Jump to content

User talk:RL0919: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 347: Line 347:


:::Apologies for the slow reply; I've not been on WP much the past several days. Unfortunately, I do not see anything in your comments that changes what I said above. Our notability standards are based on how subjects are covered in [[WP:IS|independent]] [[WP:RS|reliable]] sources, not on marketing-style assertions about new generations, trademarks, etc. If you disagree with my response and want to pursue restoration of the article, you could open a [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] discussion for others to decide. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919#top|talk]]) 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
:::Apologies for the slow reply; I've not been on WP much the past several days. Unfortunately, I do not see anything in your comments that changes what I said above. Our notability standards are based on how subjects are covered in [[WP:IS|independent]] [[WP:RS|reliable]] sources, not on marketing-style assertions about new generations, trademarks, etc. If you disagree with my response and want to pursue restoration of the article, you could open a [[WP:DRV|deletion review]] discussion for others to decide. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919#top|talk]]) 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

::::Could you please turn the page to draft in case other people have more information/sources to add?


== Request to undelete: Michael Brown (City Year) ==
== Request to undelete: Michael Brown (City Year) ==

Revision as of 13:12, 13 February 2020

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DC Duplication

It seems like there's some overlap between the List of theater and entertainment venues in Washington, D.C. and the List of theaters in Washington, D.C. The former seems like it was intended as a list of venues whereas the latter contains (mostly) producing organizations. I'm not 100% sure what to do, but it seems like we ought to move the venues on the second list over to the first list, unless you think we should consolidate them both into a single list. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 07:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GentlemanGhost: Consolidation to a single list seems reasonable. I don't see any clear reason why two lists are needed. --RL0919 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll propose that. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 08:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firdaus Kharas

Hello RL0919. I am user vinlev

I am writing to ask if you are the editor that deleted my Firdaus Kharas page. I have done extensive editing on it during the past few days as per another editor's requests for more citations. Almost all have been viable and noteworthy citations from universities and major publications. So I am wondering what has gone wrong to make the Kharas entry deletable. Thank you for your attention. Vinlev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinlev: Looking at the changes you made and the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firdaus Kharas, I think there are two main problems: 1) You added citations but said nothing about it at the AfD page. Once a deletion discussion starts, it becomes important to tell the participants if you have made changes that you think make the article worth keeping. They may not be watching the article itself, and if they don't know about your changes, they have no chance to reconsider their positions. 2) Many of the citations added don't seem to do much to show the notability for Kharas. To support notability, a citation should be to an independent reliable source (not a press release or material from an organization he's involved with) that provides significant coverage about him (not just a brief mention). At least one editor commented after your addition, and still supported deletion, which suggests he wasn't impressed by the additional sources.
Anyhow, since I just closed the discussion a few hours ago, I can undelete, re-open and relist to allow more time for discussion of your additions. It will be up to the participants to say whether they believe the additions make enough of a difference. --RL0919 (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RL0919 -- The Kharas AfD page should be closed or deleted. Even with the new edits it's still WP:BLP1E and that's a stretch. Shall we have a revote on the new article? Dr42 (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is relisted and undergoing discussion now, and I don't see any great harm in letting that play out for the usual seven days. --RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma weapon AfD

I noticed that you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasma weapon (2nd nomination) as redirect, but I feel that one point I raised in the discussion may have been overlooked by everyone (including during the closure). This article was not recreated in 2015; it was moved to this title after the original article at this title was deleted (and to my knowledge is still deleted – see the page history), so it is unsound to compare the two AfDs. Additionally, the nominator's rationale was not clear; concerns about WP:OR were valid, and I am not opposed specifically to creation of a redirect, but the original nomination read like WP:DINC. Could you please clarify here if this needs further attention, or consider reopening the AfD to hold a broader discussion? Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely did see your point and did not rely on the earlier AfD for my close. However, while your argument did cast doubt on the original nomination, it did not establish a firm basis for keeping the article (no independent reliable sources or other basis for notability was provided). Rorshacma's argument for redircting was convincing and reasonably consistent with both the nomination and the other commenter's argument for merging, so I went with that. As they all suggested, if the article can be rewritten to be a sourced article about something real, the redirect could be undone. But for now it is pointed to an acceptable target and the history is preserved in case any of it is useable. --RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jann of the Jungle / Jungle Tales

Hi. Would there be any way of retrieving the text of the defunct Jann of the Jungle articles, so that pertinent parts of it can be incorporated as a paragraph or so into Jungle Tales? Since Jungle Tales began as Jann of the Jungle, we need t least a sentence or two to describe the titular protagonist from when it was that series, as well as whatever background we had on its creation, as well as the GCD and related links. I'd hate to have to research/write all that from scratch. Thanks for any help. (I'm afraid I've been off Wikipedia for about 10 days.) --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was redirected but not deleted, so the text is still there. [1] Cheers, GentlemanGhost (séance) 21:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's right. Thanks for the intercept while I was otherwise occupied. --RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review Banbouk Music

