Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dapifo (talk | contribs) at 10:25, 22 February 2018 (→‎Fractal rainbow: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions or to address the pending deletion of any page.
    Shortcuts
    "WP:RFU" redirects here. For requests for unblock, see Category:Requests for unblock. For requests for unprotection, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection § Current requests for reduction in protection level.

    Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all.

    This page is only for requesting undeletion of articles or files which have already been deleted. If the article you are concerned about is still visible, but has a warning message (template) at the top, please do not post here, but follow the instructions in the template or on your talk page. Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7, G4, G5 or G11 be undeleted here.

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

    Instructions for special cases
    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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquivo.pt:_the_Portuguese_web-archive

    "The content was original, there were only a few words repeated from the original site (Arquivo.pt), which I obviously can replace by synonyms. I answered on the talk page and the page was deleted with no further explanation. If Wikipedia still decides that the content should not be published please send me the deleted text so that I can publish it elsewhere. It didn't not cross my mind that the article would be deleted, so I didn't make copy of the text. Thank you for your attention. /Daniel Gomes, Manager of Arquivo.pt" —Dcgomes77 (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You should be asking the deleting administrator: user talk:RHaworth who may be able to examine the extent of copying or email you a copy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Nintex

    I, 38.140.5.242, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 38.140.5.242 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Alison Denham

    I, Soldenh, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Soldenh (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done – as an Articles for creation (AfC) submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click on the button in the AfC submission template that says Submit your draft for review!. You will also need sources independent of the subject. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Arrouche Lakhdar

    (no text provided) Arrouche Lakhdar (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. And, at the moment, it is unsuitable. Wikipedia isn't a placed to host CVs or "profiles". This is an encyclopedia of human knowledge.
    Also, you really, really need to read Wikipedia:Autobiography. In a nutshell: don't write about yourself on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Andhra Pradesh Special Category Status

    I, 96.95.119.150, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 96.95.119.150 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Kashinath-img.jpg

    This image was deleted as copyvio, but I don't know what legitimate reason is to delete the image other than being a screenshot. Is it from a news source or where else? If undeleted, this should be taken to FFD. Also, it should be reinserted to Kashinath (actor). —George Ho (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#File:Kashinath-img.jpg. It was uploaded by User:Ganeshprasadkp. claimed to be a screen capture. The quality is low, and it is clear it is not a photograph from the uploader. If you can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/upload/Ganeshprasadkp every upload from this person is a copyright infringement. Unless it is a screen capture from the uploader's own photo you can expect it to be an infringement of the original pic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    @George Ho: I'm not sure what to make of this. I observe that Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#File:Kashinath-img.jpg deleted the file as a copyright violation. The deleted image itself looks like a low-resolution screen-capture of a frame from one of the actor's films. Because it is low-res, could a fair-use argument be made for restoring it, similar to a low-res image of an album cover? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh... I didn't see the FFD. I don't know whether I want to contact that admin who has been removing or deleting images of recently deceased persons. I've contacted him before, and sometimes it wasn't pleasing. Can either of you contact that admin please? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @George Ho: What would you want to say? In this case, the uploader (currently blocked for massive copyright violations) uploaded a screencap from a video. This was a slam-dunk non-controversial speedy delete. I would have probably done the same. I don't know how contacting the deleting admin would accomplish anything here, unless you can offer an legitimate argument for restoring the image. I have no idea about the fair-use angle I suggested above. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All right then... I'll continue my journey then to obtain free-use image until I run out. George Ho (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ace Troubleshooter

    With two albums to the band's credit, they meet notability guidelines. This was an A7 requested by an editor who has been blocked for their drive-by deletion requests. —Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also restored all other pages nominated for deletion in bad faith by this user. Moral Constitution and Ace Troubleshooter (album) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    St Cuthberts Mill

    (This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) Klintern (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Shankar Singh

    I, Somewhat Astonished, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Somewhat Astonished (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Roy Clinton (“Bud”) Johns, Jr.

