Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fisherarch (talk | contribs) at 19:26, 1 July 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Ciaran McKnulty

McKnulty is a well reported Manx footballer, who has played in a recognized league on championship teams and has recieved awards and substantial recognition. -Albiet (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Manx League is not a recognised league in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability Kivo (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BetMoose

Requesting the page source back - will improve and repost -Gloomfrost (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Gloomfrost/BetMoose. DO NOT repost back into main article space. Use the 'submit' button at the top of the draft article to submit it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westshore Town Centre

Requesting refund of the edit history.  Article was deleted today at AfD, and an attempt has been made to talk to the closing admin, link without getting a reply.  Meanwhile, another editor has restored the title as a redirect.  -Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can create a redirect over a title previously deleted by AFD. How does that invalidate the AFD decision? The article was deleted only today, and the same day you're posting a REFUND request without following proper procedure? Wait for the admin to respond, and go to WP:DRV if the response is not to your liking. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The admin has a semi-retired template posted, and is typically gone for days at a time.  So I don't expect to get a timely response there, in fact it has already been more than 24 hours.  I didn't come here to suggest that this was totally non-controversial.  However, I suspect that a refund is less controversial than a DRV.  The people here would know that better than I.  And I was hoping to get a decision, one way or the other.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Already" more than 24 hours? When I post a question on someone's talk page, I typically expect a reply within a week. I'm often gone for 2 or 3 days at a time myself. There is no expectation or obligation for any editor, including administrators, to attend to Wikipedia on a daily basis. This is something we do in our spare time. Many of us aren't students anymore, but professionals with real-life demands of career and family. What is the hurry? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize I'd be asking something difficult.  I will withdraw the request if you want, or continue to wait for a decision.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, it isn't difficult to restore an article history. It's basically a handful of clicks. That isn't the issue here.
An administrator won't unilaterally countermand an AFD decision of another administrator without first having a discussion with that administrator or in an appropriate forum like WP:DRV. That's a Wikipedia policy, summarized briefly at WP:RAAA. Countermanding an AFD decision isn't an uncontroversial act... and this page is for requesting uncontroversial restorations only.
Secondly, article history is routinely restored in cases where it's obvious something changed (common examples you can find on this page concern articles re-created from scratch for individuals who became notable since the original articles got deleted). On the other hand, the act of simply creating a redirect doesn't negate the AFD decision. Wikipedia has established procedures for this, namely (a) talk to the administrator, and if the response is unsatisfactory, (b) take it to WP:DRV.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
FWIW, I have brought a case to DRV after waiting a month for the deleting admin to respond. Wikipedia does't operate on a schedule. Things happen as they happen. Just be patient. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patricia Gucci

Gregoryjlee (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I note that there is an OTRS ticket related to the donation of the subject's website under a license compatible with the one we use, however keep in mind that you still have to prove that she meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. Otherwise the submission will be declined again. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thejb4u

this is my personal page and then click the "Save page" button below -Thejb4u (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Articles deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 cannot be restored by request here. Wikipedia is not a personal web hosting service. Use Facebook for that. Also see Wikipedia:Autobiography -- you should not write articles about yourself, and even if you do, you shouldn't post them directly to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done.Wikipedia is not a personal blog or website.Use Facebook or Twitter for that.You cannot create articles for personal information in Wikipedia.~Nikosgranturismogt (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cyclic corrosion testing