Banbouk Music was deleted by you.Without any discussion or consensus. Please review your decision and restore my page. I want to improve it @RLO917: Sourav tiwary (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review deletion of Banbouk Music

Banbouk Music was deleted by you. It was nominated for deletion but there was no discussion or consensus. Please review your decision and restore my page. I want to improve it. @RL0917: Sourav tiwary (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sourav tiwary: It was handled as a soft deletion because no one (including you) objected to it being deleted. If it is nominated again, my best suggestion is that you should participate in the discussion to explain why you believe the article should be kept. In the meantime, I have restored the article per your request, as is standard for soft deletions. --RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sourav tiwary (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはRL0919たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

request deleted article "Camp Interlaken"

Hi, i noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Interlaken with "delete" decision. Could you please provide a complete copy of the article with its edit history intact, to my userspace, i guess to User:Doncram/Camp Interlaken? I want to revisit this, in part due to existence of lots of sourcing available about it under "Camp Coniston" name, which I mentioned in the AFD but seems to have been ignored, in effect, by the way this AFD worked out. sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Done as requested. --RL0919 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Indigenous Australian Inter-tribal Wars and Violence

You closed the MfD. Where has this been moved to? (I am also a little puzzled by the close, as it seemed to me that the nomination was based on ethnic considerations; I therefore intend to do all possible help in developing it into an article. ) DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved during the discussion to User:Austhistory99/Indigenous Australian Inter-tribal Wars and Violence. I should have stated the new location in my close, so I fixed that, and thanks for asking. --RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revision histories from deleted timelines

Hi RL0919. I have uploaded three (2014, 2015 and 2016) year-by-year, scaled-down versions of the recently deleted "Timelines of the war in Donbass", up to 2016, at least until now. I also got rid of all the questionable or plainy unreliable source (most of them of Russian origin), leaving only those which were deemed acceptable by the majority of users involved in the AfD discussion. As the administrator who closed the AfD discussion, I ask you whether it would be possible for you to restore the old timelines' revision histories (from 2014 to 2016) into the new lists. The core of the histories is in the following articles/redirects:

Some of the above mentioned pages (2016) were redirects containing the oldest histories. All the pages were removed per WP:TNT, a guideline that despite its name it's not only about erasing content, but also about starting over. I know this may be a huge job to do, but since the new timelines borrow large parts from the old ones, the good-faith contributions of other users should also be recognized (even the admin who proposed the deletion acknowledged this during the debate). Thanks in advance.--Darius (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DagosNavy: I'm not sure I'm clear on what you are requesting. If you want the histories of these deleted articles to become part of the history of the new articles, as in a WP:History merge, I don't believe that is realistic to do in this case. The histories of the earlier articles overlap, so a history merge of them would be an unintelligible hash. There are are some other options:
  1. From an attribution standpoint, the simplest choice is not to re-use text that you can't attribute. It is too late for the three articles you already created, but it is an option to consider for any further articles in the series. (I do understand that this makes it significantly harder to write the new articles in the first place.)
  2. Undelete the previous histories and redirect the resurrected pages to the new ones. That's pretty easy to do, but might not go over well with some of the people who participated in the AfD. It could be seen as an end run to reverse the deletion.
  3. The option of "talk page attribution" is allowed, although not often used. I would need to pull the lists of contributors from the deleted histories, and place explanations on the new article talk pages that the new articles may contain some material contributed by them (with the relevant list shown).
Option 2 is the lowest initial effort, but I may prefer to go with option 3. I will look at the histories and think about it a bit, and get back to you next year. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt reply. I was already working on the new articles, as agreed with a number of participants in the AfD, when the decision of deleting the old timelines was made. We don't know how many people would have accepted a merge, but I was hoping for a new extension of the talks. I think a redirect (option 2) would save a lot of work not only for you, but also for the contributors who edited these pages for years in good faith. I guess nobody can feel upset, excessive detail and unreliable sources (the main concern of the deletion proponent) would not be restored. A read-only display mode of the revision history (if possible) may be a way to reassure them that the old pages are gone forever. Thanks again, and see you next year ;)--Darius (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DagosNavy: Sorry for the delayed response, but after pondering I thought of a solution that should provide the best of both worlds: I can restore the histories, redirect, and then revision delete the content of all the older versions, leaving just the attributions visible. That way the AfD consensus to delete is respected, but all the users who may have contributed material used in the new pages are documented in the more typical way rather than on a Talk page. (And it's a lot less work.) So barring some unforeseen objection or difficulty, I will implement that solution within the next day. --RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, @RL0919:, that will save years of good-faith users' attribution while at the same time hiding the deleted content. Just a doubt, the edit summaries would also be preserved in that way?.--Darius (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DagosNavy: Apologies for the very slow follow-up, but all the attribution histories are now restored. And yes, these do include the edit summaries. --RL0919 (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RL0919: I have no words to thank you enough for your arduous task, in the name of all the good-faith contributors to these chronologies. I am feeling extremely embarrassed to bother you again, but I will probably ask you to save the remaining histories later this year, when the new year-to-year timelines will be ready. Thanks again, you did a hell of work!--Darius (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday night National Football League games prior to 1970

