Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:33, 21 September 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 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. Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 or G11 be undeleted here.

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

Instructions for special cases

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

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

Archives

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

File:DOORN Records.png

File:DOORN Records.png · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This image was upload by TheCorrectorr as non-free back on March 9, and I have converted into the public domain, because I see the five letters D, double O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text, all look like a square and are a simple geometric rectangle and seems therefore unlikely to be complex and dubious in terms of meeting the threshold of originality in my mind and therefore {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}} would apply here. That is why the simple geometric rectangle consisting of five letters D, O, O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text that all look like a square certainly does seem dubious in terms of meeting the threshold of originality. However, on August 20, this image was transferred to Wikimedia Commons as it was checked and is okay to move to Commons, but one day later, Natuur12 nominated this image (along with other logos, which only consist of simple geometric shapes and/or text) for deletion and said that this logo is "complex logo" and this image was deleted on August 28. But it seems highly unlikely to me that this is copyrightable, complex enough, not simple to be copyrighted, a copyright violation, that this does not only consist of simple geometric shapes and/or text, that there are bite out of the side of these "dice" (both in size and location), or that there are creative elements on this logo, who have have mistakenly assumed anything (which I see are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of shapes and/or text) uploaded here he finds on Commons can be nominated for deletion as "complex logo". And also, it seems highly unlikely to me that I certainly did upload copyvios or "file in violation of COM:L after warnings ans previous blocks" (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.) in that same day after Magog the Ogre (who extended the expiration time for an indefinite amount of time by changing the block settings, with no more any rights to do something to get unblocked, such as requesting unblock on the own talk page and using email to get unblocked in Wikimedia Commons) unblocked me on August 20th in Wikimedia Commons. I have only uploaded images, which are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text on August 20 and 21. And also, I have failed to see how much complex this logo is. It's just text and five squares that look like the letters D, O, O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text and the five squares that look like the letters D, O, O, R and N that look like a square are a simple geometric rectangle. I think that this logo was submitted for copyright registration at the U.S. Copyright Office, appealed twice, and was denied all three times on grounds that there was not sufficient artistic creativity in the design. Pinging INeverCry, who deleted this image on August 28, despite I have failed to see how much complex this logo is and despite I see the five letters D, double O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text, all look like a square and are a simple geometric rectangle. XPanettaa (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That image is surely complex enough that it could be copyrighted, it ain't just geometry but trying to replicate the apparel of dices. If the US copyright office denied copyright registration, we'd need evidence of this - or rather, the folks at commons:Commons:Requests for undeletion would need it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First I would note that the above editor XPanettaa is indefinitely blocked at Commons for copyvios and sockpuppetry by @Magog the Ogre:, an experienced admin and CU. As regards the logo, the design seems above COM:TOO to me, but I'm a bit strict on that sometimes. XPanettaa can't make a request at COM:UDEL though. If Magog has time, he can look at this here or at Commons. I would certainly go with his judgement if he wanted to restore this on Commons. INeverCry 00:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think it is below TOO. If it is nominated for deletion again, I left a courtesy note to inform me so I can undelete as fair use on English Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: @INeverCry: I know that the threshold of originality is low in the Netherlands, but I see the five letters D, O, O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text, are all squares. And also, I have verified this file and I'm afraid we disagree on the complexity of this logo. This is clearly PD-textlogo and PD-shape. By the way, it seems highly unlikely to me that I certainly and recently did things in Commons, including copyright violations, sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, and so on. And also, it is very unlikely that I necessarily have two, three or more sock puppet accounts or that my account is a confirmed sock puppet account. I only have one account and my account is a confirmed main account and no sock puppet. And also, I have only uploaded images, which are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text on August 20 and 21 and therefore not copyvios or "file in violation of COM:L after warnings ans previous blocks" (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.) after Magog the Ogre (who extended the expiration time for an indefinite amount of time by changing the block settings, with no more any rights to do something to get unblocked, such as requesting unblock on the own talk page and using email to get unblocked in Wikimedia Commons) unblocked me on August 20th in Wikimedia Commons. XPanettaa (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XPanettaa No, I do not agree that this is "clearly" PD-shape. Maybe you have a court or copyright office ruling to back you up, but until then it's not a "clear" case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: It may be true, but all the five letters D, O, O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text, are considered clearly squares in my opinion. However, it seems that the copyright holder of this work is allowing anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification. XPanettaa (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a thing as "selection and arrangement" copyright that could apply to such a logo containing elements that individually are simple. Do we have proof that the copyright holder of this work is allowing anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yes, of course. We do have a proof that "the copyright holder of this work is allowing anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification", in which case it should be relicensed to {{Copyrighted free use}} on Commons. XPanettaa (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that proof? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus I'm not sure, but it seems likely to me that the copyright holder of this work certainly does allow anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification. I have chosen {{Copyrighted free use}}, in which case this work should be relicensed to {{Copyrighted free use|nowarn=1}} on Commons. XPanettaa (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zimbabwe $1 billion 2008 Obverse.jpg