    (no text provided) Assistant75 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) See also Draft:Bud Johns. --Finngall talk 16:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request.
    @Reddogsix: Because you prodded this, you may want to consider AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Indonesia Women Seven Summits Expedition

    I, Gsarwa, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Gsarwa (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Western values

    I have been advised by an editor that the decision was hasty and to ask for an editorial review via wp:undelete. I have also been advised to shorten and to reformat the article. I have done this and placed the revised article in Drafts:Western values. I have also opened a Talk page on that site. I should like to see the page undeleted. Thank you. —Patnovak (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Patnovak: This is not the place to ask for editorial review. There is also nothing to undelete; all the contribution history for Western values redirect is still available. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and submit Draft:Western values for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anachronist: The article cannot be restored because an admin (User:RHaworth) has protected that page. What we have here is in essence a silent delete: first User:Patnovak was reverted several times, then the article was protected in the redirect (i.e. effectively deleted) version, and now we are referring him to the Draft which is backlogged for several months, and where his article can be rejected upon the reviewrs' whim. I, for one, think his article belongs in the mainspace, and if someone does not like it, they should go to AfD. I'll ask RHaworth (or another admin here) to unprotect the article, restore the article version, and if you think it is problematic enough, please take it to AfD. The current silent delete and 'go to Draft' situation is unfair; that article has all the right to be in mainspace and to be subject to normal deletion procedure, one involving proper community decision. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: The article looks like a term paper or perhaps a college thesis. I'm not arguing that the subject isn't worthy of an encyclopedia, but the draft as it stands needs some cleanup. I see a lot of WP:SYNTHESIS of sources in there. Being in draft space isn't the same as deleting it. So what if it's backlogged? Draft restorations are non-controversial, and all anyone needs to do is make a minor edit to reset the expiration clock. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree: the article is one solid slab of original research. You are just going to have to put up with the draftspace backlog and reviewers' whims. In the unlikely event of the draft being accepted, unprotection of the mainspace title will be uncontroversial. But note that nothing will happen to the article until you slap {{subst:submit}} on the top of it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I slapped an {{AFC draft}} template on it. That at least gives the author a button to submit it after cleaning it up. Also @Patnovak: and @Piotrus: See the detailed analysis that Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) added to the top of Draft:Western values explaining why the article cannot be accepted into main article space at this time. It needs a massive rewrite. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Your Weekend with Jim Brickman

    WP:REFUND/G13 —Prisencolin (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    comment--it's already mentioned in the article of the individual. I don't think it wouldsurvive as a separate article, so it might be beter to make a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WIN-911_Software

    Proposing request of the restoration of the deleted page to an improved version. The improved version at User:Techzette/WIN-911_Software has been updated with additional sources and content so that it satisfies WP:N and WP:RS. —Techzette (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This page was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G4, which means the page is a near-carbon-copy of a page previously deleted via deletion debate. Pages deleted via deletion debate will not be restored here; go to WP:Deletion review or contact the administrator who closed the deletion debate instead. You might want to instead contact an administrator, ideally either The Bushranger (talk · contribs) or DGG (talk · contribs), about moving the draft. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Techzette, it remains a promotional article sourced entirely to press releases, the company's own sources, and a market research firm. None of these are acceptable to show the necessary references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, necessary for showing notability. (The USA today source is actually a short mention in a general article about international trade). The promotional nature is indicated by the emphasis of lists of companies using the product. There is very little chance the article would possible survive an AFD if it were moved to mainspace, and if these are the best sources available, I do not see how it would presently be possible to write an article on the company that would be acceptable. I am rather surprised that after doing good work with articles on unquestionably notable firms,you should try to write an article on this re;atoively minor company. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG Understood. Let me see if I can't dig up print material quality print source material and reboot the article in my namespace. Though the company appears relatively minor, it is notable in its revenues, history, and subsequent influence on the Austin Texas tech community. Techzette (talk)

    Residual SvG articles

    User:JzG has been resistive of restoring these articles because they were initiated by User:Sander.v.Ginkel. See User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines as well. These are legitimate articles. Because of the misdirection in these secret deletions under G5, I really don't know how many other articles with the matching situation (meaning creation by SvG) have actually been deleted. We went through a checking process a year ago, I was part of that process, though apparently some of the people performing the checks were socks. Those socks deceived us all, but in this effort to go back to punish SvG, legitimate content has been deleted. I am requesting ALL previously checked articles that have subsequently been deleted be userfied so they can be rechecked and the legitimate content restored. Trackinfo (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Trackinfo This is correct: it's long-term abuse and sockpuppetry. However, I (and others) are happy to provide the content if you want to use it to clean-start the articles. Do you understand the difference between the two, please? I do wonder if this is the root of a mutual misunderstanding. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Userfy the content, I will repost it stripping SvGs creation and other editors history. Trackinfo (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Would somebody please step in and fix this situation. This Guy continues to edit elsewhere but does not address the situation he caused by his zeal to punish SvG. He has dragged this out for days. Trackinfo (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be better to retain the earlier edits and attribution,. I do that when I take responsibility for an article that would otherwise be subject to G5. I see no policy that requires us to remove this--rather,as I understand it, policy permits us to delete it if no established user is willing to adopt it. DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason I would have cause to remove SvG's attribution for the edits is because his signature causes this irrational approach to content he was once involved with. SvG is gone. If he tries to come back as a sock, shut him off if you feel that is justified. I have not seen anything he has done to cause such aggression towards him, others believe they have. If he were the only editor on the content, you might have some justification for CHECKING the content. Once legitimate editors like myself have signed off on the content, then SvG is just a historical milepost now long past. We DID check his content. In many cases it was my signature that moved things from draft to mainspace, with improvements to the article. If some of the other editors moving that content to mainspace were socks, they did not have the right to do so. Revert their edit and take it back to draft. Don't do it in secrecy. We checked off that list at 100% done a year ago, so if you don't post a note that something has changed, we probably won't notice. Other than that, walk away. Go away. We will take care of keeping legitimate content. Nowhere is delete a rational solution. Trackinfo (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jerry Lembcke

