Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by M.Renae (talk | contribs) at 17:47, 18 August 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Embryonics Project

The Embryonics Project is our proprietary research (Prof. Daniel Mange and team at the Swiss Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland). The page on wikipedia entitled Embryonics Project which was deleted (by Carlos Suarez under suspicion of copyright infringement) had been initiated by said Prof. Mange. The reference provided by Carlos Suarez as reason to suspect copyright infringement from the University of York website is actually a summary published by G. Tempesti, a former assistant of Prof. Mange and unambiguously refers to Prof. Mange. The other reference is currently dead ("page not found") and must have been as well a reference to Prof. Mange's research. You may look up the article BIOWALL on wikipedia for further information about Prof. Mange's research and explicit reference to the Embryonics Project. Therein is described the collaboration with the University of York, where part of the Biowall from the Swiss Institute of Technology (EPFL)has been placed since Gianluca Tempesti, previously with Prof. Daniel Mange's Laboratory of Logic Systems at the EPFL, is now employed. In short: the Embryonics Project was initiated at the EPFL and is being continuated at the University of York. The York reference is subsequent to any EPFL publication and therefore the Embryonics Project article contains no copyright infringement. Prof. Mange is therefore asking you to reinstate the original article under en.wikipedia.org/Embryonics_Project. -Dmange (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done. It is really irrelevant whether something on some other website was published before or after any EFPL publication. Wikipedia cannot re-publish content that has already been published elsewhere without explicit written permission from the copyright holder sent to the Wikimedia Foundation, and we cannot rely on a random user account's claims to have authority over that content. Furthermore, the article as it was written looks more like an organizational brochure than an encyclopedia article, coming across as somewhat promotional, and therefore should be re-written afresh. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page on Wikipedia entitled Embryonics Project was deleted by Carlos Suarez under suspicion of copyright infringement; the reference provided by Carlos Suarez as reason to suspect copyright infringement is visible on the University of York website at http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~gt512/embryonics.html and concludes with the following statement: "Text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonics_Project CC-By-SA 3.0". The Embryonics Project article contains therefore no copyright infringement and we kindly ask you to reinstate the original article under en.wikipedia.org/Embryonics_Project. As soon as the page will be reinstated we will start with the revision of the article in order to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, in particular by adding relevant internal links, and by improving the article's layout. -Dmange (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that the article was deleted due to a copyvio of a website having content that originated on Wikipedia. OK.
However, Wikipedia isn't the place for documenting research projects. The Wikimedia Foundation does maintain a place for such things, I recall it might be Wikisource or maybe Wikiversity. Probably WikiSource might be a better place to put this. I believe WikiSource is used by other researchers as a site for documenting their work.
Anyone else, feel free to chime in. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where the text was published first or what license it had would be relevant if the only problem was whether or not we're willing to restore it, but it's not. The real problem is that the material is not really appropriate for Wikipedia, and I agree with Amatulić that this probably belongs in Wikisource, if at all. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Found it. In the past I got involved in a discussion about what to do with the now-deleted article Crisis bonding, because it wasn't really an encyclopedia article about a notable topic, but rather a page that documented the work of a researcher. The talk page consensus determined that Wikiversity:Crisis bonding would be the best home for it.
@Dmange:, would it be acceptable to transwiki the article to Wikiversity? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem like a valid argument. The page was deleted not due to lack of notability, or it being bad content for wikipedia. It was deleted specifically due to the reason of copyright infringement. If that problem is fixed, the page should logically be restored. If you feel that it should then be deleted for another reason, then it seems you would have to start a new AfD request to delete it for that new reason. I don't know the official route to clearing up copyright infringement issues, but it certainly isn't to redirect the issue into something else. It makes it sound as if you are biased. 66.220.250.160 (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the question. If it wasn't clear from the commentary above, the article would be speedy-deletable for reasons other than copyvio; specifically WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. The question is: Given that the page does not belong on Wikipedia, should the content be kept somewhere else? Wikiversity might be one place. