Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cicimau (talk | contribs) at 17:33, 24 August 2014 (→‎Ivan Smolović: new section). 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]
Again, please answer the question. For the second time you have failed to do so. No one has claimed that the article was deleted for other reasons, only that it would have been. Do not attribute motives to others that do not exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you aren't displaying consistent logic here. It is not productive to talk about what "would have happened" in some hypothetical alternative universe where the past happened differently, and then use that extremely weak and subjective excuse to dictate that an article should stay deleted. I'm fairly certain that's not how wikipedia is supposed to function. The listed reason for deletion is copyright infringement. If that reason is resolved, the article should be returned. If you feel it should be deleted for some other reason, then you would have to submit it to AfD and follow through the motions.66.220.250.160 (talk) 21:52, 18 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]
I will add, 66.220.250.160, are you going to answer the question posed above, or not? Is Wikiversity or WikiSource an appropriate place to restore then content? Please stop avoiding this. I am ready and willing to restore the content to either of those places immediately. I will not restore it to main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. The appropriate place to restore the content would be the exact location where the content was deleted from. Assuming the reason for deletion has been resolved, there should be no reason not undelete the article.66.220.250.160 (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then the way to "step over you guy's heads" is to go to WP:Deletion review. Before you do that, read Wikipedia:No original research carefully, noting particularly the passage: "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) 21:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant. This undeletion process is not supposed to be the playground of administrators exercising their ability to selectively enforce rules. An article was deleted for reason X. No other reason was specified. Reason X is resolved. Article should be restored. Period. If you feel that there are new reasons to delete the article, then it would prompt a deletion discussion. It should not and is not the job of administrators to invent hypotheticals or say things like "well I'm pretty sure it would be deleted anyways." That's simply not good enough, and is no replacement for an actual review. Wikipedia seems to have gone downhill rapidly.66.220.250.160 (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The page will not be undeleted because it was a copyright violation. Swaths of the text are copied word-for-word for or with very minor changes from here and here – books published in 2001 and 2002. Thus, while the original entry was mistakenly identified as a copyright violation of the website's text, that was actually copied from here, the original text placed here was a copyright violation from inception. Note that in order to use non-free copyrighted text (beyond short quotations identified as quotations by being enclosed in quote marks and cited to an inline citation) we require that the copyright holder irrevocably release the text itself, to the world, under a free license compatible with ours (or into the public domain).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 18 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]

Coming into this discussion as a non-administrator with no connection to the discussion, it seems clear to me that the anonymous user demanding that the article be restored to the main article space and refusing transwiki restoration, is the biased one. Please do answer the latest points on copyright violation referring to books that predate the article. --Slashme (talk) 06:30, 22 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]

 Possible. @Robgey: Hello Robgey. I am declining this request pending further information. You first submitted this in February 20, 2013. It was reviewed and declined on March 7, 2013 and then sat for ten months until deleted on January 14, 2014. Thereafter it was very quickly requested to be undeleted, which it was. It then sat unedited for another seven months. Articles for creation is not an indefinite hosting service for material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia proper. Do you have some immediate plan to improve this draft to meet the decline bases and submit it for further review? What do you plan to do?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:21, 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]

Done - @M.Renae: 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) 18:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1000Bulbs.com

I, Tungstenlightbulb, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tungstenlightbulb (talk) 19:42, 18 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tivo's Media File System

This article was deleted as an expired PROD, so undeletion should be automatic. The rationale alleged that the topic failed GNG. In fact this topic clearly passes GNG. There is extensive coverage of this topic in GBooks. It is discussed on 39 separate pages of "TiVo Hacks" by Krikorian (O'Reilly Media, 2003) and on 88 separate pages of "Hacking TiVo" by Keegan (Wiley, 2004). (It is referred to by the abbreviation MFS). The rationale also alleged that the article was OR. I was not able to inspect the article for long enough to determine whether that was in fact the case, but I do not think it is safe to assume that it was. -James500 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@James500: Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Wikipedical (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. You are welcome to improve the article: at present, as you will see, it is referenced entirely to a FAQ on a user-group site, and statements like "The primary reason Tivo devised such a system is because... " do indeed smack of OR. JohnCD (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

miro tomarkin

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Atlamecho (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC) articles: Official (verified page) : https://www.facebook.com/pages/Miro-Tomarkin/248834578531534 other pages: http://www.saatchiart.com/mirotomarkin Interview during Vienna artshow in the Palace Schoenborn, Museum fuer Junge Kunst, 1010 Vienna Google : just put Miro Tomarkin into google search. I am planning to write an article as it is a contempory happening and impacts the artworld. Besides his own art, he's also Panel member and cultural connector in a project, funded by the British arts council (£ 830'000 and boosted with the arts budget of the London Borough 3120'000) to change a low performing area into an art destination. I would like to undo the deletion of a previously written one, in order to write a new article under the same title. (Miro Tomarkin contemporary Artist)[reply]

