub", "SouthSudan-politician-stub", "NorthKorea-bio-stub", "SouthKorea-bio-stub", "NorthKorea-transport-stub", "NorthKorea-rail-transport-stub",... Hence, changing the template name from "Northern-Cyprus-geo-stub" to "NCyprus-geo-stub" or "NorthernCyprus-geo-stub" will conform to WP stub-naming-convention. Aside from the meaning that will be caused by the "WP-stub-naming convention", the name of the country Turkish Cypriots established is "TR of Northern Cyprus". In itself, Turkish Cypriots try to publicize/popularize Northern Cyprus.

False analogies of the stub types:
Gibraltar and the Falklands are "dependent territories", not independent sovereign countries. They do not claim "independent sovereignty". Hence, Gibraltar and the Falklands is not recognized internationally by any country.

Taiwan and Kosovo are recognized by many. TRNC is only recognized by one country:
WP does not distinguish between Partially Recognized Countries (PRC, States with Limited Recognition). WP (an encyclopedia of standardized/policied information) does not care how much big that "Part", or how much "Limited". WP allocates different article pages for PRC and Dependent Territories in all of the WP templates. See, for example, Sport in Europe, Culture of Europe, Education in Europe.

Abkhazia, Catalonia, and South Ossetia are recognized internally as independent and internationally as accepted subdivisions of the countries they claim independence of:
According to WP "country" definition, both of "subdivision having de facto sovereignty" and "subdivision with no sovereignty" can be a country.

The Cyprus-specific stubs are designed for use on stubs related to the entire island; hence, no flag is used on those templates:
In WP, the name "Cyprus" (as common name) refers to the country "Republic of Cyprus", not the entire island. In past, the word "Cyprus" was offered to be used to denote "entire island", not the country "Republic of Cyprus". But, those who defend the naming suggestion ("Cyprus" to be moved to "Republic of Cyprus", and "Cyprus" to be used for the entire island) (seems to be rejected by WP community, and the move was not realized). Cyprus is (now) for the Rep. of Cyprus (country), not for the island. Also, such stubs are organized according to "countries", not the "entire islands". Therefore, Haiti stub, and Dominican Republic stub, but not Hispaniola-stub.

The person who stubbed all the articles clearly doesn't know much about stubbing. Several of the articles were not stubs:
WP is an encyclopedia. Its pages are called "Article". The plausible minimal length of an article differs from person to person. They seemed to be short for me. That said, I never opposed the removal of the stub-template from those pages people find long enough.

Most of that was Woodgridge's work:
None of the templates of the other Partially Recognized Countries (Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kosovo, Taiwan etc.) were my work. I did not create any such for these countries to justify my reasoning. For NC, I seem to be re-create some templates instead of being first-mover.Woodgridge (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A long answer, @Woodgridge: - most sections of which are wrong to some extent - which requires a long response.