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. The concept of the page looks fine. You have to assume good faith, and you can't assume the page will return and be in the same form as before. Nor can you decide new reasons that the page doesn't belong that had nothing to do with the original reason the page was deleted. That's clear, blatant bias, and you should not be participating in these deletion reviews if you cannot hold your bias in check or act in a consistent manner. The page was deleted due to copyright issues. No other issue was listed or discussed, and any other claims on your part as to it being deleted for "other reasons" is pure 100% speculation unless it provably happens.66.220.250.160 (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chiming in here a little late: the problem beyond the whole copyvio concern is that ultimately we have to ask if the topic would survive an AfD (articles for deletion) discussion if it was restored and run through another deletion process. From what I can see above, it looks like the more pressing concern at this point is that the project has not received coverage in sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. There is little point to restoring it to the mainspace on Wikipedia if it looks like it will inevitably be deleted and it is well within the rights of any administrator to decline a restoration request based on this. We absolutely require coverage in order to show notability and back up claims made in any article, regardless of what it discusses. The biggest problem with a lot of things that deal with science, medicine, or scholarly-type articles is that in many cases, the topics tend to not get a lot of coverage unless they become so large and major that they dominate most journals and texts. What we typically run into is that most articles, books, and journal entries are written by people who are involved with the project/group, which makes those into WP:PRIMARY sources rather than sources that are independent. For example, this source looks like it would be usable as a RS since it is published through a RS and is by someone that does not appear to be involved with the EP. However there is an added layer of difficulty here: we need sources to back up all of the information in the article and it's highly preferred that they not be primary, as we need to have everything verified. We can't just take the word of the scientists running the projects for multiple reasons. I don't mean to suggests that your group is doing this, but there have been multiple studies in the past where people slightly fudged or just outright falsified data in order to further their personal goals. The Bogdanov affair is an excellent, excellent example of this. Again, not saying that your group is doing this in the slightest- most scientific groups try to be as honest and transparent as possible, but this is part of the reason we need that coverage. (Other than for notability standards, of course.) I would suggest that the best course of action here is to accept the offer to transwiki everything to Wikiversity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically the TL;DNR of this is that an administrator can decline a request if they feel that the page would still ultimately fail notability guidelines, regardless of the original deletion reason. We absolutely must have coverage in reliable sources to show notability and to back up claims made in an article because people can and have manipulated the system (Wikipedia and elsewhere) in the past. Wikiversity is the best course of action here for the time being. If/when you can provide coverage that is not primary and is in a reliable source, then that might sway the discussion in a more favorable light. Stating that an admin's decision is because of a bias and insulting them is not a good way to solve the issue, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I can see, if this is the kind of logic being displayed, then this whole system is not working at all. For one, you saying "if they feel that the page would still ultimately fail notability guidelines" is not good enough. I see no rules or policies in place that would allow this sort of behavior, nor do you cite any. For you to say that you "feel the page would ultimately fail guidelines" is really no different than you saying "this page is staying deleted because I said so" -- and bypassing the entire formal system of rules. No justification seems to be required on your part. In fact, the only justification you could make is "there exists a page that was similar that also got deleted" -- but as you should well know, this is not a valid argument. What you are doing is you are assuming bad faith (this is discouraged) and you are preventing people from being bold (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold). It looks more like you're inventing new reasons why an article can't stay, and replacing the purpose of entire groups -- or trying to. I'm not really sure how to step over you guy's heads here, but it looks like it's going to be needed. Again, if the reason the article was deleted is resolved - then the article should be undeleted. Period. If you have some personal bias/vendetta against the article in question, then you would of course be welcome to follow it along, bombard it with AfD requests, and see it through the motions to get it deleted for brand new reasons. That would be the fair, unbiased way to do it.66.220.250.160 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that copyright infringement allowed this page to be deleted under the "Speedy Deletion" criteria. If there was a NPOV problem, or a notability problem, it would not qualify as a "Speedy deletion" candidate. Thus, these justification to keep it deleted is in conflict with the rules, and is basically an administrative power play -- abuse of authority.66.220.250.160 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The next step if you do not agree with the answer you get here is to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. GB fan 14:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helly Luv

Please undelete and merge complete page history (from 3 places). This is probably a job for a very experienced admin!