  • I can't find any deleted pages under this name in either the mainspace or in AfC. If you can show us the page name specifically we can do something, but offhand I can't find anything. On a side note, I'd like to say that official pages and anything released by the artist himself would be seen as a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used to show notability. I'd also like to add that since you stated that you were authorized to create the page by Tomarkin, you have a WP:COI. You can still edit with a conflict of interest, but you will need to read over all of the applicable policies and make sure to follow them very closely. I'll leave a comment on your talk page as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not doneFound it. There was nothing there to restore, really. The whole article is only a few sentences long and is comprised of "Miro Tomarkin Artist currently living in London. Born 23rd of August 1963. Most recent works : meet the Chernobyl Family, or when people play with atoms...". That's not really enough to warrant restoring, so the best bet here is to just start afresh at AfC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritch Gaiti

I, Rgaiti, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Rgaiti (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done This G13 has now been deleted at least twice, and was undeleted once before with the understanding that it either had to be finished, or deleted. As such, undeletion is not possible at this time. Keep in mind WP:COI and the fact that you agreed not to write about yourself when you joined the project the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete Freeland

I, 157.127.124.151, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 157.127.124.151 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete Freeland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelapl (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Freelapl: 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) 17:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Han Bangqing

I, 2620:0:1000:157D:E192:E07A:2D9A:6CB5, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 2620:0:1000:157D:E192:E07A:2D9A:6CB5 (talk) 19:08, 19 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. You will have to improve and submit this again if you want it considered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Parflange F37

I, Def81, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Def81 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - @Def81: 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) 12:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ProMetic

Hi Alex, Hope you can help, a friend of a friend complained to me that their company ‘ProMetic’ keeps getting confused with ‘Prometric’. I said I could try and create a non-promotional listing for ‘ProMetic’ to help out. Prometric even comes up in google suggest when you type in ProMetric. I expect I went overboard with the amount of copy and a simple shortened version would be good. Please take my word that I am not looking to wiki as an advertising platform. Your suggestions to get approval for this listing would be very much appreciated. Thank you Marcos Richardson Marcosvr (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your request directly on User talk:Alexf. @Alexf:, reply here if you see this. I have no objection to userfying the article for improvement and then submitting it through WP:AFC, which is the appropriate venue for a user with a conflict of interest like this. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Although, I must add, someone else's poor choice of a company name shouldn't be Wikipedia's problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Agree with Amatulić and have no objection on userfying as long as the editor does a proper job to make an article that sticks within the rules (or posts to AfC if needed. -- Alexf(talk) 16:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcosvr: Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Marcosvr/ProMetic. Work on it there, make certain that it complies with WP:CORP, and submit to Articles for Creation (there's a button at the top of the page for you to do this). ~Amatulić (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Lopez-Paullada (photographer)

I, Danlopezphoto, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Danlopezphoto (talk) 16:44, 20 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David_Kirsch

This biographical article about a game developer was deleted swiftly and with only a single comment supporting the deletion. Based on the user page of the person who nominated it for deletion, that user (Vaypertrail) has several comments about making unconstructive edits on Valve Software related pages and their talk pages, and apparently nominated every single Valve employee's page for deletion regardless of their actual notability. David "Zoid" Kirsch is well known in the Quake and Dota 2 communities, and somewhat well known in the World of Warcraft community, having several in-game items named for him. He is also notable for having worked on the popular Metroid Prime series, and is at least as well known as most of the other game developers who have pages that have not be deleted for notability criteria. This page was nominated by someone with an obvious axe to grind or personal vendetta, who was not actually interested in upholding Wikipedia's guidelines and nominated it in bad faith. It should be restored, updated, and any problems with the reliability of its links addressed individually. Note that he has since legally changed his first name from David to Zoid. -68.204.229.19 (talk) 19:57, 20 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/David Kirsch, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user MBisanz (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page was a useful list of deaths related in some way to the game of chess, similar lists exist for other games, for example List of association footballers who died while playing and List of professional cyclists who died during a race, also the death related section of Video game addiction. -109.76.28.47 (talk) 23:15, 20 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/List of chess-related deaths, it cannot be undeleted through this process.