    {{subst:refund|1= Jerry Lembcke |2= I never saw the editing queries and would like to have a chance to respond to them. Jerry Lembcke is an important public intellectual because of his work exposing the myth of the spat-upon Vietnam War veteran. There should be a page for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1A00:534:6815:4306:AB8F:EDDB (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ItsPugle

    I wish to restore my user page, so that I may edit at will with comfort. —ItsPugle 01:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

    TransitX

    have recently become interested in a transportation proposal called TransitX. In December or January I came to the Wikipedia page with this title and noticed a proposed deletion notice mentioning lack of notability and commercial connection I think. I feel lack of notability is ridiculous: Google TransitX and you'll see dozens of articles in major newspapers like the Boston Globe, presentations at conferences and workshops, and minutes of government bodies etc. that indicate it is being taken seriously. IMHO it is an innovative proposal that addresses important social needs like commuting and reducing the huge waste of energy in transportation. I don't know any more about the deletion discussion since all traces of the page seem to be gone, but I would like it to be undeleted so more people can weigh in. Thanks for your consideration! Howie Goodell (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC) —Howie Goodell (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • You will be after Transit X · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
    • 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/Transit X, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. The deleted page is about a proposal, that is not yet realised. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Gilbert Castellanos

    I, Feppytoos, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Feppytoos (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SteveStrummer/Sandbox9

    Userpage previously deleted by my own (author) request via G7); now seeking restoration for further use. —SteveStrummer (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:W.Waleczek/Wojciech Waleczek

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —W.Waleczek (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnny Sins

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2018 (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/Johnny Sins, 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (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. Hut 8.5 15:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    KakaoMusic

    There is now more information on KakaoMusic and the company Kakao than in 2015. It's an important aspect and business leg of Kakao so it doesn't make sense to have it deleted now. —AquilaXIII (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Gisele Afeche

    My page has been deleted for notability. Well, I know of other pages that people are not more notable than Gisele Afeche: A commander in Music in brazil, A voting member for the grammy awards, listed in all music, received the Paris Silver Medal from Jacques Chirac... Is the Brazilian representative of an international school, what more notability is required? —Gisele Afeche (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is not deleted, it is here: Draft:Gisele Afeche. References are needed to advance this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:John Henry House

    I, ChriCom, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. ChriCom (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Hydroelectric cell

    I, Ved varun, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. ved (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Ingrid_Dahle

    More additional information and verfication of notable comedian Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —IconicPR (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly suggest you get your username changed pronto, as we don't allow names that imply promotional or shared use. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:SocialBoost

    (This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) 185.41.249.253 (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Experiment with Light

    I, Susannah Tombs, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Susannah Tombs (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Chintan Thacker

    further editing and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Kwesedealer (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Mary Norwak

    (This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) Suntzusuntzu (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Mardigrasind.png

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Algchris (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC) this image should not be deleted as therefor its not even copyrighted.[reply]

     Not done You are going to have to give much more proof that the original painting you took the photo from, is not copyrighted. By default, everything painted in the US is copyrighted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Algchris: You might want to read Commons:Freedom of panorama to get a better understanding of why we can't restore it. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Entel UK

    please undelete expired draft article for editing many thanks —Angelageary (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Code Aster

    I, Kalnox, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Kalnox (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nemra ( band)

    I have edited the article as Nemra yesterday attempted to represent Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018 , competing in Depi Evratesil 2018 with the song "I'm a liar" succeeding to qualify to the final, please review and help me to improve —Dreamer14513181 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. Draft:Nemra (band) is not deleted, and it still has the same problems as before you began move-warring it. I suggest you drastically reduce the reliance on primary sources while you're waiting for the article to be reviewed. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony D Triggs