  • 1) Thanks to Grutness. He solved cleverly the issue. Thanks also to JohnCD to direct Grutness here. I did not solve it at all - I simply applied long-standing Wikipedia rules on stubs which you ignored.
  • 2) A clever WP-programmer to write a bot-code to put "stub" marks based on predetermined minimal number of words in a WP article would be cream on the dessert. It would also mark as stubs a massive number of articles that are not stubs, and miss a large number of articles which are. Not all short articles are stubs - short lists and short articles for which no information will ever become available are just two types of very short non-stubs. Articles with one line of text and large infoboxes, or with one line of text followed by a massive table, are stubs but would be missed by your method. Stub articles are never justified simply on word length, not can they ever be.
  • A simple single - correctly named - {{NCyprus-stub}} - seems a reasonable compromise, to be used in conjunction with the generic Cyprus stub types: A different stub for the country "Northern Cyprus" (just like it was for the other Partially Recognized Countries, PRC) is a must clearly. Thank you very much for the creation of {{NCyprus-stub}}. Both short and concise. This stub is not to be used "in conjunction with the generic Cyprus stub types" Yes it is - that is the method which is standard practice for stub types. Check, for example, the analogous Category:Abkhazia stubs and Category:South Ossetia stubs, which are a subcategory of Category:Georgia (country) stubs and used in conjunction with it.
  • 2. "Cyprus" common name is allocated to the country, not to the entire island (see below)). In that case, what is the name of the island? The island is called Cyprus, and if you check the category Category:Cyprus stubs and the associated templates, you will see that they specifically state they are for the entire island, so as to avoid anyone confusing them with templates only for the Greek half of the island. This is why they feature a map as an icon, NOT the flag. The reason for this is simple - many of the articles are about items which pre-date the 1974 split. Should a political party from the 1950s get a Greek Cyprus stub or a Turkish Cyprus stub? Neither - It gets a Cyprus stub.
  • Abkhazia/SouthOssetia/Transnistria/Kosovo/Taiwan/... stubs (main, sports, culture, etc.) are not used in conjunction with the generic Georgia/Moldova/China stub types. With the exception of stubs for the the widely recognised Taiwan and Kosovo, yes they are. The same will be the case for Northern Cyprus should it ever become internationally recognised by as many countries as with of those two places.
  • I think the main problem stemmed also from the fact that "the word "Cyprus" (as common name) used for thousands of years for the entire island was opposed to be used as such in WP, and allocated (as article name) solely to "Republic of Cyprus" in WP. Anyway, thank you very much for your very clever compromise offer; I fully adopted your approach/compromise. The term "Cyprus" on Wikipedia refers to both the whole island and to "Republic of Cyprus" in ways which become clear in context, in exactly the same way that the term Ireland is used for both the island and the "Republic of Ireland". In the case of the stub types, as is made clear in Category:Cyprus stubs, the whole island is intended, for reasons which you have implied. Articles cover both current and histrocial subjects. For thousands of years, the entire island has been cyprus, and it is only in very recent history that the island has been split in two. Most of the articles stubbed, therefore, are not articles abour either Turkish Cyprus or Greek Cyporus, but are about Cyprus as a whole.
  • The TRNC-stub types' caused considerable editwarring: Edit-warring in sovereign countries whose legality were disputed is normal. Similar edit-warring was happened before for Abkhazia, Kosovo, South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc. Edit-warring on the articles occurred, yes. But none occurred on the stub templates. Templates are often transcluded on hundreds of articles, and as such are not covered by WP:BOLD - edit-warring on them is far rarer. Minimal edit-warring occurred on the stub templates for the other places mentioned
  • "Northern Cyprus stub" goes against stub template naming conventions so should not exist. Turkish Cypriots will be offended by the name "Northern-Cyprus-X-stub", since, by stub naming guidelines that would mean "northern part of the Republic of Cyprus":I analyzed stub naming of WP thoroughly. Finally. I'm glad to hear it. I wish you had done so earlier. Did you also analyse the other stub-related procedures on Wikipedia? If not I advise you to do so.
  • False analogies of the stub types: Gibraltar and the Falklands are "dependent territories", not independent sovereign countries. They do not claim "independent sovereignty". Hence, Gibraltar and the Falklands is not recognized internationally by any country. They are recognised internationally as dependent territories. All dependent territories have their own stub types. Northern Cyprus is not a delpendent territory. False analogy.
  • Taiwan and Kosovo are recognized by many. TRNC is only recognized by one country: WP does not distinguish between Partially Recognized Countries (PRC, States with Limited Recognition). WP (an encyclopedia of standardized/policied information) does not care how much big that "Part", or how much "Limited". WP allocates different article pages for PRC and Dependent Territories in all of the WP templates. In all infobox templates and other templates designed to help article readers yes. In stub templates and other templated designed for the use of editors, no. You seem not to grasp the difference between the two types of template.
  • Abkhazia, Catalonia, and South Ossetia are recognized internally as independent and internationally as accepted subdivisions of the countries they claim independence of: According to WP "country" definition, both of "subdivision having de facto sovereignty" and "subdivision with no sovereignty" can be a country. That is irrelevant. The point is that subdivisions recognised as such by a recognised national government have stub templates. as such, {{Abkazia-stub}} is no diffferent to {{Massachusetts-stub}} or {{Cornwall-stub}}. The fact that Ambkazia is independentist is irrelevant from that point of view. Northern Cyprus is not recognised as an official region by the Republic of Cyprus. False analogy.
  • The Cyprus-specific stubs are designed for use on stubs related to the entire island; hence, no flag is used on those templates: In WP, the name "Cyprus" (as common name) refers to the country "Republic of Cyprus", not the entire island. In past, the word "Cyprus" was offered to be used to denote "entire island", not the country "Republic of Cyprus". But, those who defend the naming suggestion ("Cyprus" to be moved to "Republic of Cyprus", and "Cyprus" to be used for the entire island) (seems to be rejected by WP community, and the move was not realized). Cyprus is (now) for the Rep. of Cyprus (country), not for the island. Also, such stubs are organized according to "countries", not the "entire islands". Therefore, Haiti stub, and Dominican Republic stub, but not Hispaniola-stub. Every country in the world recognises the Dominican Republic and Haiti as independent (false analogy). If separate templates were created for the Republic of Cyprus, they would be called RCyprus-stub or similar. The stub types for Cyprus refer to Cyprus.
  • The person who stubbed all the articles clearly doesn't know much about stubbing. Several of the articles were not stubs: WP is an encyclopedia. Its pages are called "Article". The plausible minimal length of an article differs from person to person. They seemed to be short for me. That said, I never opposed the removal of the stub-template from those pages people find long enough. Yes they were short - but quite a few of them were list articles, which are never marked as stubs. Others were short because very little information is available or required for them. Marking things with a template which then requires someone else to remove it creates more work for other people. Before you start stubbing anything and everything that "seems short", find out exactly what stubs are, please!
  • Most of that was Woodgridge's work: None of the templates of the other Partially Recognized Countries (Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kosovo, Taiwan etc.) were my work. I did not create any such for these countries to justify my reasoning. I never said you did. All I said was you created malformed or deletable Northern Cyprus stub templates, and added them to a lot of articles - some of them to the wrong articles, and all of them in the wrong place on the articles (stub templates ALWAYS go right at the end, after categories)
  • For NC, I seem to be re-create some templates instead of being first-mover. Which is the problem. You re-created templates which had been deleted after going through a deletion process. All that does is create work for other people to sort out the mess.