Normally I would advise you of other ways you might seek undeletion if certain conditions were met, but this article was already taken to deletion review, here where the deletion discussion was soguht to be overturned, but was endorsed..--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Warming Up (Novel)

I, MrPips55, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. MrPips55 (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

indfrnd

It is a social networking website started & it needs to be listed -Indfrnd anil (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a side note, please be aware that existing does not automatically mean that something is notable (WP:ITEXISTS) and all websites should have received enough coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS) to show that they pass notability guidelines per WP:WEB. I don't mean this to sound harsh, but we're not supposed to be a database of every website (regardless of type) that has been launched. (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) You still have to show how the website is notable by showing where newspapers, news stations, and the like have given Indfrnd coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kate Richards

I, 116.240.134.38, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 116.240.134.38 (talk) 06:49, 21 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 07:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Muïesis

(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.) Jane Foster (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I declined this one previously with a request to the user to please provide some minimal secondary coverage of the neologism, with no success. There is no chance as far as I can see that this would ever be accepted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mix Master David

I followed the logic and rules for creating the biography article and it appears the page was deleted -Kandi1978 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Those rules include writing in a neutral point of view rather than using promotional language, as well as ensuring the subject has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, in particular meeting WP:MUSICBIO criteria. If you have any association with the subject, you might want to try submitting the article through WP:AFC instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also, it was a copyright violation, largely copied from his website at http://www.mixmasterdavid.com/artists/bio-2/, which explains the promotional tone. You must not copy material into Wikipedia, see WIkipedia:Copy-paste. Read WP:Your first article, and write in your own words, no glowing adjectives, just plain facts of what he has actually achieved, neutrally stated and cited to reliable sources. Use what other people say about him, not what he says about himself, and show how he meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Fabulous Tours

There was a misunderstanding with the article I published about a small company located in Napa, California. This was the first article I have written and it is still a rough draft. I realize I need to put in more history, but this was the short-term basic information I got from sources such as The Way Back Machine (http://archive.org/web/), review websites, blogs, and the company website. I wasn't aware that it would be published that quick nor that it wasn't meeting the requirements. I tried to follow the outline from Burger King's page, but I knew it was unfinished work that I didn't mean to publish yet. Please allow me another chance to make amends to my mistake by implementing more content that makes it encyclopedia relevant. -Abfabulous (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, and the account has been blocked as a username policy violation as well as for using Wikipedia for publicity purposes. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cardinal Peak Engineering

I, Aking1309, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Aking1309 (talk) 17:20, 21 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Pride

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Ssanchez1978 (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, nothing to do. The page isn't deleted, and nobody seems to have proposed it for deletion either. Even if someone did, this isn't the place to contest pending deletions. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tekmira Pharmaceuticals

I, Rich Farmbrough, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC).
23:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fulmer Cup

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -G8R8U2 (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue why this page was deleted. The information contained on the page is significant for thousands of college football fans, even though there is a new site tabulating the results, so the link may not work. The page here is a historical record that gets updated once a year when the "award" is administered. It is still an active compilation. Apparently some Bot deleted the page; and I'm requesting the information and the page be restored. Thank you.

Robotics Club,Pashchimanchal Campus

The Page is in Wikipedia to provide information about multi-college organisation in Nepal which is contributing in Technical development of students in Engineering Colleges of Nepal. You can also view the information about Robotics club in Institute of Engineering[IOE]'s [robotics.ioe.edu.np "Institute of Engineering"]. Institute of Engineering. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help). Thanks for the concern you provide to this page. Thank you -Krishna418 (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna418, the article I deleted was about a club in a single college. To the best of my memory, we have never in the last 8 years considered such a club notable, so I do not see how I would accomplish anything useful if I undeleted it: the community would surely remove it. But if you really have good source for it being a multi-college national organization, why not write an article from that perspective with an appropriate title? I'm still not sure the consensus would be to keep it, but it would at least have a chance. If you'd like the text of the deleted article emailed to you as a start , let me know on my talk page--and make sure you have email enabled. DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Antunes Sobrinho