File:Zimbabwe $1 billion 2008 Obverse.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The file was deleted as F8 - a copy on commons. However that has been deleted as of 8 Sep 2016 throwing up a missing file error on Banknotes of Zimbabwe -KylieTastic (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, but I trust that there won't be any WP:NFGALLERY complaints if the file is restored as non-free? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit odd that they singled out that one file in many - I'm wondering if it was just tagged wrong? Maybe it was left as Non Free from EN:WP and not re tagged like the rest i.e. its other side File:Zimbabwe $1 billion 2008 Reverse.jpg is marked as public domain. KylieTastic (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as free {{PD-ZW-currency}}. Commons has such a template as well but commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zimbabwe $1 billion 2008 Obverse.jpg sounds like this wasn't considered at all - pinging @INeverCry and Ellin Beltz: to get their input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons template mentions the need of the note to have been demonetized. Has this 2008 banknote already been demonetized? If so, I can easily restore the commons image and tag it with PD-ZW-currency. INeverCry 22:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a claim in the edit history here that it was: "06:11, 21 June 2010 . . Marianian (talk | contribs | block) (461 bytes) (→‎Licensing:: Licence change: Banknote demonetised in April 2009)" No source or anything else beyond the edit summary, though. —Cryptic 23:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All we have in the Commons history is a fair-use rationale that somehow lasted from Nov 2010 till it was tagged for deletion last week... But a note being printed and demonetized within a year or less sounds a bit off, though admittedly currency is an area I've never touched (currency-related DRs are pretty rare at COM:DR). I'd have to see a source for that 2009 claim to restore it on Commons myself though. INeverCry 06:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this revolves arround Marianian's comment pinging them to see if they have a source for the statement. KylieTastic (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this document covers the demonetizeation of the 2008 Trillion dollar notes with 10 Trillion being valued at USD$0.04 so making this 1 Billion worth USD$0.000004 so allthough I cant find an explicit statement of this note it seams clear that all these notes issued in 2008 were demonetized. KylieTastic (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So any comment on the above? Looking at the actual article and doing some googling it appears the hyper-inflation did end in the demonetisation of all these old notes that became valueless. @Jo-Jo Eumerus, INeverCry, and Ellin Beltz:. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
commons:User talk:INeverCry#Currency of Zimbabwe is where the discussion happened, it's held up by a technicality it seems. Do you want a preliminary local restoration? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, sorry I wasn't aware the discussion had moved. I don't 'want' anything as I have no interest in the subject per se, I was just flagging as it was an inconsistency I noticed as part of my 'work' I do here. It would seam that either all of the notes are valid or invalid, just picking on one side of one is just weird. These sort of copyright issues confuse me, so I'll leave it to those better suited. I only added this as it seamed things had just stalled. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated only one to get the discussion going in hopes we could get it all fixed at Commons. You might have been really upset if all of them were nominated simultaneously. So one was picked on which to have the discussion, and we're working on it. Sorry that it's seemed to go slowly; it's fire season out here and I was without power/internet off and on for five days. I am certain that the discussion will be resolved shortly and most likely this one file will be restored. Thanking you again for your patience. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ICCG

ICCG · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

ICCG Wiki Article was just for Information purpose and i wrote that Article and was trying to add more information and references there but admin delete that Article so please undelete that Article -Prikunj Sharma (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done and will not be done You were already given an answer to this above, as the article was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional. You already have a copy at AfC that you can work on cleaning up and sourcing. Asking repeatedly will not change anything, nor will it change if a different account asks, which is fairly suspicious given that they posted shortly after you did. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ICCG