Please, please, please - read up about stubbing articles before doing more! Grutness...wha? 00:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Reed F. Noss

I, 174.22.14.239, 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 article was deleted yesterday because due to my discouragement it had been 6 months since I last edited it, but I want to try editing it again, with the goal of eliminating 'peacock phrases' as was suggested back in September -174.22.14.239 (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2016 (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) 21:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christian Narkiewicz Laine.jpeg

Permission received in OTRS Ticket 2015100510013984 --- Rrburke (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder is Kieran Conlon, as clarified in the OTRS ticket. I have made the appropriate adjustments to the file page. -- Rrburke (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Lesnikov

I, E Guano, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. E Guano (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was restored back in October 2013. You'd edited it so I'm restoring it, but I will say that if it does continue to get declined it's unlikely that this will continue to be restored. Something to take into consideration is that coverage does not have to be in English, so if there's Russian-language coverage you could add that. You might also want to ask for help at WP:RUSSIA, since they might be able to help look for sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Muntashir

I know that this article was deleted due to absence of reliable sources according to biography of living persons. But now, I have enough reliable sources to claim the article such as IMDb, Mid-Day, Bollywood Hungama, Hindustan Times and many more. Also, the person is notable enough. So, I please request you to restore the article and add a one more feather in this great repository of Knowledge, Wikipedia ! -❤ TrendSPLEND ✉ 12:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC) ❤ TrendSPLEND ✉ 12:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TrendSPLEND:  Done. I have reset the PROD-blp template, which gives you seven days to add reliable sources. Note that IMDb is not considered reliable, as content is user-generated and experience has shown that there is not adequate editorial control. I don't know about your other sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CMR recruiting poster.jpg

Permission received in OTRS ticket 2016012710016437 --- Rrburke (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CMR Rangers working alongside local PD.jpg

Permission received in OTRS ticket 2016012710016437 --- Rrburke (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CMR Assists Flight for Life.jpg

Permission received in OTRS ticket 2016012710016437 --- Rrburke (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:CMR Rangers assisting at an MVA scene.jpg

Permission received in OTRS ticket 2016012710016437 --- Rrburke (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kevin Olekaibe

--Miamiheat631Talk 14:43, 30 March 2016 (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Govt Degree College Kahuta

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Shahzaib Sultan (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2016 (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Born Again (mixtape)

there was some information I thought was off but I have checked the sources and confirmed it -Joeyfats67 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Robert Oakeshott

I, Sothomensch, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sothomensch (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2016 (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Draft:Robert Oakeshott

This article was deemed insufficiently notable at a time when Wikipedia was in crisis. I believe that Robert Oakeshott's life will be recognised as notable now that Wikipedia is once again operating normally -Sothomensch (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:4chan/Archive 1

Page was deleted on 5 December 2015 by Shirt58 per G8 - Talk page of deleted page. However, the related article does in fact exist (see 4chan and Talk:4chan. All other archive pages for this article still exist, but the absence of this one page makes the {{talk header}} malfunction and not display the archive page links or search bar. I do not know if this page was delete in error or not, G8 does not seem to make sense here. Requesting that the page be restored. Please ping me with any questions or comments. Thank you. -EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, page restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Is FIVE!