This person has notability and the sources will be improoved. This is not an ad. I'd like if this page was undeleted. Thank you. -Márcio Bertuol (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done The article uses phrases that are very promotional as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It was written as if it was a press release as opposed to a neutral article and would require a complete and total re-write in order to meet our NPOV policy. This is actually pretty understandable, since you are editing on behalf of a marketing (PR) company. Don't take this the wrong way, but you're used to writing things in a promotional manner because for most of your job it's not only acceptable but it's expected. It's just that on here, the tone needs to be very, very different in order to pass neutrality standards. Think of it this way: like in that old TV show, all we want is "just the facts". This doesn't mean that it has to be choppy, just that rather than playing up Antunes Sobrinho's talents with various phrases that come across as WP:PROMOTIONAL, WP:PUFFERY, or overly flowery (to Wikipedia) we would prefer a paragraph that reads like this:
"Shortly after graduating from the Institute for Hydraulic and Environmental Studies of Delft, Antunes Sobrinho began working for (insert company name here). In 1982 he began working for Engevix Engenharia SA and became its managing director in 1986. Antunes Sobrinho has worked on multiple hydro power projects in Brazil and has been involved in over 40.000 MW either in hydro or thermal power plants."
This condenses not only the bit about his graduation but also his early career. It's not that we don't want to be thorough, but it shouldn't be overly promotional either. Using phrases such as "major hydro power projects" and " From small to large projects Mr. Antunes has been involved in over 40.000 MW either in hydro or thermal power plants." comes across like you're trying to sell him- and that's not Wikipedia's purpose. Again, you work for a marketing company and I do acknowledge that you're used to writing in a promotional manner and not the style we do here, so I understand that it can be difficult. I had a big problem with NPOV writing when I first started editing, so I can only imagine what it'd be like from your perspective. Now that said, since you do have a conflict of interest I'd recommend that you not create any further copies in the mainspace. I'd personally recommend that you go through WP:AfC, our articles for creation process. This will allow you to work on a copy at your leisure. It won't be in the mainspace, but it will give you time to fix any issues and have the article approved by a non-involved editor, which will help allay concerns of COI. The only drawback is that this can take a while, but the benefit is that you will be able to fix any issues with the article if it's declined, whereas on the mainspace it would just be deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ingloreusemodz

(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.) 174.59.247.74 (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done I'm sorry, but the article is written in a fairly non-neutral, hero-worship tone and even if it was restored, you'd have to completely re-write it in order to have it pass guidelines for neutrality. There's also an issue of notability since the article didn't have any sourcing. He sounds interesting- anyone who tries to shut down child pornography sites is OK in my book- but right now it's just better if you just write a new copy of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajesh_Bhatt

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -183.82.229.106 (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i'm Rajesh bhatt ... Film Director... i would like to create my wiki page you can check my personal website - www.rajeshbhatt.info

kindly restore the information

  • Not done and will not be done I'm sorry, but not only was the material a copyright violation, but it was also wildly promotional. There's no way that we could restore that to the mainspace, as it would require a complete and total re-write in order to fit our neutrality policy (WP:NPOV). We also discourage people from making articles about themselves or things that they are involved in (ie, you editing an article for your own movie.) If you do want to create an article, I'd recommend that you make it via WP:AfC- the only thing is that you will still have to show notability by providing sources that are independent of you and in a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sangonca/Workmen's Auto Insurance

I, Sangonca, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sangonca (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been taking this past few months to find more references to support the validity of the article. Today when I was going to work on it, the article got deleted. I appreciate if you give me the chance to work on it with the new information I found so that I can send it for review one last time.

Thanks!

