Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 58: Line 58:


::::::Note that there has been additional discussion at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scottywong#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FWestshore_Town_Centre.E2.80.8E.E2.80.8E].  As I said, I didn't realize that this would be a difficult decision.  My offer to withdraw the request remains open.  I will withdraw the request if you want, or continue to wait for a decision.  [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::Note that there has been additional discussion at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scottywong#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FWestshore_Town_Centre.E2.80.8E.E2.80.8E].  As I said, I didn't realize that this would be a difficult decision.  My offer to withdraw the request remains open.  I will withdraw the request if you want, or continue to wait for a decision.  [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:<!-- Begin Template:UND -->[[File:X mark.svg|18px]] '''Not done'''<!-- End Template:UND - nd -->, because the deleting admin has declined to restore the history. [[WP:DRV]] would be the next step. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 20:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


== Lisa Dalton (Lisa Loving) ==
== Lisa Dalton (Lisa Loving) ==

Revision as of 20:51, 8 July 2014


Welcome. Please note that this page is NOT for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions or to address the pending deletion of any page.
Shortcuts

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

This page is only for requesting undeletion of articles or files which have already been deleted. If the article you are concerned about is still visible, but has a warning message (template) at the top, please do not post here, but follow the instructions in the template or on your talk page.

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

Instructions for special cases
float
float
float
float
Please enter the page's title to request its undeletion:

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Westshore Town Centre

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

Anybody can create a redirect over a title previously deleted by AFD. How does that invalidate the AFD decision? The article was deleted only today, and the same day you're posting a REFUND request without following proper procedure? Wait for the admin to respond, and go to WP:DRV if the response is not to your liking. ~Amatulic' (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The admin has a semi-retired template posted, and is typically gone for days at a time.  So I don't expect to get a timely response there, in fact it has already been more than 24 hours.  I didn't come here to suggest that this was totally non-controversial.  However, I suspect that a refund is less controversial than a DRV.  The people here would know that better than I.  And I was hoping to get a decision, one way or the other.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Already" more than 24 hours? When I post a question on someone's talk page, I typically expect a reply within a week. I'm often gone for 2 or 3 days at a time myself. There is no expectation or obligation for any editor, including administrators, to attend to Wikipedia on a daily basis. This is something we do in our spare time. Many of us aren't students anymore, but professionals with real-life demands of career and family. What is the hurry? ~Amatulic' (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize I'd be asking something difficult.  I will withdraw the request if you want, or continue to wait for a decision.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC);  23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, it isn't difficult to restore an article history. It's basically a handful of clicks. That isn't the issue here.
An administrator won't unilaterally countermand an AFD decision of another administrator without first having a discussion with that administrator or in an appropriate forum like WP:DRV. That's a Wikipedia policy, summarized briefly at WP:RAAA. Countermanding an AFD decision isn't an uncontroversial act... and this page is for requesting uncontroversial restorations only.
Secondly, article history is routinely restored in cases where it's obvious something changed (common examples you can find on this page concern articles re-created from scratch for individuals who became notable since the original articles got deleted). On the other hand, the act of simply creating a redirect doesn't negate the AFD decision. Wikipedia has established procedures for this, namely (a) talk to the administrator, and if the response is unsatisfactory, (b) take it to WP:DRV.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
FWIW, I have brought a case to DRV after waiting a month for the deleting admin to respond. Wikipedia does't operate on a schedule. Things happen as they happen. Just be patient. ~Amatulic' (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there has been additional discussion at [1].  As I said, I didn't realize that this would be a difficult decision.  My offer to withdraw the request remains open.  I will withdraw the request if you want, or continue to wait for a decision.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, because the deleting admin has declined to restore the history. WP:DRV would be the next step. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Dalton (Lisa Loving)

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

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

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

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

  • 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamrul Ahsan

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Limited Runs

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

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

  • Not done The article was fairly brief (three sentences) and was written in a way that made it come across as promotional-ish. There were no sources on the article to assert notability, so it'd be better to just start afresh. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garden Ridge logo.jpg

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DOLLS

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Sports Builders Association

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

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

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

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

Willems Workflow Scripting Language

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dave Durand

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

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

Dukes at Komedia

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

Fabric_(Python_library)

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orlic

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric Fisher

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

no Declined, until you change your username, which violates Wikipedia:Username policy. Your username must represent only you as an individual, not your company fisherarch.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will also need to clearly read WP:COI and understand that you agreed not to write about topics you have direct involvement in the panda ₯’ 14:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Altenor