OTRS ticket:2014061610008596 allows using http://www.ascott-analytical.com/salt-spray-or-cct.html under cc-by-sa-30 and/or GFDL license terms -Ankry (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll leave it to someone else to look at the ticket, but I'll warn you ahead of time: this will need some pretty big editing to put it more in layman's terms. It reads as a little too technical at times and really needs some serious editing for flow. That's kind of the big unsaid thing about using copyvio: even if the original content is given up as fair use, 99.9% of the time the content will need to be re-written anyway in order to meet our writing guidelines. Given that it's taken from a company's website, odds are it will also need to be edited to ensure that it doesn't read as overly promotional. I don't see the company's name listed in the article, but it is a little "yay, CCT" at various points. That's completely reasonable on the company's website, but on here we need it to be more neutral and encyclopedic. I just feel that at some point this would need to be completely re-written, so I really think that it would save more time if you were to re-write it in your own words, and if you get someone from one of the applicable WikiProjects to help you with tone, sourcing, and flow. Articles that are cut and pasted from another website are usually some of the most challenged articles on Wikipedia and the ones that remain are almost always re-written to meet standards and to avoid the usual issues that arise from cut/pasting from somewhere else. (IE, you'll always have someone tagging it as copyvio, advertising, or as a conflict of interest, as well as flow, NPOV, encyclopedic, and layman's terms. It's always easier to just re-write it. I can't stress this enough.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tokyogirl79: for clarification, the requester is the OTRS agent, not the author of the article. The author is apparently an appointed representative of Ascot Analytical Equipment Ltd, who has released the page http://www.ascott-analytical.com/salt-spray-or-cct.html to the Wikimedia Foundation under the two free licenses, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and GNU Free Documentation License.
If this were in main article space, I'd probably object to restoring it, but as long as it's in Draft space, it's a reasonable request, since the article was deleted as G12 and no other reason. I'm in a rush at the moment, so I'll get to this later today if nobody else does. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no true objection to it, but I just worry sometimes that working from a pre-existing article (as opposed to re-writing it while using the company's page as a source) just makes it harder to re-write the article or fix things that need to be done. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, draft article restored and properly tagged. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ron G Holland

Ron is a genuine author who has been published for 35 years, by a major publisher (Harper Collins) and all of the citations that Wikipedia have requested have been supplied. "Save page" button below -92.26.6.13 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done The article has a very, very promotional tone at times and would need to be completely re-written to meet our guidelines. I did look at the sources and I have to share in the PRODer's concern that the sources would not be enough to show a depth of coverage, especially since they were from a specific point in time. We'd also need to be able to verify the sources a little and that the editor could not pull up enough sources to assert notability is also a big concern. I'm familiar with the editor in question (User:Bonadea) and if she couldn't find sources then that is pretty telling, as she is a hard worker. I'm really not sure that Holland would pass notability guidelines if this were to be restored and put through a formal AfD, and I think that deletion would be inevitable. The problem is that just being published through a notable publisher is not enough to pass notability guidelines. There are a lot of authors who can make these claims, some of whom are on the NYT's bestselling list, but has not received enough coverage to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaNetCenter

These are public articles from other sources which are already in Wikipedia"Save page" button below -Mileweb2014 (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done The problem here is that the latest version of the article did not have any content. It was just a collection of links to various places. Of the other versions that were deleted, they all had issues with the article reading as promotional. What I'd recommend is that you create the company page via WP:AfC. Not only will this give you more time to work on the article, but you would also be able to get some feedback from people when you submit it. Creating articles in the mainspace can be a tricky thing, as you would have to make a fairly complete, neutral article in what's really a pretty short amount of time. That's why I personally recommend AfC, as it would give you more time to work on the article and learn the basic guidelines, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Circle Theater of New York

(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.) 207.29.44.2 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done The AfC creation was very, very promotional- so much so that you will have to re-write the entire article from scratch to meet our guidelines for neutrality. It also reads like it was taken directly from a press release or some other WP:COPYVIO type source. I have no problem with you making a new entry, but the previously deleted version was so unambiguously promotional that I'm actually a little surprised that it wasn't deleted as such when the previous person declined it at AfC. I don't mean to sound harsh, just trying to emphasize that it would be better if you were to start from scratch and try to make it better fit our WP:NPOV policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warka water