ICCG · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

i searched for ICCG on Wikipedia but got to know that Article got deleted due to some issues and there is a Draft of ICCG, i dont think that there should be some problem to Wikipedia so keeping that Article -Missalishasharma (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done and will not be done This was already declined earlier and there was a second request posted by the same person only moments before. A third request by a different account will not change this. The article is very promotional, which is why it was deleted, and the draft needs a lot of work before it could even remotely be considered appropriate for Wikipedia. Since you came on only moments after the last account, I have to assume that you are someone that Prikunj Sharma asked to make a request, especially given that you both have the same last name. This is not really a good idea and Sharma has already been told that if he wants to have the article restored he needs to improve the draft article by removing the promotional prose and showing where the company has received coverage in independent, reliable sources (WP:RS) to where it'd meet WP:NCORP. Press releases and anything released by the company or its affiliates (WP:PRIMARY) will not establish notability, nor will most business awards or recognition. This is because there are so many types of business awards/recognitions that they tend to be non-notable and routine on here. I must warn you both, most businesses do not pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia, regardless of the company's size, success, or longevity. A particularly long running and successful company can be more likely to gain coverage, but it's never a guarantee and there are multi-million dollar companies that routinely fail notability guidelines on Wikipedia. In any case, repeatedly trying to seek the article's restoration before you have remedied the issues will make it far less likely that the article will be restored. It can also be seen as disruptive, which could end with one or more accounts getting blocked. This is especially something I need to emphasize, since it looks like there has been at least one account opened in an attempt to get the article restored, which can be seen as a violation of WP:MTPPT. I'm sorry if this is harsh, but I need to emphasize that only working on the article and improving it to meet guidelines will be effective here. Posting the article "as is", which is effectively what you are all requesting, is not an option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It actually looks like this account was opened a few years ago, however the concerns of you creating multiple accounts in order to promote a specific business and person (you created an article for an employee of ICCG) is still something that needs to be addressed. Cleaning up the draft is really your best/only option here.
It looks like you both have received several warnings about writing about things related to you to the point where you should be aware of at least the basics of editing with a conflict of interest (in particular Prikunj Sharma shows an awareness that he should be disclosing his COI via this edit so I have to assume that you are aware of this given the timing of your edits, meaning that he had to have asked you), so please work on the draft and go through AfC. You must do this properly. Too many attempts to circumvent the work that must be done, especially to restore a promotional article, will only make it harder for any potential recreation of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a closer look at the draft and it looks like it's actually a copyright violation from this source and this one, among others. Prikunj Sharma, Missalishasharma, I'm nominating the draft for speedy deletion due to copyright concerns because Wikipedia cannot retain copyrighted material per WP:COPYVIO, as the site takes copyrights seriously. You can still create a new draft via AfC, but it must be written in your own words and in a non-promotional tone. You cannot use material that has previously been published elsewhere since the content is automatically assumed to be copyrighted unless clearly marked as released under a compatible creative commons license. You can get ICCG to release the content as fair use but it must still be re-written in order to be non-promotional and as the company does not own the rights to the content released by the WBENC, this content would need to be re-written for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)
No opinion on the merits of this, but I don't think asking the ICCG for permission is a worthwhile effort; promotional text is something we can usually do without. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user:desigennulliah

User:desigennulliah · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Desi Alvio 18:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niyi Akinmolayan

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

I would like for this page to be userfied or emailed to me so it can be modified for use on wikipedia.

Thank you -Diva inc (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is also promotional and only contained one sentence, I think it best if you start again from scratch in your user sandbox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yoshi24517/AWB-settings.js

User:Yoshi24517/AWB-settings.js · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

That was my AWB script settings page. I have my settings set to find and replace the Db-afc template, and that's why it's showing up there. Could you please restore it? Thanks! -Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshi24517: Done, but you need to exclude the {{db-afc}} template in some way - otherwise the page will show up in the speedy deletion category and be deleted if an admin batch processes the category (in my opinion that is very bad practice, unless you have vetted each item in the cat before the deletion individually). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Children's Book Council of Iran

Draft:Children's Book Council of Iran · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Ssharafva, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ssharafva (talk) 00:46, 15 September 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian O'Connor (actor)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian O'Connor (actor) · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Ddlfan, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ddlfan (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ddlfan:

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request to a new location at Draft:Brian O'Connor (actor). Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -31.6.195.189 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 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/Neville Goddard, 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 JzG (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) 08:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Paley

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

No reasoning given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startups101 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Startups101:

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Davis

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Davis · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Grettadawn, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Grettadawn (talk) 00:13, 17 September 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blueair

Blueair · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Unfortunately the person responsible for editing the Blueair wikipedia article stopped handling the project and did not inform us that there was a proposed deletion in process. we are more than happy to work with your administrators to resolve this issue so we do not in any infringe Wikipedia's guidelines. thank you -Noblewriter (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Noblewriter (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion G11. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user Seraphimblade (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/B2Brazil

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/B2Brazil · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Gardinerjd, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Gardinerjd (talk) 16:25, 17 September 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holograf

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

One of the most famous Romanian bands, nominated multiple times for Romanian Music Award pentru Best Group, Romanian Music Award pentru Best Song. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media from Romania. Has had more than a hit on a national music chart in at least one medium-sized country. Has released two or more albums on the most important Romanian label before the '90, Electrecord and after the 90's Mediapro Music, Roton [1] Also mentioned in Music of Romania article -Ionutzmovie (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polymerase chain reaction

Polymerase chain reaction · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -96.232.88.42 (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC) I was going to add something on to the list that I learned from other sites, but I accidently highlighted and pressed space, and I pressed save changes by mistake. I'm sorry for this mistake.[reply]

Not a proper undeletion request, but I've reverted the edit anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Deki

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

I, HelenBoardman1512, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. HelenBoardman1512 (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Handled in the query below. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Deki

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

Have received significant independent news coverage which will address previous 'notability' feedback -HelenBoardman1512 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters

List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

It isn't fair that the National Hockey League's premiere championship event doesn't have its own individual article for its broadcasters while other sports do. That article took a really long, extensive time to set up and put together to just let it go by the waste-side. And just because they aren't fully sourced on the proper article itself, doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't non the less, more thoroughly sourced on the respective articles for said television networks (American, Canadian and French Canadian). -BornonJune8 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you mean the article rather than your redirect,

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/List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters, 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 MBisanz (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gabrielle Kurlander

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

This article for Gabrielle L. Kurlander, President and CEO of All Stars Project, Inc. was submitted in May after making a number of refinements per Wikipedia’s editorial recommendations. We were told to wait for approval, but it appears that the draft was deleted in July. We had been in conversation with Wikipedia over the last 6 months in order to revise the draft to adhere to Wikipedia standards. I do not have the username of the original submission. Please let me know if there is any additional information that you need in order to process this request. -100.12.162.139 (talk) 18:09, 19 September 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'm not aware of any activity in May. The draft was submitted on 22 January, and declined the next day, for reasons explained in the box at the top; but nothing more was done, it was not resubmitted, the IP that submitted it never edited again. so after six months it was deleted as abandoned. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Laborio

Edward Laborio · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Elaboriosr (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Elaboriosr:

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Wizardman (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. Check out WP:NBASE for Wikipedia's notability standard for baseball players. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brytiago

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

This page is completely real, and it is MUST exist on Wikipedia. This person is a singer from Puerto Rico, read the page (if possible) I've realized that many people are searching for his biography while his biography is only available in Latin sites that many can't find and don't understand. I still don't understand the reason that someone requested to delete my page, I checked out the Wikipedia help to find a way to verify that this page is real but I couldn't find anything helpful, plus, I am Spanish and my English may not be so good, but it is enough to create a page or to start an article. Please read the page, search on other sites about him as well and you will know that everything is real. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Era.lmtwgr (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Era.lmtwgr: there is no MUST about it - there will be a page only if it meets Wikipedia's standards. It has not yet been deleted; it has been proposed for deletion because it has no references. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is that "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources". So what you have to do first is, provide references to verify what the article says. They do not need to be in English, but they should be from sources independent of the artist himself.

Even with references, I am not sure that an article will be kept. Wikipedia is quite selective about subjects for articles: please check out WP:Notability (music) which explains what a musical performer needs to have achieved before having an article. If he has only just released his first official single, it is probably WP:Too soon for an article.