I'd previously asked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_143#Helly_Luv. On July 17, it was moved to Draft:Helly Luv2, because there was another Draft:Helly Luv created on July 12. Obviously a current popular topic.

On 2014-07-21T21:16:39, RHaworth speedy deleted a third Helly Luv yet again -- really jumping the gun on deletions!!! At this time, there is now a fairly complete page in place, ready for improved citations.

We need the combined histories for Draft:Helly Luv2, Draft:Helly Luv, and whatever RHaworth deleted. Thanks.
-William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@William Allen Simpson:  Not done. Draft:Helly Luv and Draft:Helly Luv2 are both copyright violations, pretty well straight copies of her Facebook page and her own website, so they cannot be restored. I am surprised that their promotional/Facebooky tone did not alert anyone to that before. The article itself has chunks of the same copyright text, which I will strip out shortly, leaving a stub for you to work on.
The promotional tone is not surprising, as the article is the work of user G2musicgroup (talk), which is the group to whom HL is signed, and who I have username-soft-blocked but warned not to edit about her. I dare say they could make a WP:DCM copyright release, but copying Facebook puffery is not the way to make an encyclopedia article.
RHaworth's 21 July deletion was hardly "jumping the gun" as the whole content of that page was "Helly Luv (borned Helen Abdulla, is a Kurdish singer, living in the United States."
Best of luck with the article - she certainly hasn't achieved WP:MUSICBIO yet, but I guess there may be enough press coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, though it all looks rather Youtubey and like an energetic promotion campaign rather than real notability. JohnCD (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@William Allen Simpson: Aaaaarrrgh!!! The new article is also almost completely copied from her Facebook/website. When I take out the word-for-word copyvios, all that is left is the "Philanthropy" passage at the end. The best way I can think of to give you a good start at developing a proper article is to delete the old drafts, move this to Draft:Helly Luv, delete all the copyvio but leave the images, references and links. So I have done that. JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbwheel

I just saw that someone PRODed Thumbwheel, a redirect to Scrollwheel. While the redirect may not be ideal, I still think it is reasonable to keep it, so that a (non-technical) reader at least gets a rough idea what a thumbwheel might be. After undeletion, we should Rcat the redirect "with possibilities" in order to indicate that it could (and should!) become an article on its own in the future. Thanks. -Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthiaspaul: Done §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Hermann

This article is about a real person. I will add to the content soon. This person is of interest to your audience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danahermann (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Danahermann:  Not done. Wikipedia is not a social-networking site like Facebook for people to write about themselves. As an encyclopedia, it is selective about subjects for articles; not every "real person" can have an article, see WP:Notability (people), and writing about oneself is strongly discouraged, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindness UK

This article provides factual information on a not-for-profit organisation based in the UK and is an authority on kindness. This organisation is unbiased and neutral with the sole aim of sharing kindness and uniting people in kind acts. It seems to have been deleted because the founder has appeared on TV and is not favoured by the deleter, which does not adhere to the nature of Wikipedia. This article aims to provide facts e.g. Kindness UK held the 7th World Kindness Assembly which may be evidenced here and here and there are many examples of Kindness UK featuring in the media including BBC, ITV and articles in the Telegraph and SW Londoner (list). Emehtwiki (talk) 13:57, 11 August 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/Kindness UK, 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 Deor (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. See also Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1-800-Charity Cars

I believe the page was deleted because of the references. Can you please reinstate the page and let me know what needs to be changed so I can fix it? -16:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)71.42.57.9 (talk)