Warka water is a humanitarian project, I am not promoting or selling any product; I don't understand why my article is subject to speedy deletion. You can kindly find articles about Warka water in the following links: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/this-tower-pulls-drinking-water-out-of-thin-air-180950399/?no-ist http://www.wired.com/2014/03/warka-water-africa/?mbid=social_fb http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/31/warka-water-ethiopia I wil be waiting for your response Best regards Andrea Awaida -Andreaawaida (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not yet deleted, but it is very promotional. Your links help to show importance, but the style of writing and what is presented is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please stick to the facts and not try to make the readers want to support it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens, that isn't an encyclopedia article, that's a promotional brochure. It's deleted now.
Andreaawaida, please do not re-create this article in main space. Use Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead. You clearly need some practice before we can accept an article from you in main article space. At Articles for Creation, your article will be evaluated by a neutral reviewer prior to acceptance. And you'll have more time to work on it rather than worrying about it being speedily deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Marching Virginians

The Marching Virginians · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This article contained a lot of good information about a large student group at Virginia Tech. It was a good starting point for people wanting to learn more about the civilian band at Virginia Tech, a much newer group than the Highty Tightys. The group is heavily involved in community outreach and a large part of the Virginia Tech sports traditions. The page also had information on a lot of internal traditions that not many know about but make the group so very special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skanetic (talk • contribs) 00:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please address User:RadioFan's concerns given in the proposed deletion: Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. References provided are to a single ESPN article, a letter to the editor of the student newspaper, and the university page promoting the group. I've also notified them in case they want to nominate the article for deletion by discussion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labor Camp-Musical Group

The page was deleted because the reviewer believes the band is not notable when the band members and producers are all listed in other Wiki pages. These were referenced in posted article. The article is indicating the status of the musicians involved, from "Nip Drivers" and Rosemary's Billygoat" -Disklxik (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, none of the members actually have their own Wikipedia articles, and of the two former bands mentioned that contributed members to this band, only Nip Drivers has its own article. WP:BAND criteria don't appear to be met. Also, you need to make your case to the deleting admin, not here. So...
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 Bbb23 (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Anna Liza A. Ramos

She is a good person so that I create her a wiki page I dont promote any product Dr. Marmelo Villanueva Abante (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Articles deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 are not eligible for restoration by request on this page. Contact the deleting administrator Jimfbleak. Furthermore, the article was promotional in tone, reading more like a personal bio in a university publication than a Wikipedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R.D. Gardi Medical College ,Ujjain

Page has been deleted for the violation of G11 ,But page contains completely Neutral Point of View Article contains Correct and verifiable figures Google Map's official recognition and Links from Official Government Authority websites and Official website of the college itself, The facilities like WIFI is Clearly stated as NOT AVAILABLE , Qulaity of Mess is clearly stated as Lower than Average ,for the recreation room "TV ONLY in some hostel" is cleraly stated so it is not considered as Advertising ,And By deleting this page wikipedia Lacks Important Article about one of the Important Medical colleges of India , So This PAge should Restored back -MedicalFacts (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. It was indeed promotional, using non-neutral language, such as describing the institution as "premier" and touting its facilities with unnecessary details that would be more appropriate in an advertising brochure. You are welcome to try again at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but don't re-post this to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lindsay Jones

I, 71.105.91.13, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 71.105.91.13 (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for additional sources to improve my submission. Please undelete. -71.105.91.13 (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MDP Haruge

I, ShumbaGong, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. ShumbaGong (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did'nt recieve a notification to my email about deleting my article. Please undelete it. thank you! "Save page" button below -ShumbaGong (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are not obligated to inform you via email about the deletion of an article. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (It needs a lot of work) --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2000charge

CJbrian (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2000charge[reply]

 Not done A single paragraph of material, and given a simple Google search on the subject it's highly unlikely that it meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nightcat

I, Captrobb, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Captrobb (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Quizzing Corporation

Its for people on facebook whom is in the group or outside the group can see whats going on. Freedom of Press Amendment 1 US Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmastromonaco (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities whatsoever, and we are not obligated to keep items that are not compliant with Wikipedia's policies. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done and won't be done: The Global Quizzing Corporation is a wrestling Quiz group found on facebook.com that has people from around the globe competing in free quizzes to win fake titles. This group is fictional outside of facebook. See WP:CSD#A7 and WP:ORG. And I have no idea what you mean by "Freedom of Press Amendment 1 US Constitution". §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsuya Kaida

work in progress -Moodsjp (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done The submission is essentially an unsourced promotional essay about the subject, who likely does not meet the notability guidelines to begin with. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Bea Hope

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Anro5785 (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why can I not find a record of the article being deleted and if you are going to delete the article on Connie Bea Hope why not delete the article on Estelle Payton?