(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.) Musicinspire (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real Time Work Log

i'm not sure why the page was deleted. this is a an existing working product that I thought to link from Comparison_of_time_tracking_software page. My application and the page didn't have any promotions but merely information. what did I do wrong or how should I fix this? please advise. Thanks, David -Dazonet (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The first issue for you is using a company name for your user. You must only use a name that is for a person not a company (DaZo Networks). Second if you are David Zohar or a company representative, then there is a bit of a COI and it is best to let someone else write about it. Lastly the page was promotional containing language such as "easily""quickly and efficiently" "and much more" "you" "Save Time & Money" and many statements saying the benefits of the product. It would need a complete rewrite to exclude the promotional language. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai City Church

http://www.thedubaicitychurch.org/news-events/in-the-media.php#1 -Gavingreatbatch (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the church in the media is listed here

  • The page had multiple issues with it. Not only did it lack coverage in independent and reliable sources, but the page was also written in a non-neutral, promotional manner. It would require almost an entire re-write to read as non-promotional. As far as the source goes, that is a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used to show notability. Nobody is questioning that the church exists, but we do need coverage in independent, reliable sources to prove notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey on the average German

Unfinished Article of a survey closely connected to an educational institute. We understand that Wikipedia is not a place where random information can be stored, but in this case we would like to credit our research with secondary sources and further display our results here. We see it as an important part for contrasting stereotypes and actual circumstances. -79.217.24.202 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. We also do not accept original research. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done and will not be done. WP:CSD#G11 might have been a better rationale for deletion, but in any case, that was a pure original research article written in a promotional tone, and has no place on an encyclopedia. Furthermore, if you are Winterschule, you agreed when you created the account that you would refrain from editing on subjects where you have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI for further guidance, and you are welcome to resubmit the article through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keir Worthy

I was out of the country and have returned. I now would like to continue working on the page -Hitewil1 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gym Store

I would just like the information for reference, I was not anticipating a total deletion. It was marked for speedy deletion for advertising. I don't mind if it's just the raw html as I spent a long time trying to get the formatting right. -Howester (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you enable email on your Wikipedia user preferences I can send it to you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sil Brook

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Jabigpine (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC) It was deleted because "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Which means the person is not of importance? Someone working in documentaries for 20 years now working on the first major feature film is not important?? You don't have that many documentaries, which you should have them all, they are important too. Please undelete the page Wikipedia should not just be for the rich and famous.[reply]

 Not done. Articles deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 are ineligible for restoration by request here. Talk to the deleting administrator, GB fan.
You don't seem to understand what "significance" (that is, notability) means, in the context of an encyclopedia.
Working on documentaries for 20 years doesn't make a person notable unless those documentaries received significant coverage.
Working on the first major film feature, not even yet released, doesn't make a person notable. I know people who have been working on their "first major film feature" for years now.
All that matters is, does the person have significant coverage in multiple sources that are reliable and independent of the subject?
See Wikipedia:Golden rule for general guidance about what makes an article something that should be kept. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crazy For Summer (Tavin Clavin song)

I, 74.193.219.47, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 74.193.219.47 (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Remember you need references to prove that the work meets WP:NALBUM, or it will not be accepted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Humane Society International (Australia)

I, EvanQ9, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. EvanQ9 (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done It's fairly promotional in tone and it seems like a lot of it is so closely paraphrased from places on the group's official website (like this page) that it would violate WP:COPYVIO. I'm not against the idea of you making a new entry, but the previous version had a lot of issues going on and you'd pretty much have to re-write it entirely even if we restored it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Quarters Magazine

There are two evidence of notability now, which was not available then, on grounds of which the page was deleted -Goirick (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Four Quarters Magazine, 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 Courcelles (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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SyndicateRoom

I, Thbritton, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Thbritton (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm fairly concerned that the article was declined twice for reading like an advertisement. It's not the most promotional thing I've read, but there are so many buzzwords in the article that I can definitely see where they were coming from. They're so mixed in with the article that you'd pretty much have to re-write it from scratch to fully clean it to meet Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I've usually found that it's better to just start from scratch than to try to clean a problem article up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Smith (winemaker)

(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.) Pobega (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Your submission reads like a brochure put out by the subject's website in order to promote him. See WP:BIO and resubmit something a lot more neutral if you think he meets the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Meier

This page was deleted, and there was no explanation as to why it was deleted. We would like to get the page up and running, as it is important to our organization. I'd love to be able to see the content and change it to be within the standards for Wikipedia. -Nfurlan (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The explanation is in the deletion log. It was deleted almost 8 years ago, in 2006, in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. It was recreated with no content and deleted a couple times more after that. Articles deleted as A7 are ineligible for restoration by request.
Who is "our organization" and why are you not disclosing your conflict of interest on your user page, as you agreed to do when you created an account? Feel free to submit a new article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and keep in mind Wikipedia:Golden rule to get the article accepted. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iridium Suite