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/1-800-Charity Cars, 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 Tawker (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have discussed on talk page and explained rationale. Requester has stated they are employee of article subject, for any re-creation of article suggest articles for creation as restore/edit of article in mainspace is a clear WP:COI. Am open to userificaiton, but there isn't much to go off in deleted edits -- Tawker (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KioWare

I, Lboniello, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Lboniello (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coléoptère

I, Lisabaird, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Lisabaird (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Consider Me Dead

I, 174.126.225.20, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 174.126.225.20 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Abel

PROD deletion made by WP:SPA after speedy delete denied, should be restored and AfD'd if necessary -XeroxKleenex (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Flea Market Music

I, Aggie80, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fever Hut

Please restore page as I intend to work on it -77.100.157.201 (talk) 11:50, 12 August 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) 16:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Archibald Johnston, First Mayor of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

(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.) Karen Samuels (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johncongo

I want to create the article properly well..Pls restore it -Latertinsna 02:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Harris

Michael Harris (September 10, 1994)is an American singer, songwriter, poet and also known as Harry. He is m just a kid from the Newark, NJ who is famous for writing songs and poems. His contributions to all the thing's that he have written is his own experience of his life. He is the second children of Harris family. he debuted on the professional music scene along with Michelle as a member of Sad Day for Puppets in 2008, and began his solo career in 2010 with never shout never. His distinctive songs and poems has influenced numerous.

Unknown Colors is the best album that he has written, his other solo songs Never change, Jeanette also rank among the best song's. Harry is one of the few Poets to have been inducted into best Poems. He got the first award in year 2007 for his poem called "my life". He have one CD and a single out on iTunes, which you can get to by clicking the album covers at the bottom of Unknown colors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickslovesyou (talk • contribs) 04:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sundeep Sikka

The deletion was done without discussion. The article was about one of the India's biggest mutual fund manager. It was well sourced from independent source. He is notable journalists, investment professionals and retail investors need to know about him from independent sources. The deletion process was autocratic and more like vandalism as no valid reason was given. The article can't be under unambigous advertisement because if that is so then most articles say about Donald Trump,Raghuram Rajan or even George Soros should be removed because they read like unambigous advertisement. I think the user who has removed it has some personal agenda and has removed all articles initiated by me. Regards, Mumbaimover -59.144.123.141 (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done There was no hidden or personal agenda, the page was very promotional in tone. Phrases like "Sundeep Sikka is passionate about educating Indian investors about various safer investment opportunities" come across as something you'd read in an advertisement or press release, as they are not written in a WP:NPOV. As far as other articles go, the content of other articles does not automatically mean that every article containing promotional material should remain. It might be that the pages in question are phrased more neutrally or just haven't been seen and fixed yet. Feel free to edit and fix any promotional content you see in those articles. As far as discussion goes, the page was nominated for a speedy deletion, which does not require that we have a discussion like you would see at WP:AfD. In any case, you are free to re-create the page but please do not use language that can be seen as promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ezz Eldin

The page is for a living soccer player who will recently grow to be a soccer super star. He is not less than any of the highly decorated players nowadays. His name appeared in news articles in his national newspapers (available in references) and he deserves to be acknowledge for his achievements regardless of his young age -Msm benz (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a side note, not all of the sources used seem to pass WP:RS. For example, KingFut.com doesn't seem to have an editorial board that we could really verify and wouldn't be seen as a reliable source by most editors. The same thing goes for youm7.com. Also, please be aware that we have to have notability in the here and now, and we cannot keep articles based on future notability. Aside from that, there were a few things here and there that were written in a non-neutral point of view, like as an advertisement or a fan page. I'm not adverse against it being restored, but you'll have to go through User:RHaworth for it and show that he's received enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ghosh