If the article on Hope is not restored I am requesting that the article on Peyton be deleted as well. Tit for tat is only fair

Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. The existence of Article X cannot be used to justify Article Y. Please see WP:Notability, which ALL articles need to meet. Also, the article was never deleted; it was redirected to the programme she works for]. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you restore the original article. You let Dot Moore have an article of her own and not her when they are the same basic kind of TV personality? How can I find the original text. I have proposed the deletion of a number of Mobile area figures. If you delete her it's only fair you do the same with them. Especially Estelle Peyton and Dot Moore. She certainly reached a far greater audience daily in her time than the reality TV show contestants you let have their own articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anro5785 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THE EXISTENCE OF ARTICLE X CANNOT BE USED TO JUSTIFY THE EXISTENCE OF ARTICLE Y. I will once again point you to WP:Notability by way of explanation. If you don't like it, try to change it as opposed to complaining that someone should have an article based on the presence of articles on similar topics. (By that logic, I deserve an article because I'm a writer, and Eoin Colfer has an article.) —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They tried getting rid of the article 5 years ago and I successfully argued against it. They tried using notability as the reason and we did in fact establish she was notable. Go back to that discussion. I analyzed TV trends. This has been done solely because she is a Mobile, Alabama based TV figure from a long time ago even though she was one of the most important media personalities in the Southeast of her time. Which is make more ridiculous by the fact that the same kind of merger was not done to Estelle Payton

One of you could have come down to Mobile and looked at archival footage and old issues of the paper. It's an anti-Southern bias is all it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anro5785 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you will not listen to what I am trying to tell you then I will stop bothering to respond to you. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 23:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done The article is not deleted, so there's nothing to do here. It was redirected. You can discuss the redirect with User:Drmies instead, ideally by addressing the concerns that prompted the redirect to begin with. "you must do X since you won't do Y for me" is not an argument that tends to get much traction around here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CertiCon

I, Enkamm, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Enkamm (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/best tennis players in history

I, 2602:306:3435:920:B1B3:30AC:1D3F:CAD, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 2602:306:3435:920:B1B3:30AC:1D3F:CAD (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done There's a few problems with this list, starting with the title. "Best" is very subjective. But I think it might have a future. You will definitely need to be more clear and encyclopedic about what the criteria for inclusion is based on the data on the tables. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Grenfell Nutting

I have been extremely busy with parental issue (they are very elderly and disabled and have been taking up a lot of my time, but I do intend to get back to this and sort it out. "Save page" button below -Grandma-Dorrie (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. @Grandma-Dorrie: I think there is some notability there but in its current state the article will likely be deleted again, so you need to work on it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Time For Change Foundation

I, ProvenceAntiquities, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. SaintClair (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The submission was restored by User:Tokyogirl79 and then deleted again because it was too promotional. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Slapdash (film)

I, Hebert72, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Hebert72 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Hebert72: Please follow the recommendations from the AFC reviewers before re-submitting. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Green Light on the Southern

I, WJRC, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. WJRC (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @WJRC: Remember that standalone articles on albums must prove notability beyond merely existing. Otherwise they should be merged as appropriate to a "discography" article for the artist. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carbles (Board Game)

I, Mattg889, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Mattg889 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattg889:  Done Mike V • Talk 02:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books Through Bars