I'm going to lose money if you take it away from me. And it's real. Don't delete This Is FIVE! I really mean it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanya Timthony (talk • contribs) 10:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tanya Timthony: Not done I can't really tell what the article is supposed to be about. Offhand I'd say that if this is something that you personally profit from, it's really not a good idea to write about something when you have a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell I think that this might be related to a similarly titled YouTube channel and if this is the case then it'd still qualify for deletion via WP:A7 since it's a non-notable YouTube channel. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borut Likar

I, 193.2.176.220, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 193.2.176.220 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (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.
I will add that this article will never be approved for publication in main article space unless it can demonstrate that it meets any of the inclusion criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I actually do have A Feature In The Magazine Called SilverScreen, I'm Also On The Front Cover Page. My Interviewed Q/A Article appears In The Magazine Every 2-3 Pages. Also It Notes Family Member Jimi Hendrix. Please Go To http://SilverScreenMag.PHILLIPHALL.INFO To Read-Pahall1984 (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done and will not be done This was incredibly promotional in tone, enough to where it merited speedy deletion. Writing your own entry is heavily discouraged on here because it is so easy to make things promotional. Also, just saying that you own the rights to the content isn't enough - you would have to file a ticket through WP:OTRS giving Wikipedia the rights to the content. Even then it'd still have to be re-written. As far as you being related to famous people goes, you need to be aware that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED so you won't be notable because you have notable people in your family. You can only show notability by showing where you have received coverage in independent and reliable sources, like newspaper articles about you. Your article didn't show this and the only sources was IMDb, which isn't seen as a reliable source on here. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself and it shouldn't be seen as an extension of your personal website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This Is To The Reply Of My Last Request To Undelete My Page. I actually was Featured In The Magazine Called SilverScreen, I'm Also On The Front Cover Page. My Interviewed Q/A Article appears In The Magazine Every 2-3 Pages. Also It Notes Family Member Jimi Hendrix. Please Go To http://SilverScreenMag.PHILLIPHALL.INFO or https://app.box.com/s/1pgctclxa4x5b60onn4p12qwhr3i9lxn To Read & Undelete My Wikipedia Page -Pahall1984 (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine Tempier

I did not have time to add additional information or citations to the original article, which I created, which was deleted for lack of citing why the subject matter is worthy of inclusion, which I firmly believe it is. I can add the information and citations in the next 7 days if the article is undeleted -Needlepoint9 (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Needlepoint9: checkY Userfied - I have restored it to your "user space" at User:Needlepoint9/Domaine Tempier where you can work on it. Read WP:your first article for advice, and note particularly the need for references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish Wikipedia:Notability. Write in a neutral tone, and beware of promotional "peacock terms" like "storied". When it is ready, click the "Submit" button to send it for review by an experienced user. JohnCD (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Bancells

I, Ben2umbc, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ben2umbc (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben2umbc:  Done, though there is hardly anything there, only the bare framework. Read WP:Your first article for advice, complete it (including references to show WP:Notability), and when it is ready click the "Submit" button to send it for review.

Katz for US Senate 2016 for State of Florida

Please explain why the pages were deleted and I want them to be restored. If any modifications needs to be done, no problem. I just spent 2 days creating the contest and there is no reason to delete my work like that! Please explain!!!! -Katzconcern (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Katzconcern: Not done and will not be done. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political or any other kind of promotion. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Destoyed Iraqi APC, February 1991.jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS ticket 2016011910022285 --- Rrburke (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evander Holyfield - The Real Deal.jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS ticket 2016030410011632 --- Rrburke (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Virgil Hill wet plate by Shane Balkowitsch.jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS ticket 2016030410011632 --- Rrburke (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kevin Locke (Tȟokéya Inážiŋ).jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS ticket 2016030410011632 --- Rrburke (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eternal Field, A Wet plate of Ernie LaPointe by Shane Balkowitsch.jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS ticket 2016030410011632 --- Rrburke (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choto Moulana

I, Sufidisciple, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sufidisciple (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Abt

Abt is an author and commentator. A number of pages linked to this page. I believe the article should not have been deleted without a discussion. -Jack Upland (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland: : Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Armagnac~dewiki (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. JohnCD (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unicity Productions, Play It Strange Trust, and Hack n' Smack Celebrity...