This was a well sourced article about the CEO of Reliance Capital the largest Indian financial services company. I think there has been enough sources to back the article and he is a notable person. I think the material on the leadership style section is promotional which can be removed -Mumbaimover (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This wasn't as promotional as the other page, but it was written with a promotional enough tone that it would likely require a pretty thorough re-write in places. If User:NawlinWiki is fine with it being userfied, I'm willing to transfer this copy to your userspace. The other page you asked to be restored is too promotional to userfy, but this one is just neutral enough in places to where userfication might be an option. The only thing I would ask is that you run it through AfC and not submit it to the mainspace until another editor approves it. I'll hold off on making a final decision until NawlinWiki comes in. If they don't reply or are fine with it, I'll userfy it for you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Dear Tokyogirl79 I am sorry and apologize for the vandalism, but I was hurt the way User:NawlinWiki removed every content I had created. Also he put everything for speedy deletion which really hurt me. I am a journalist and financial writer and wanted to create wikipages about India's financial sector in good faith. But the deletion was very harsh when I had followed all the methods of independent sourcing and notability guidelines. However, I agree somehow the language was bit promotional in some parts but I am sorry I had followed wiki articles about big American financial sector people and companies where such language was used and they were big corps and people. But I will be careful but again I think because people and companies from third world countries like India probably can be easily deleted. It hurts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbaimover (talk • contribs) 11:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Howell Movement

I, Rchillyard, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Beowulf (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, nothing to do. It isn't deleted. It's been moved to Draft:Howell Movement (Contract bridge) ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embryonics Project (2)

It's exactly my point: the page was deleted specifically due to the reason of copyright infringement. The problem has been fixed, the page should logically be restored -128.178.116.11 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please respond in the section on this subject above. It is proposed to move it to Wikiversity. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your request for move to Wikiversity was denied, and your neutrality on this issue is highly questionable. I advise you remove yourself from this discussion, due to your bias.66.220.250.160 (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tim Shields

I, Babelfisher, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Babelfisher (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of the article was not completed. More information is yet to be added that should fulfill the notability requirements -Babelfisher (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Daymond

Voice actor recently tweeted he was surprised to find out his wikipedia entry had been deleted and asked if anyone could help him. I would like to have it restored and update it with correct sourcing. It shows deleted for unsourced BLP -TheSkuggi (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article has already been re-created, this time with a few sources, the lack of which was the reason for the prior deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:South Africans in Australia and New Zealand 1952-53.jpg

Could an admin please e-mail me the content of the file description page prior to deletion? (I don't need the file itself.) -— This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: Done. Check your email. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kan

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Kan

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vizion Interactive

I, Joshuatitsworth, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Joshuatitsworth (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWand

I usually nominate commercial pages for deletion, but this time I'd like to nominate this for undeletion. The original page might have been poor - I cannot say as I cannot see it - but it's clear that the company/project has received coverage since enough to make it pass WP:CORP: [1], [2]. -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Law_of_One

I would like to merge all past discussions belonging to this topic, into the current article talk page's archive, so that future editors can refrain from discussing the same issues. -Logos (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ra_(channeled_entity)

I would like to merge all past discussions belonging to this topic, into the current article talk page's archive, so that future editors can refrain from discussing the same issues. -Logos (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • My mistake; however since template does not ask "where we want it restored to", I thought you would restore to my user subpage. Ok, anyway, I fixed it manually, moved to archive1; thanks everyone. Logos (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leah Danielle

Jmoskowitz (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmoskowitz: 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) 17:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Hays

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Tomp55 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lassy Bouity

People need to know more about the Author -Arnaud Christ at PN Info (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)--Arnaud Christ at PN Info (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johncongo

Pls help me restore the page.. I want to create the article properly -Latertinsna 02:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help Latertinsna 00:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latertinsna (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Akin Adebayo Imoleayo

I, Femie15, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Femie15 (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Femie15: 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. Read WP:Your first article for advice, and note that you need references to reliable sources to verify what the article says and to establish WP:Notability, see also WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kazakhstan radio and television corporation