Books Through Bars - Philadelphia is an important organization that has been doing what they have been doing for nearly 25 years now. It was deleted through a PROD process apparently. I know I didn't notice it, and I certainly would have contested it. Furthermore the idea as referenced that it was "concern was: Minor charity listed in many directories but virtually nothing actually written about it. Non-notable." is simply absurdly sloppy and seemingly lazy. Amongst the many articles written about them are recent ones referencing them in regards to censorship and prisoner education one of which can be seen at: http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2014/06/the_dept_of_corrections_is_wag.html In addition, one can easily find many references to them on google scholar, google books as well as news archive and search sites like http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives -Centerone (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Magic Thermodynamic Box

I do not believe this was a fair deletion as i am not trying to promote any company or business as this is just an article educating how a certain invention is changing solar energy and how it normally works. -Salihcan97 (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done You were advised MULTIPLE times that the draft was unacceptable, yet you persisted in resubmitting without acting on that advice. Such action is disruptive. This subject is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and promotion like this will not be tolerated the panda ₯’ 12:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The article was full of puffery, describing the company or product as "innovative", "revolutionary", "unique", as well as inappropriate editorializing ("it could be said that..."). You completely failed to read or comprehend any of the reveiwer's comments, failed to understand Wikipedia guidelines describing sources (see WP:Golden rule for basic guidance), and simply re-submitted the article without making any improvements to it. This would require a complete rewrite to make it acceptable. That is ample grounds for deletion as advertisement. There is zero benefit to the Wikipedia project in restoring something that only serves to promote a company or product. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.G Leventis Nigeria PLC

Please go through my talk page and history. I had one of your admins help me out Melanie.She really hleped me with the footnotes, i managed to get all the articles i needed as references and proper references, i even reworded the article, and it was also APPROVED...up to wehre someone decided it was not right, and just bascially DELETED it. Even if i wanted to EDIT that mistake! or whatever he found, i coudn't. I'm not trying to do any harm here...just trying to do my job. And its not helping me if my article gets fully deleted. -Dpapa187 (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question: What do you mean "trying to do my job"? Do you work for the company? I see you have already re-created it and it's once again going to be deleted - that's now how you need to do things on Wikipedia the panda ₯’ 11:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The article that was approved in AFC and subsequently deleted was deleted due to copyright infringement of the page http://www.agleventis.com/About/ag-leventis-in-general/ - otherwise it was a pretty good article. The replacement was more promotional, starting out describing the company subjectively as "leading" and has been accordingly deleted. I suggest that Dpapa187 start again in Draft space, not in main article space, and this time omit any promotional words and don't copy text from other websites. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction of automobile destruction

eleted via proposed deletion - after a search for the subject it seems notable. The article was deleted with the reason that nobody had added sources for 5 years, and for notability. One source here : [1]. It should be possible to find sources with the Google search Loftus Palmer automobile -Christian75 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done as a contested proposed deletion. I've taken the liberty of cutting the article down significantly. As you add independent sources to the page you can build the content back up but I find articles with few independent sources tend to attract less negative attention if they're kept short and their claims kept simple and general. Protonk (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Forks International

I created the Grand Forks International page yesterday, but it was deleted for not having enough independent sources. I would like to receive a copy of the article before it was deleted so I could work on it in a sandboxed environment, before bringing it out once I have enough independent sources for it to be worthy of inclusion. Thank you. -Canucksfan97 (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Canucksfan97/Grand Forks International. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Ugly Mane