The pages were moved to the mainspace from the userspace by a user other than that of the user whose userspace in which they resided (the same user for all three pages). This should not be done unless a page is suitable for the mainspace. They were deleted under non-general speedy deletion criteria which wouldn't apply to the user namespace. The administrators (three different administrators) didn't err in applying the speedy deletion criterion, the circumstances surrounding the page being in that location is the problem. The content should be restored to the userspace. If this is a matter that would need to be raised at WP:DRV, please let me know, and I'll consider doing so. Best Regards, -—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy:  Done. I agree that moving other users' userspace drafts to the mainspace in order to get them deleted is not a proper thing to do. @Legacypac: don't do it again. I have marked them all with {{Inactive userpage blanked}} which is a much better way to deal with these pages - needs no admin action, doesn't clog up MfD with endless repetitions of the same arguments, and is more user-friendly in the not impossible case that the user returns one day. Courtesy ping to the three deleting admins Shirt58, RHaworth, Ritchie333 to let them know what I have done. JohnCD (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Supplementary comment: I do not say that it is always wrong to move someone else's abandoned userspace draft to the mainspace. If it is really ready for it, that can be useful and result in an article (e.g. User:Ajantala007/Akata Formation); but I think that a third party who does that should take responsibility for the page and, if it does not survive in mainspace, should arrange for it to be returned to the user space, rather than let it be deleted for reasons which would not apply in user space. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Objection I did not move these to have them deleted. I was not aware that two of them were deleted and expressed surprise about the Hack & Smack one already which I found to be a notable annual charity event. I moved them because I thought they were good stubs. Godsy is a not assuming good faith, spouting lies and is a hypercrite who themselves has been moving good stubs back into userspace [2] This disruptive behavior is why I started an ANi thread. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mackintosh Braun Live, Crystal Ballroom, Dec 2014.jpg

Permission confirmed by OTRS ticket 2014121810015652 --- Rrburke (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rrburke:  Not done. The file was marked {{OTRS received}} for that ticket number by user B in April 2015, with edit summary "The email contains no such license". Has better permission been received since then? JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnCD:. Judging by Jo-Jo Eumerus's comment on the OTRS noticeboard, I think B's objection was to the state of the ticket in mid-March. It's true that as of March 15 there was no permission on file: a permission modelled after the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries was received March 17. If B's tagging {{OTRS received}} comes after that, I can ask him what his issue with the permission was, but at any rate there's what appears to me to be a good permission on file as of March 17. -- Rrburke (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What year are we talking about? B's tag was on 13 April 2015 - nearly two years a year ago. What year was the March 17 permission? JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The permission email is from 17 March 2016. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. What a saga! JohnCD (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The years, they fly by. :) -- Rrburke (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kumuditha Dodanwela

This article was about me and it's true,but the article is worth to the people in my country and that's because i'm a entrepreneur and a college student. so it's more easier for people to find details and information about through this,so I hope you guys would be more human and undelete this article.Thanks -Kumuditha23243 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Andrew_McMasters

I, 24.18.228.200, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 24.18.228.200 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TWENTY88

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -71.97.84.88 (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page has not been deleted. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Twenty88 The earlier deletion was just a redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poorna Chandra Thejuswi

The person in this article was passed away last day so there is no more consequences you can check with his face book page https://www.facebook.com/theju.kannur or you can directly contact any of his friends or traveling partners regarding the information given are wrong or miss leading any kind of your policy let me know . because he was an inspiring person and his his death pay for it . kindly please take care of the credibility of article and please don't be blind . hope you will retrieve this page .Thank you "Save page" button below -Newmanmanii (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simulation S-T Cut