    (This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) 231Pacific (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Balba Camino

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —H2dani (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The_Founder_(newspaper)

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Adecastick (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The Founder has been a longstanding part of the student community at Royal Holloway, University of London since 2006. The article for this student newspaper may have been previously deleted or removed for an apparent lack of notability, although it had links to organisation pages which recognised the student paper with numerous awards,[1][2] has an active website[3], has a page on the university's website[4] and is referenced elsewhere on the site[5], an issuu page demonstrating its print activity,[6] has notable social media presence in the local community.[7][8][9] The Founder has also reported original breaking news stories relevant to students at Royal Holloway university and the local community.[10][11][12][13]

    1. ^ ""#SPANC16 Award Winners Announced"". Student Publication Association. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    2. ^ Mickel, Andrew. "The winners Journalism with a passion". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    3. ^ "The Founder". The Founder. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    4. ^ "The Founder". Royal Holloway. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    5. ^ "Getting to know our student media stars". Royal Holloway. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    6. ^ "The Founder". Issuu. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    7. ^ "The Founder Newspaper". Facebook. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    8. ^ "The Founder". Twitter. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    9. ^ "The Founder newspaper". LinkedIn. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    10. ^ Keeble, Helena. "Alumni break world rowing record". The Founder. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    11. ^ Hoekstra, Kyle. "RHUL students march in solidarity with ISIS victims". The Founder. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    12. ^ Hoekstra, Kyle. "RHUL makes profit on Avengers: Age of Ultron". The Founder. Retrieved 20 February 2018.
    13. ^ Hoekstra, Kyle. "Royal Holloway lags behind in University Carbon Progress Report". The Founder. Retrieved 20 February 2018.

    Draft:Jorge Klor de Alva

    I, 2600:1700:4940:66B0:B8EB:D71E:EE32:62D9, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 2600:1700:4940:66B0:B8EB:D71E:EE32:62D9 (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    David kausiwa

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —David kausiwa (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing to restore; I've checked with a lowercase k in the last name also. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't contributed to any deleted pages. I don't know if you're just looking for Draft:David Kausiwa, User:David kausiwa/sandbox/Draft:David Kausiwa/david kausiwa or User:David kausiwa/sandbox. Hut 8.5 22:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Trophy Wife (American band)

    This article was deleted for failing G5 (created by a sock of a banned user). It was previously proposed for undeletion here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_289#Trophy_Wife_(American_band). The consensus there seems to be that it would be acceptable to undelete if an experienced editor were to take responsibility for it. I am an experienced editor and will take responsibility for it. Full disclosure (stop me if you've ever been in this position before): A member of the band complained to a friend about the state of their article; that friend offered to ask a friend who edited Wikipedia (me). I agreed to take a look, assuming I'd have to find a delicate way of telling them that they weren't notable. However, an archived version of the article linked at the previous discussion looks neutral and with good sources establishing notability. A few tweaks and it would be a passable version, I think. —Tdslk (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Artery of Qureshi (Figure 2).jpg

    It got deleted accidently. Kindly please dont delete it. Thanks —Ahmerasif (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wood Lock

    This page was deleted as "Unambiguously advertising". This does not seem to be the case at all (although I can only view the deleted content via Archive.org's Wayback Machine, due to a somewhat misguided Wikipedia policy). ——porges 02:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like advertising to me, but not unambuuously so, so I think this should have gone through the AfD process rather than speedied. I'll contact the admin who speedied it, DGG. edited — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lina Morgana

    The Lina Morgana article page that was deleted on 10 September 2010 by NawlinWiki I feel should be restored because she was a part of history and many people want the page restored and feel that it was wrong to delete the article. It was deleted because of (A.3: Article that has to meaningful, substantive content: A.7: article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Ms. Elina Koroglueva (Lina Morgana) importance was that she was a singer and has many songs, and her significance is her fans that are alive and need her Wikipedia page back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostFoxxGoddess (talk • contribs) 04:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Programming Research Limited

    The reason for deletion was lack of notability. Programming Research Limited (trading as "PRQA") is a notable organisation that has provided software quality assurance tools for over 30 years. Its QAC product is the de-facto standard for code analysis in safety critical embedded systems. It contributes to the MISRA coding standard and is the creator of the High Integrity C++ standard. —Richard Bellairs (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Fractal rainbow

    ==

    (This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) Dapifo (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=827029282"