The page was deleted for not showing his significance as an artist - I disagree completely, the page speaks about his progression and graduation to popularity. I also plan to add more if given the ability. -71.95.42.251 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you need to talk to the deleting admin, FreeRangeFrog, possibly about userfying the article and re-submitting via WP:AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with userifying this despite the fact that it was a clear A7 with no clear assertion of importance. As long as you can tell us, in once or two sentences, if the subject meets at least one of these criteria and a link or two to verify the claim. Otherwise we're all just wasting our time. By the way, popularity is not the same thing as our notability requirements, although sometimes popularity does translate into general notability. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided @FreeRangeFrog: with what I believe to be credible evidence towards the page's revival, to which he disagrees with - the evidence I provided shows just as much significance as several other artist pages (ie, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yung_Lean), to which he also disagrees with. I'm hoping someone else could just give me the chance to add to the article with this information, as I feel it will supplement the page as needed. §Celestaphonecroak
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The existence of anything else on Wikipedia has no bearing on this particular article. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. Countless articles about obscure musicians (particularly rappers) have slipped through over the years, which were created purely as fancruft or for publicity purposes, and should be deleted. The coverage you offered on User talk:FreeRangeFrog appear to be blogs or otherwise niche publications. I see that Impose magazine is cited by other articles, but then we're back to WP:OTHERSTUFF again; you'd have to go to WP:RSN to get a community consensus about whether that should be considered a reliable source. The album releases need to be on notable record labels having a roster of independently notable performers, so you'd have to make a case that the two labels you named qualify as notable.
By the way, tweak your signature style attributes, it looks so similar to FreeRangeFrog's that it can be confusing. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, copying someone else's sig element-for-element is unacceptable the panda ₯’ 10:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahbub Mirza Chishti Qalandari Hyderabadi

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -39.50.201.246 (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Mahbub Mirza Chishti Qalandari Hyderabadi was a holy saint in Hyderabad Deccan, India. He follows Chishti chain.[reply]

Not done and will not be done. We will not restore copyright infringing material. In this case, content was pasted from http://auliyaechisht.yolasite.com/hazrat-mahbub-mirza.php ~Amatulić (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Dalton (Lisa Loving)

I would like this page to be restored to me by email or in my sandbox so that I may continue to work on it. I believe that Lisa Dalton is a notable person because she has been one of the most influential people in the United States regarding the continued development and proliferation of the Michael Chekhov Acting Technique through her work with Mala Powers and the National Michael Chekhov Association (NMCA). I think the page was deleted because I was trying to follow a format I saw on another living person's page, Marjo-Riikka Makela, but err'ed in the choices I made about what to include. I think I can pair down the section on Lisa's acting career, include more about her work in the Michael Chekhov Technique, and submit through the Special:Mypage to better achieve my goal of proper submission. Thank you for your consideration. -Josheard (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Josheard: Have you asked the deleting administrator GB fan? That should be your first step rather than posting on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Amatulic: Is it our policy to defer on userifying CSD'd articles until the deleting admin has a say? Not asking to be snide, but things could've changed in the past year. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Protonk: Well, A7 articles are ineligible for restoration by request on this page anyway. The boilerplate response template does advise the requester to contact the deleting administrator. I have always felt that template should be tweaked to include the possibility of userfication when the petitioner contacts the admin. Then I could have used that template for this case.
While there is no specific policy, it has been standard practice and common courtesy, for as long as I can remember, that the deleting admin should be the first person consulted regarding an article that was deleted for a potentially contentious reason (such as A7 or G11, and especially for AFD).
This is a borderline case to me; it could have been deleted for having almost no substantive content (the article was just one sentence) but it was deleted as A7 instead. Often I will investigate an A7 nomination before deleting the article myself, and I appreciate if I am given the chance to explain my rationale first before some other admin decides to restore or userfy it. In some cases I have had reason to decline userfication also. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating restoring it to mainspace, which as you note is outside the scope of this forum. But I don't see executing an A7 as a marker of a special relationship to an article; someone tagged it, the admin agreed and it gets deleted. Nor do I think it represents a veto chit on restoring content insofar as the reason for deletion is obviated. In this case, it's an article which doesn't assert importance, turning it into a user draft eliminates the first consideration and potentially the second. It doesn't make acting on the request automatic and certainly an admin can defer to the deleting admin out of courtesy, but for cases where the material isn't per se proscribed in userpace, then I don't see the problem. I'm only pressing this issue because 1: the template notice ({{Db-notability-notice}}) does say to bring this exact type of request here (and IMO it's right to do so) and 2: the purpose of this page as I understand it is to provide a relatively bureaucracy free route for users to have material un-deleted when it is possible to do so. That includes not having to hunt down the deleting admin and craft a personalized argument on their page. The only reason to not do this would be if we felt the deleting admin had some position on the disposition of the content regardless of the namespace. Were that the case (e.g. copyvio, attack pages) they would've used the corresponding deletion reason. Further, even a non-admin could recreate the page and obviate the reason for deletion (either by starting a draft or updating the article to meet A:7) without asking permission from an admin, let alone the deleting admin. They shouldn't be constrained from doing so when they get to that point by following the instructions we give them to the letter. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Protonk:There is no need for undeletion because there is a draft at Draft:Lisa Dalton which you can continue working on. This was explained to you at the time the mainspace article was nominated for deletion. Rankersbo (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rankersbo, I'm sorry but I'm afraid you've confused me for someone else. Protonk (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Protonk:Yes you're right, I got confused, sorry. Rankersbo (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Amatulic: Thank you for your message. I was trying to follow the protocol listed to retrieve the deleted page as listed in the last sentence of the last paragraph on this page. I've also messaged the administrator in case I misunderstood the procedure; I'll be sure to go straight to the admin in the future. Ever learning, --Josheard (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have restored it as a draft article but there is more information in Draft:Lisa Dalton than the deleted article had in it. GB fan 20:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Newton (artist)