You might consider trying to create a page in the Spanish Wikipedia, where you could get experience of Wikipedia and get advice in your own language. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Era.lmtwgr (talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lark Quartet

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

I, Hemisdigital, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Hemisdigital (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This has copyvio in it from here and here and it makes up a large portion of the page. It's also fairly promotional in tone too, which is likely a result of the WP:COPYVIO. You can work on a new version of the article, you just cannot use text that has been previously published elsewhere. It must be re-written in your own words. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Young People - Young Americans United

Draft:American Association of Young People - Young Americans United · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, David Trane, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. David Trane (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Trane:

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) 09:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Geordie Robinson

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

I, Summers86, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Summers86 (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Summers86:

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) 11:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Amber Fox

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

Amberfox399 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ EmicVee

DJ EmicVee · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Emicvee (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ EmicVee is a living person, am not DJ EmicVee. I used his name to open this account thinking that is how it's done here not until i found out that i don't need to write about the person who owns the account. Am sorry, but i want to change the account name cause of next time and my name is James Adams. Thank You.

Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe Junczion

Cafe Junczion · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I am not a promotor of the mentioned cafe. I have visited this cafe recently and thought that I would list them in Wikipedia. There is two mor more reasons for that, one is this is the first cafe which offers a executive business lounge in Kollam, which would be great help for the business people in and around Kollam. Second thing is they provide complimentary Wi-Fi which is also unique to themselves. They have won the Kerala Financial Corporation's best project young entrepreneurs loan award to start up this venture. There CSR activity is to recruit low class women's in society and provide them training in order to earn for their living in service industry. When they said me about this while my visit in the cafe last week I thought to create an article about them. It is not clearly with any business goals. Please trust me. -Issacpanicker007 (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why they have put a speedy deletion tag for this simple article, might be they thiking that I am prmoting this business. If you see I am just a beginner in Wikipedia I might have done mistakes while creating an article but they as a senior and most respected people should guide me if I have written or updated anything wrong.

I kindly request the admin to please hear my request and please suggest me if any changes required in the article.

Thanks and Regards,

Issacpanicker007 (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Issac[reply]

@Issacpanicker007:

Not done. There were two problems with that article:

You may not be a promoter of the cafe, but it certainly read as if you were its advertising agent. It was extremely promotional in tone: "provides premium bakery products... no compromise in quality and which is completely affordable by any customers... best in class service, pastries, cakes and more... executive business lounge which will cater all the business needs... " That was not an encyclopedia article, it was an advertisement, and anything like that is speedily deleted from Wikipedia. We are not here to sell anything.
It did not give any references to verify what it said. An article will be speedily deleted if it does not give some idea why its subject is important or significant (that is not the same as ad-speak); and if it is to be kept, it needs references that show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish Wikipedia:Notability.

If you want to try again, you need to start with a clean sheet. Read WP:Your first article and then use WP:Articles for creation to guide you through the process. Don't rely on what the cafe says about itself: collect references about it from independent sources, and base the article on them. Read WP:PEACOCK and maintain a WP:Neutral point of view. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:JwarrenVo/sandbox

User:JwarrenVo/sandbox · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, JwarrenVo, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. JwarrenVo (talk) 22:33, 20 September 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ajay Verekar

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ajay Verekar · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Sangeeta verekar, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sangeeta verekar (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 colored button in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft for review!" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low Zheng Yu

Low Zheng Yu · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I will be improving the page and it is really a public figure that can bring more audience to wikipedia. -GNS1999 (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NANI KRISH

{{subst:refund|1= NANI KRISH |2= NANI KRISH is a very notable person in india and he is proved prodigy who worked on vfx at the age of 8 years and he is also directing the film named as The-Oppera and he is popular known for eega spoof by kids and he is also a producer asa well as director

i dont want NANI KRISH page to be deleted these are his following references if u can hepl in improving article u can do it but pls remove the deletion tag from page

1.http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/Prodigy-by-birth.Creative-by-choice/2016/06/21/article3491862.ece 2.http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Hyderabad-Tab/2016-08-23/My-mothers-work-inspired-me/249961 3.http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/life-travels-in-a-way/article8982484.ece 4.http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/I-never-bonded-with-my-dad-but-hes-always-in-my-heart/articleshow/54295224.cms