@Sangonca: 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) 16:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FibroScan

I, Bananasinpj, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Bananasinpj (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done And will not be done. That was nothing more than an advertisement the product. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Bananasinpj:  Not done - this article is a copyright violation, substantially copied from the company website at www.knscanada.com, so cannot be restored. Even if a formal copyright release were made, this is far too promotional: copying a company's website is not the way to make an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion of any kind. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Joseph

Joseph Joseph is a Multi-award-winning Kitchenware manufacturer based in the United Kingdom selling in over 100 countries worldwide - Press: [1],[2] Mentions:[3],[4],[5],[6] -141.0.59.138 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going on about? The article isn't deleted, and doesn't seem to be proposed for deletion either. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Christiansen .jpg

Trying to add this photo to 'Nordic Valley, Utah', this is a 'free' from copyright. It's an old family photo with permission to use by me and my family. I'm the daughter of Mr. Christiansen. Not sure why this is so hard to add to my entry about Nordic Valley. It's OK to use this photo of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calirose (talk • contribs) 16:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Calirose: I guess the picture you mean is File:Mr. Christiansen, Nordic Valley.jpg. Unfortunately, we are not the people who make this difficult: it is the complicated law of copyright. Just saying "It's OK to use this photo" is not enough. The place to ask advice is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. They will need to know things like: Who took the photograph? When? Has it ever been published? JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go Rentals

I would like to view and revise the page as a stub -HollyQ (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done For now. I've asked the user to follow our COI guidelines and create a clear disclosure. Pending that this could be userified. Either way, going forward all article creations should go through AFC. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nekci Menij Show

This page was about an online show I currently produce. I did not create or edit the page but I know it was properly referenced and reviewed by regular contributors. I do not know why it was deleted, or any reason that it should be, other than knowing that some individuals have recently unfairly reported other references to my work online. I would be happy to make any necessary changes myself to see the page reinstated. Thank you. -2.220.154.104 (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This article was deleted after a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nekci Menij Show, and articles deleted in that way are not restored here. If you consider that the close did not reflect the consensus of the discussion, or you have more information, you should first contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Sandstein (talk). Then, if your concerns are not addressed, you may apply at WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:David Lozeau

I, Poopa12, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Poopa12 (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xendan.org

I think this article should be created since it is about a #1 Kurdish website in Kurdistan -Hzr Kurdistani (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzr Kurdistani: Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Hzr Kurdistani/Xendan.org. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact Bbb23 (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space. Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and the relevant notability guidelines - you need to show references to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". JohnCD (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion or open Johncongo

Can you help me undelete or open the article as i will like to create it properly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Johncongo 11:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Latertinsna 11:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This "article" has never been deleted. I have already provided you information on your talkpage so that you would not request undeletion of something that was not deleted. the panda ₯’ 11:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake i meant Johncongo and this is the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Johncongo Johncongo is the same as Johncongo rapper it was created when Johncongo was unable to be created Pls help..i will like to create it and redirect Johncongo_(rapper) to Johncongo

Johncongo

I will like to create the article properly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Johncongo -Latertinsna 13:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Latertinsna 13:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Not done and will not be done This already exists in the mainspace at Johncongo (rapper). However I do also want to note that the page was already previously deleted several times at Johncongo to the point where they had to protect it from re-creation. I also don't see where the current article really deals with a lot of the issues of notability, as most of the links are dead and the others don't even seem to mention him. I will probably bring this to AfD, to give you fair warning. If it is deleted, then I would like to formally ask that you stop trying to re-create this on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RKX HaXer (Security researcher)

This Page was about RKX HaXer security researcher from Pakistan and founded XSS in many sites also in google, born on 1999 february -Iameijazb (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done – Please contact User:NawlinWiki, the admin who deleted the article as WP:CSD#A7. Since you want to create an article on a pseudonym (not an actual person's name) you would need high quality evidence of their importance. Even in case of a pseudonym you'd need to satisfy WP:BLP – unsourced articles about persons are routinely deleted. The deleted article was unsourced since it did not link to any actual writings about this person. It falls way short of what would be expected here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khorasan Institute of Higher Education

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Eidiani (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Khorasan Institute of Higher Education" was established in 1994, as a response to he high demand for higher education in The Islamic Republic of Iran. Please see the below link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_Iran http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%A4%D8%B3%D8%B3%D9%87_%D8%A2%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%B4_%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%DB%8C_%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86 www.khorasan.ac.ir