I, 64.134.237.10, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 64.134.237.10 (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - there is no point in undeleting this AfC submission, because there is already an article at Kazakhstan Radio and Television Corporation. You are welcome to improve that, if you have more information with reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Neoperl Group

I, Tulpenfeld, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tulpenfeld (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralphie Dee D'Agostino

Never finished editing -Ralphiedee (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. I'm going to assume you're writing this article about yourself (based on the user name). While I have restored the draft, I need to point out that writing about yourself carries with it a number of problems. It's very likely that your work will persist as a draft without ever becoming an article. Protonk (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PASACAT

I, Datamonger, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Datamonger (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done This has already been restored once, with no progress. Please work on it this time, but make an offline copy, as it is unlikely it will be restored if it goes another six months with progress.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compeed

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -TigerInWoods (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Please don't delete Compeed page. I've just started working on it. The article is not finished yet. I would appreciate your advice on improving the article. Don't see many reasons to treat is as advertising as the brand is quite known and mentioned in many books as a proven solution for curing blisters. Check This link, for instance. -- TigerInWoods (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, nothing to do. This isn't the place to contest proposed deletions. Also, an administrator declined the speedy deletion nomination. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Infante

My article is a valid entry and deserves to remain as it is. I am a true and legitimate actor and performer in the entertainment industry. I have included valid and lawful links to articles concerning who I am and my place in the industry and my article should be allowed to remain intact. If anything, I need assistance and guidance in providing the proper syntax in certain places. As I continue to input information and data, I will continue to supply only valid and correct information. -Kristoffer7 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frederick Shepherd (yacht designer)

I, Pmoxon, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Pmoxon (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmoxon: 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) 09:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Giffin

Brian Giffin, also known previously as Brian Fischer-Giffin is a well know Australian journalist and historian. When I search "Brian Giffin" on wikipedia, after telling me that there is no entry there are references below. Of the first 10 listings, 8 of these are the Brian Giffin I am trying to post a page about. When I get the chance I will try to edit these pages to link to Brian Giffin also. I feel that this page was deleted because it is my first post. The bands that mention Brian Giffin in their pages range from The Poor, Uriah Heap, Astenuu, Dungeon, Daysend and many more. 

  and then click the "Save page" button below -Courtney.giffin (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there is an assertion of notability, the biggest issue is that the article was very promotional in tone and would merit deletion under that speedy criteria. It also reads as if it was taken directly from a press release or other sort of copyrighted material, so there's that to contend with as well. I do have to warn you though, that being potentially usable as a reliable source doesn't always mean that someone is notable enough for an entry per our notability guidelines. There are actually quite a few people who are cited with somewhat regularity but fail notability guidelines. I also want to point you towards our conflict of interest guidelines, as your last name suggests that you are related to Brian Giffin. I'll post all of this on your talk page as well, with a bit more info. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vinay Sahasrabuddhe

I, Joshijayesh, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Joshijayesh (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - @Joshijayesh: as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoldBug (software)

Although recently deleted in deletion discussion, this subject has very high chances of becoming notable over time. I would like to work on improving this article as a draft, so that it could be returned to main namespace when WP:GNG threshold is met. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC) -— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - no objection in principle, but I would prefer this decision to be made by the deleting admin, Joe Decker, who this message will ping. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to draftification, I'm on it. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Supernaw

The subject has now played in one NFL game, he had not when he was deleted -WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: Done Looks like he finally played a (preseason) game with the Ravens, so I restored in good faith under the assumption that he should meet WP:NGRIDIRON going forward. If he doesn't, the deletion should be revisited. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeRangeFrog: Yes, he now passes WP:NGRIDIRON. Just for clarification, preseason games don't count towards WP:NGRIDIRON. He appeared in a regular season game in December of 2013 after being deleted in September 2013. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see that one (with the Texans I assume). In any case, if he meets the guideline then we're good. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Galpin