Did you believe there was consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Monday night National Football League games prior to 1970 to merge all of the content in the list into History of Monday Night Football? Because the creator of the original article just did exactly that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: Clearly I did not. I've reverted the relevant edits and asked the editor in question to address the issue more appropriately. --RL0919 (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Undeletion of MS Faizal Khan

Sir, I far as I know, Mr Faizal Khan is a very eminent personality very well known in and out of Kerala. I have noticed a vote stating ,he haven't done anything more than a speech in UN General Assembly, sir...how many will get a chance like that without talent...Next I would like to qoute , he is the Person directly Nominated by the Hon. president of India as the first court member of Maulana Azad urdu university. I am not here to debate...but felt very sad for the deletion of a page which is there for past 9 years on personal grudges of voters. Kindly do the needful favor, if you can being on the side of truth. Vediad (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vediad: Unfortunately, what you may personally know or believe about his prominence is not enough to keep an article about him on Wikipedia. In the deletion discussion, all of the other particpants believed there was not enough significant coverage about him to satisfy our notability requirements. Articles that just mention him briefly as part of a story about something else are not enough. So based on what I have seen, I cannot find a good reason to grant your request. If you want to pursue the matter further, you can file an appeal for Deletion Review. --RL0919 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refund to my own space

Hi RL0919. I was thinking of working on an article on Itay Lukach and I noticed a previous article was AFDed and deleted. Can you please undelete the latest version and put it on User:Muhandes/Itay Lukach so I can see what was already done? Thanks in advance. --Muhandes (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: Done as requested. --RL0919 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD decision was wrong

Sorry, but your decision over the draft about Thomas Clements was incorrect. It's wasting draft space and therefore Wikipedia resources. The creator is going to keep on going - he's already had this draft restored after it was deleted for inactivity all because his biased agenda demands it stay forever seeing as he thinks (despite being told four times) Clements is notable. There will never be any reliable sources. Like the last comment that said delete said, an exception to the rules needed to be applied. Please reverse your decision, ban Ylevental from editing and salt this draft space. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:D0DC:C7CF:9CA2:4959 (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your perspective on the situation. The arguments made by other editors for why the draft should be kept were on-point and aligned to our guidelines for why drafts should or should not be deleted. The primary author of the draft having a non-neutral POV is not in itself a sufficient reason for deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

173.235.7.86

May I please request immediate intervention with user:173.235.7.86 . AIV is backed up, and she clearly won't stop until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just so you know, she made a threat of violence in her last edit. CLCStudent (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for The Unconquered (1940 play), about the Broadway play. "This tale of woe includes a leading lady trying to play a role half her age, an actor who took the saying "break a leg" a bit too literally, an author who had to get drunk to tolerate the dress rehearsal, and an embarrassing failure that led that author to permanently abandon writing for Broadway. Those are the real-life events, not the plot of the play!"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request regards article "Mersey Tri"

Hi, I noticed you deleted my article on Mersey Tri. I would appreciate having a copy of the page please as it took me a lot of work. I'd like to revisite the page and perhaps have it in DRAFT folder while I work on it please? Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Heron (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Heron: Restored as a userspace draft at User:Peter Heron/Mersey Tri. --RL0919 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting usefull articles

Why did you delete "List of Instant Game Collection games" articles? These articles were very usefull and updated pretty regurlary. Amiiboilua (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Instant Game Collection games (North America) (2nd nomination), this was not the type of material that Wikipedia is intended to provide. The lists have been relocated to a more appropriate website here. --RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darcie Lanthier

I noticed that you deleted this page, and I was reviewing the AfD (what a mess). I noticed that all of the routine coverage that was offered for you to review was all very recent. I'm not necessarily arguing against the deletion, but I thought I'd offer a couple more sources for sustained coverage over time that's not necessarily directly related to her political campaigns: [2] [3]. Neither of those were covered in her bio but one is covered in Prince Edward Island Route 1. Just for your consideration. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I don't know that those pieces alone would shift the result, but if there is more "undiscovered" coverage (or new coverage appears) that could change opinions, the reasonable option would be to put an article into draft – whether in user space or draft space. That would allow more feedback on the sourcing before taking another run at mainspace. --RL0919 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think that's a good approach. If I come across any more separate coverage I'll consider writing a new draft. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxies

Hi RL0919, I'm writing to you because you're a sysop and maybe you could give me the information I need. If I suspect that certain IP addresses are open proxies, whom should I ask to check them and discover whether they actually are or they are not? Thanks! 151.30.109.206 (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my area of expertise, but if you suspect an address, it appears you can report it at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies#Reporting. You can also check Category:Open proxies blocked on Wikipedia for addresses that are already blocked as open proxies. Hope that helps. --RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RL0919 (-: 151.30.96.222 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Unconquered (1940 play) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that The Unconquered (1940 play) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 13 February 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 13, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review deletion of Kosmos Holding

Hello, I would like to request the un-deletion of Kosmos Holding. I see many primary, and independent mention and focused coverage of this company. As well as many mentions and references to it within the wikipedia community from very notable Wikipedia article and figures (Davis Cup, FC Andorra, Hiroshi Mikitani, Gerard Pique, and more) I would like to review the reasons for deletion and edit the article to improve based on comments made by users please let me know! Thank you. (Sarahjua12 (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahjua12 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of that article, which was started by a user who was later blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, I don't think it would be wise for me to restore it for an editor with a freshly created account. If you want to pursue the restoration of the article, you can appeal to Deletion Review using the instructions found on that page. --RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

I was quite dismayed to find this article had been deleted, as I very much enjoyed reading the information contained within it. According to the archived deletion discussion, anyone wanting the text of the article can request it from you. May I please have the text of this article, or a link to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwalexan (talk • contribs) 20:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwalexan: That should be no problem. Do you want it reacreated as a draft page in your user space, or would you prefer it sent to you by email? And if the latter, do you want the plain text or the wikicode? --RL0919 (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RL0919: Thank you for your help. I think I'll try the draft page option, for now at least. If I change my mind, I'll be sure to let you know. Thank you, again! Dwalexan (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dwalexan: It has been restored and placed at User:Dwalexan/World of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. --RL0919 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [4]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About ComputerSupport.com WIKI page deletion

Hello! I saw that you deleted ===ComputerSupport.com=== wiki page. The page was live for about 4 years. I assume that someone edited the page with some information about one of the founders - Kirill Bensonoff in the attempt to create a Wiki page for him and mentioned an Amazon url. However, the ComputerSupport.com wiki page, as it was before that edit included relevant information about the company, the cooperation with CITRIX etc. Could you please reactivate the page?

Let me know.

Thank you,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.124.191 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article as the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComputerSupport.com. One participant there mentioned the Amazon link, but the general problem was the absence of evidence that the company meets our notability standards, in particular the ones for organizations. An article can be very informative but still be about a subject that is not notable. Nothing in what you said above makes me think that isn't the case here, so I have no basis to overturn the result of the deletion discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply! The collaboration between ComputerSupport.com and CITRIX has been nothing but notable (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/computersupport-com-launches-next-generation-181630428.html). Basically, together we worked at launching a new generation of cloud hosting powered by Citrix Netscaler® VPX, Citrix XenApp® and Citrix XenMobile®. We built ITAnyWhereCloud, a trademark, a faster, more scalable cloud solution with a focus on providing substantial savings over the on-premise infrastructure. Also, a Wikipedia admin has approved the page 4 years ago. It was live since then. Why wouldn't be notable anymore?
Let me know your thoughts.
Mike
P.S. Since 2017 I stopped the collaboration with ComputerSupport.com, but I still consider it notable and I've shown you why.
Apologies for the slow reply; I've not been on WP much the past several days. Unfortunately, I do not see anything in your comments that changes what I said above. Our notability standards are based on how subjects are covered in independent reliable sources, not on marketing-style assertions about new generations, trademarks, etc. If you disagree with my response and want to pursue restoration of the article, you could open a deletion review discussion for others to decide. --RL0919 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please turn the page to draft in case other people have more information/sources to add?

Request to undelete: Michael Brown (City Year)

Hello, I would like to request that the page "Michael Brown (City Year)" be undeleted so that I can make updates and add new information and sources. I believe it was deleted because the subject was deemed not notable, however I believe he is notable as a leader in the US national service movement and as the current president of Harvard University's Board of Overseers. I am new to editing Wikipedia so am unsure exactly how the process works -- please let me know if you need additional information or if there is another avenue I should be pursuing to reinstate the page. BusyBadger (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BusyBadger: I don't believe it would be appropriate to restore the page as a regular article, but I could restore it as a draft, either in your own user space (e.g., as User:BusyBadger/Michael Brown (City Year)) or in draft space (as Draft:Michael Brown (City Year)). Do you have a preference? --RL0919 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RL0919&oldid=940592443"