I, LMGHS Webmaster, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. LMGHS Webmaster (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

garreous lisenbee

the page name is Garreous Lisnebee i believe that his page should not be deleted because he is a significant figure in his home town because he has been through adversity and has always never given up kids look up to him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizzle09 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this page under WP:CSD#A7. Lisenbee's most notable accomplishment asserted on the page was playing college sports; no awards were mentioned. No sources were included. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done for 2 main reasons: 1) our notability for athletes is very strict - although his hometown might find him notable, Wikipedia as an international encyclopedia does not. Second, all articles about living people must be suitably referenced - this was not. Finally, should you request undeletion in the future of some other article, please use the instructions provided the panda ₯’ 10:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meytal Cohen

Meytal is the most subscribed YouTube drummer with over 100M views and 800K Facebook fans. She is now working on her debut album, 4 original singles have been released - http://www.youtube.com/meytalll - when typing her name in Google, the first auto-suggestion from Google is 'Meytal Cohen Wiki', why doesn't she have a Wiki page? -172.248.116.249 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tetryonics

I, 75.210.85.198, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 75.210.85.198 (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This cannot be restored, because it is a copyright violation from http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/ABRAHAM_The_Gaussian_topolo_1.pdf. Even if the copyright issue were resolved, this would not be acceptable material for Wikipedia unless references can be provided showing discussion of the theory in independent reliable sources: see the fundamental policy WP:No original research, which includes:

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery."

JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meester Shay

'Meester Shay'

'This article shouldn't be deleted because she is a great singer and actress and she rocks. Also Her fans wants an information about her' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meester Shay (talk • contribs)

  •  Not done First, the next time you request undeletion of a valid article, please use the format provided. Second, we do NOT host hoaxes, made-up stuff, anything related to blogspot, etc. This is an encyclopedia the panda ₯’ 10:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cobalt fluoride reactor at F2 Chemicals Ltd.jpg

Permission (probably) obtained through ticket:2014062010009667. -Microchip08 (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Microchip08 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HOST1PLUS

l created this page to raise awareness about this web hosting page, there is nothing advertising it, if the links are controversial, then l will gladly remove them so that the article only provides useful information to users who are looking for free hosting websites}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladiepre (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2014‎

  • Not done The page was deleted because it came across as unambiguous promotion. Phrases such as "Coming from different countries and nationalities, the HOST1PLUS team members share different experiences and ideas, this helps the brand to stay open minded and flexible to ideas and new places where they can provide their services" come across as advertising. It reads as if it came from a press release or is something that someone in the company's advertising department wrote. I'm not against the company having an article, but the company must pass notability guidelines by having coverage in places that are independent of the company and in-depth. You cannot use the company's official website, routine database listings, or press releases. Also be aware that if an article reads as if it was taken directly from a press release, that article will not be considered usable. We're not really here to "raise awareness" per se- the company must already be notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ray Carr