Hello, I wish to make a request for the restoration of the page Nicolas Galpin because when I created for the first time was a draft that I'm beginning because I did not quite understand the features of Wikipedia. Thereby legitimize page was deleted. Then I created another page in the name of Nicolas Galpin that has been deleted I do not really know why, I later re-created the page was deleted each time to legitimize "Creating page previously deleted ". I definitely wish I could create a page that is in any way false and that meets the conditions for a sports (football), he is a professional footballer who plays in a professional league, I can give sources and references to prove all the content (article about his signature in the club, his profile on the basis of global transfermarkt.co.uk given his profile on the website of the football club in question, articles on tests that it could be as mentioned in the page). Content is right and I am in good faith, however I have certainly sinned in how to make the launch of the page and it is to repair this mistake I make this request. I hope I explained well enough so that the motion to succeed. Thank you, Regards. -Impomus (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a topic-relevant reliable source stating that he has appeared on the pitch during a match for a fully professional club. Once you've given us a link or a citation to a print source with this information, we should have no reason to object to undeletion. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Entity

After looking up the speedy deletion criteria given, i conclude that it is not warranted, since the article created is about creative work of an artist, who is signed by the major labels (IONO Records for instance) of the related music genre, with 11 publications, cited by Discogs. The google search for "sonic entity" contains 165k entries and the facebook page has 5900 followers. -prokaryotes (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC) prokaryotes (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I grant you that not enough time was given, Restored and changed to prod. The article has now time to be saved, if enough reliable sources are provided to assert notability. -- Alexf(talk) 23:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Despoja

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mario Despoja

I, Tundern, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tundern (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done now at Mario Despoja. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best Mistake (Song)

This page should not be deleted because the page is in the works and its about a song that people want to know about and is by Ariana Grande who is famous.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jon Stokes

I, 109.158.233.90, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 109.158.233.90 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Mohan

Its the wikipedia of a famous celebrity and then click the "Save page" button below -175.101.67.11 (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • To argue against the article's deletion you have to go to the AfD for the page and show where Mohan has received coverage in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the problems seem to stem that her coverage is almost solely about her performance on a dance show. I would also like to caution you that much of the coverage on the page, such as testimonies from various people who have worked with her, would not be considered to be a reliable source that would show notability. Coverage has to be independent of Mohan, the show, or anyone involved with the show or with Mohan herself. Adding sources or claims that can't be backed up by reliable sources really don't do anything to show notability and in many cases, can actually work against the article rather than for it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:18, 17 August 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) 02:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well what was there was too promotional. So please start again writing in a way suitable for an encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/maureen lunt

I, Ml3369, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. would like to amend article to meet standards Ml3369 (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearview Mall (Louisiana)

Found a few sources, such as this, to improve the article. -Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer:  Done I have userfied it to User:TenPoundHammer/Clearview Mall (Louisiana). As this was deleted at AfD, best check with the closing admin, Michig, before restoring it. JohnCD (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Titus Minucius Vettius

I, 25willp, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 25willp (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@25willp: Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review: please complete it and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The references are in a bit of a muddle: see Help:Referencing for beginners for advice. JohnCD (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj K Shah

Suraj K Shah is a page of Indian actor and artist. I have provided many reference links also. and then click the "Save page" button below -Rajveertouch (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajveertouch: 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/Suraj K Shah, 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 Joe Decker (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) 09:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkingRock

I would like to add external links to review of the product. This software has other competitors which are allowed to have a page on wikipedia so I don't see the difference. We have many users happy with the product and it is the only one which is multi platform with data saved locally -ClaireLem (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Singapore Bible College

I, Drrickgriffith, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Drrickgriffith (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Shiina

Removing Request. I will continue to work on the article as a userfied article. -CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/shiina

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Structure101

I, Robgey, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Robgey (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of South Africa book

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colours of South Africa

I, 81.145.129.171, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 81.145.129.171 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simply Gluten Free Magazine

I, M.Renae, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. M.Renae (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=621799555"