The article contains sufficient detail to be of interest to those with a background in network analysis. A citation to a patent was also included that gives additional background that is relevant to the article. Also, the source code is the main content of the article and allows for others to have access to this algorithm. Please undelete this article. Thanks. Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -VirtualScalpel (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the bulk of the text was the source code, and the header included the remark "Commercial use of the software is restricted by United States Patent 8929636." Accordingly—since the contents of the article are not free for commercial reuse—I deleted the article under criterion for speedy deletion G12. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jenifer Whisper posing in front of her Piano.jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS ticket 2016031510003433 --- Rrburke (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rrburke: OK, the deleted file has a claim by the uploader "was sent to me personally" and then we get a permission email from a yahoo address that anyone could have created. Assuming good faith is fine and all, but when it comes to copyrights we have to exercise some additional vigilance. I searched OTRS for any separate correspondence that may provide evidence of identity and I could find none. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amatulic: You're right: that was premature. Often for personal pics of noteworthy people we get nothing but a gmail or yahoo address, because that's all the uploader has; I presumed that was the case here, but I should have inquired more closely. This is the disadvantage of not being able to look at deleted images. I'll ask the uploader to resend permission from another address. Incidentally, does WP:AGF apply to OTRS? -- I find I often WP:ABF. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rrburke: Here and there you will come across an OTRS ticket involving a copyright holder claiming they never gave consent, yet the photo has a valid license. I have handled one such situation myself. I was able to convince the photographer to allow us to keep the photo as long as we re-titled the file and attributed it properly. We want to minimize those situations. OTRS volunteers perform a critical function in protecting the Wikimedia Foundation from legal liability, and we can only do that through exercising due diligence in verifying claims of ownership. In some cases I have accepted a yahoo address if that address appears on a website clearly operated by the copyright holder. In other cases I have asked the person to create a temporary page on a website known to be under the copyright-holder's control. Once I have had to ask for a scanned copy of valid identification. This has nothing to do with assuming good faith or bad faith. Simply put, it isn't the prerogative of OTRS volunteers to take chances with possibly exposing the WMF to legal liability. So unpleasant as it is sometimes, we have to make correspondents jump through some hoops. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dropimage

I wrote this template a few years ago and while it didn't see use in article-space it seems it had some pretty nifty functionality that I wanted to recreate for other templates and/or talk-page only templates. I would be very happy if it could be restored to my sandbox, for example — User:CFCF/sanbdox/dropimage Best CFCF 💌 📧 11:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC) -CFCF 💌 📧 11:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF:  Done, userfied. It seemed the template was deleted because it wasn't in use, but someone commented in the discussion that some features of it should be adopted by the current 'hidden' template. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Spencer

I believe that there used to be a page about Geoffrey Spencer but I can no longer find it -82.71.60.39 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any trace of a deleted article under that name, even as a draft or AfC page. The nearest I found is that both Harold Williams (baritone) and Alexander Wilson (writer and spy) used the name as a pseudonym. Can you give any more details of the Spencer you are after? JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Polk

This article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Polk. Because it was very clear that the player would be making a fully-profession debut with either Portland Timbers or Portland Timbers 2 I asked the closing admin (User:Sandstein) to move it to draftspace, however he declined on the basis that he wasn't familiar or comfortable with draft space. I was going to bring it to WP:REFUND however, before that happened Ben Polk made his professional debut for Portland Timbers 2 in the United Soccer League listed in WP:FPL as fully professional, thus meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. So I asked User:Sandstein to restore the article, however he declined as he was said knew nothing about the topic (sports). I was going to bring it to WP:REFUND however, before that happened someone recreated the article from scratch. So I then asked User:Sandstein to simply restore the edit history, however he declined because ... he just didn't know anything. So I am now asking someone here to restore the deleted edit history. -Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz:  Done. Article history restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - though now I see the new article has everything the old article does. Shame someone had to spend time recreating it. Nfitz (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anjunabeats

Notability was disputed last June. I find that hard to believe for one of the most successful Trance labels of the last 10+ years. The label was nominated 5 times as Best Global Dance Record Label at the International Dance Music Awards in Miami (2009, 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2016) as well as two releases received a grammy nomination: Mat Zo - Damage Control as Best Dance/Electronica Album 2015 and Above & Beyond - We Are All We Need as Best Dance Recording 2016. The label had consecutively one of the strongest Trance roosters in the last years: http://www.anjunabeats.com/artists. On Beatport (arguably the most popular online music store for electronic music) Anjunabeats was ranked as the #1 Trance label for most of the last 5 years: http://www.beatstats.com/label/anjunabeats/804. It's easily one of the most notable labels of Category:Trance record labels. -Firefox13 (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2016 (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/Anjunabeats, 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 Davewild (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) 03:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that falls under "little or no participation" as opposed to the sublabel Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunadeep. But sure, I'll reach out to Davewild (talk · contribs). -- Firefox13 (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he wasn't active in WP since Nov 4th, 2015. Can we reevaluate here, or should I go directly to deletion review? - Firefox13 (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=713454720"