 Not done – Please contact User:FreeRangeFrog, the admin who deleted it as WP:CSD#G11. Usually you expected to give some evidence of notability; simply linking to the college's own website is not sufficient. Since the website seems to be in Farsi, this makes it difficult for editors who don't speak that language to assist you. If the Khorasan Institute has been mentioned in English-language publications that would help your case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the recreation of this article, as with any article about a school. I don't doubt the institution is notable. The problem was that it was so blatantly promotional it was beyond repair at that point, so it makes no sense to undelete. An article about a school is not a brochure about the school, it's a series of sourced neutral facts about the school. I'd invite Eidiani to create a draft or use AFC and work on it that way instead of creating it directly. The Teahouse is also helpful for new editors. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 15:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren McLaughlin

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Karenhu (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Lauren McLaughlin page--I will remove the social media references, and the line about "autographed copies may be found at gotoelf.com"--will that resolve the problem? Prior to the addition of those items last week, there seemed to be no controversy about the page. Thank you, Karen Hunter[reply]

  • Not done I'm sorry, but there are multiple issues here. First off, the promotional material goes beyond what you've mentioned above. The article is rife with various statements that come across as promotional and WP:PEACOCK in tone. At best, it's just wildly non-neutral and comes across as a fan page or the author's personal website. Please don't take that as me being harsh, it's just that the page would have to be re-written in order to fit our neutrality policy. A good example of one of the sentences that came across as promotional would be this one: "As Go To ELF! reached its second printing milestone, the ELF Book Project was launched, giving free copies of the book to prisons, shelters, hospices, mental health facilities, for people in recovery, and for anyone who wants to make positive changes in their lives." But there's an issue beyond that: I'm also not really seeing where she would ultimately pass our notability guidelines as a whole. I can't really find anything in a search to show that she or her work would pass WP:AUTHOR, which is a fairly strict guideline as a whole. You could try writing a new version at WP:AfC or at Draft:Lauren McLaughlin (by the by, articles should not be prefaced with Wikipedia:, as this is used for policy based pages), but I'm just worried about the lack of notability here. I saw coverage in WP:PRIMARY sources and in places Wikipedia wouldn't consider usable (blogs, merchant sites, etc), but not really in places where it'd be a reliable sources (newspaper articles about her or her work- ones that she has not written or worked for, etc). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kooroshict/Vegetarianism and philosophies

I, 178.131.19.210, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 178.131.19.210 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PlantUML

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -76.10.150.106 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created Draft:PlantUML and I believe I have properly referenced at least three reliable sources (it's my first time creating a section, and I used the Wizard). A Google Scholar search for PlantUML turns up a lot these days. PlantUML should be restored, or merged/replaced with Draft:PlantUML. 76.10.150.106 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Be patient; your draft has been submitted for review but, as explained in the box at the foot of it, there is a considerable queue. If it is accepted, it will be moved to the article space at PlantUML; if not, you will be given feedback. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:3371.NGO26/Action with Lao Children

I, 219.74.16.193, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 219.74.16.193 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This doesnt appear to have been deleted just tagged for deletion. Also this is in a users name space so should really be edited by the userpage owner. Amortias (T)(C) 23:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. There is no point undeleting this, because there is already a mainspace article Action with Lao Children. You are welcome to improve that. JohnCD (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chennai International Queer Film Festival

I, 117.193.186.202, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 117.193.186.202 (talk) 01:08, 24 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) 08:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Action_with_Lao_Children

Studying this topic and possible NGO collaboration opportunities -219.74.16.193 (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not been deleted, and is not proposed for deletion. You are welcome to improve it, if you have more information with reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done It looks like they were referring to this userspace draft. The only problem is that the page doesn't contain any actual content at all- it's just the example page template. There's nothing to restore and as JohnCD said, you're welcome to help improve the pre-existing page on the subject. On a side note, if you were trying to use the draftspace as a potential study space, please be aware that this would somewhat be considered a misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost as we're not a place to host studywork or schoolwork, unless you're planning to use it to help improve the pre-existing article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchit_Dang

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -59.91.67.65 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done With no reason provided, this "article" that was deleted 1.5 years ago will not be undeleted. Then again, even with a reason, it won't likely be good enough: WP:NMUSIC would apply, as would WP:BLP the panda ₯’ 15:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Smolović

I wanna create new article under name of Ivan Smolović. He is Montenegrin football player who firmed contract for MFK Košice in Slovakian league -Cicimau (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Smolović

Page inder this name is blocked because is cteated on wrong way. Dear wikipedia please help me and unblock this name because i wanna create article under this name with good sources. Thank you. -Cicimau (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=622627283"