I, 99.19.9.82, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 99.19.9.82 (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The concerns brought up at AfC MUST be dealt with before you re-submit this article. I almost didn't restore it because the tone here is so casual that it comes across as a little promotional. You also need to remove things that don't really pertain to the article, such as Carr's hobbies and marital status. Generally speaking, we only include those when the marital status and hobbies have received enough coverage to justify its inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Energy Technologies

I, Ladiepre, request that Digital Energy Technologies be undeleted because the page is written from a viewer's point of view and opinion. There are sources from other sites such as "zoomin" that offer further information about what DET is and what it does. i followed all the rules and guidelines in the help page and please, l implore you, let me know what exactly it is and l will fix the article because it is informative and educative. Thank you --Ladiepre (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only was it deleted under WP:A7, but it was also deleted under WP:G13 as unambiguous promotion. As far as the sources go, they do not seem to be the type that would extend notability because they all seem to be WP:PRIMARY sources such as routine database listings. It is expected that companies will have themselves listed in various databases, so that cannot show notability. The article's overall tone was so promotional that it would require an entire re-write to pass our guidelines for neutrality. As far as it being WP:USEFUL, we cannot keep an article solely because it is useful. The article must pass our notability guidelines by way of coverage in independent and secondary sources. As far as what came across as promotional, a good example is the sentence "DET is goal and people oriented towards making website ownership and management an easy task to carry out." That's the sort of thing you read in press releases promoting the company and is considered to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dwight McGhee

(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.) Wightgorilla (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. the panda ₯’ 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Professional and Technical Consultants Association

I, Eastmain, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamrul Ahsan

I, Lixiaowang, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Lixiaowang (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, already restored OVER A WEEK AGO. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Limited Runs

I, Jamiwr, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jamiwr (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue editing the article based on the feedback. -Jamiwr (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garden Ridge logo.jpg

former logo inappropriately removed from article, when it should have just been moved out of infobox into history section of article -radiojon (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, image restored. The article to which Garden Ridge redirects already linked to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DOLLS

I, 109.154.2.181, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.2.181 (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Sports Builders Association

I, Mhsprecher, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Mhsprecher (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said that last November, then did nothing (and in fact you've haven't done anything with the article since June 2012). What's different this time? I'd remind you that "userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles". BencherliteTalk 19:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, Mhsprecher, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. This page is now being edited by a new team and will be resubmitted. Mhsprecher (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "being edited by a new team"? We do not permit shared accounts. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate requests combined. BencherliteTalk 22:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willems Workflow Scripting Language

The page was deleted after a request for more Importance was uncontested for seven days. The technology described in the article has now been presented at two European conferences and can gain more references to indicate importance. Rather than recreate the page I believe this is the correct process to get it reinstated but if I am incorrect please let me know. Thanks for you help. -Robwalsh76 (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion, or PROD, isn't a "request for more Importance" [sic] but rather someone proposing that the article should be deleted if it's not improved upon within 7 days. Fortunately, this page is the right place to come to restore PRODded pages (it's treated as if you're contesting the PROD, which any user may do at any time). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Ironholds (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. What the article needs, if it is to be kept, is references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", to establish Wikipedia:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dave Durand

I, Rock23953, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. I would like to revise the page and resubmit it. Rock23953 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dukes at Komedia

This relatively new cinema is already an important cultural hub in Brighton and has been singled out as such by newspapers such as The Guardian. It was proposed as a candidate for speedy deletion and removed shortly after, without much time to contest the decision. I'd hope you reconsider, or else consider placing the previous article as a sub-heading within the existing Komedia page. -KingMurdoch (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabric_(Python_library)

Fabric must have a Wikipedia article. It is used on millions of hosts as of 2014. -Max Haase (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabric (Python library), it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. the panda ₯’ 10:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to start over. As noted, the entire contents are in the post above.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orlic

205.217.14.65 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.. If it is to be accepted, this needs references to confirm what it says. Please check out Wikipedia:Verifiability: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric Fisher.

I, Fisherarch, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Fisherarch (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=615195078"