I, Susanmorrison, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Susanmorrison (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That was way too buzzword-y, promotional and brochure-like, not to mention completely unsourced. You're better off starting off from scratch after you make sure the subject meets the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ICARE Live Media Private Limited

I, Ash2378, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ash2378 (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done The article was written in a very promotional tone and you'd have to completely re-write it in order for it to pass our neutrality guidelines. You can create a new AfC, but you'd have to write it to be non-promotional. You'd also have to provide reliable sources (WP:RS) in places that is independent of the company itself and in places that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

model of report

sir! this can be the sopurce of knowledge about the place Miriki(located) in India and the way of writing schools reports for the students.......sir! please its only the model of school picnic or excursion report. -Little Reban (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done Everything must be written according to our style guidelines. We cannot keep articles that read like personal essays and while Wikipedia can and should be used to help further education in general, we're not a how to guide. As far as locations go, not all locations are automatically notable. We could have an article on the town, but it'd have to pass WP:GEOLAND. I'm not finding a lot about this location, which makes me believe that it is likely a smaller location that is not legally recognized and doesn't have a lot written about it. We absolutely must have coverage in reliable sources to show that the location would pass notability guidelines. But again, even if the location passes WP:GEOLAND, the layout of the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. A better location would be Wikia, for things like this. We're not a place for you to post your school assignment, sorry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Melvyn B. Nathanson

I, OBryant, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. O'Bryant (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MRIdb

I, 193.60.222.2, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 193.60.222.2 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to work on this page and resubmit it. There as new references that address the criticism that it was un-encyclopaedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doregan (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ticsom

not contain any advertising materials here and then click the "Save page" button below -Mo3tasem88 (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Neither did it claim any importance, so I have deleted it again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Kantorová-Báliková

Page was deleted because lack of reliable sources. I have to protest against deletion, because this was an original encyclopedic content. Information were provided by artist herself. -Jaroslav.balik (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaroslav.balik: A biography of a living person must cite reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or the article will be deleted. See WP:Golden rule for further guidance. As an unsourced biography of a living person, it was not acceptable for main article space.
I have restored it to User:Jaroslav.balik/Jana Kantorová-Báliková for you to work on.
Because you appear to have an association with this person, please read WP:Conflict of interest and submit the article through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. There is already a submission button in the box at the top. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grass it up

I, Wymiller, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Wymiller (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
You're going to have to show that the band meets at least one of the inclusion criteria described in WP:BAND before this article can be accepted. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Netnografía

I, Juan Venegas, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Juan Venegas (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This is the English-language Wikipedia, but your submission was in Spanish. Also, there are already articles Netnography here, and es:Netnografía on the Spanish Wikipedia; you are welcome to help improve those. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Pinizzotto

I researched the article extensively and all links and information provided were accurate and active. The references are from notable sources. I also included a provincial government endorsement identifying my content. A speedy deletion recommendation does not show well for Wikipedia. Had more clarity or suggestions been provided would be more honorable. Our Condo Board receives tremendous assistance from this non profit Association, without the founder it would not exist. I request that this article be undeleted. I welcome comment. -Nannalyn (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2014 (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 DGG (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk like TED

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Wikipedia article "Talk like TED" on June 30 before 5:56 PM Pacific time. It was flagged for speedy deletion shortly after that, citing rule G7. I contested it maybe 75 minutes later. Someone else later removed the speedy deletion flag, noting that G7 did not apply to books, which this article described. Then July 4, 9:06 AM Pacific time, over 3.5 days later, it was nominated for speedy deletion and deleted 44 minutes later. This cited G11, claiming it was obvious spam.

I wish to contest the deletion on the grounds of double jeopardy, per the intro to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria".

The Talk like TED article survived one CSD nomination only to be deleted over 3.5 days later in apparent violation of this rule, on a questionable claim that it met G11.

By way of clarification, Talk like TED is a recent book by a well-known author and presentation coach, Carmine Gallo about the well-known TED (conference).

I do not recall ever having heard of the Carmine Gallo prior to reading this book. I read the book, because I was impressed with TED. I was so impressed with the book, I felt others would be interested. The new article received 121 views the first day and 22 the second. These page view statistics seemed to validate my initial judgment that the subject was sufficiently noteworthy to justify its own Wikipedia entry. (The companion Talk page contained more detail on why I thought the article should not be deleted.)

I failed to cite external sources. I later found another published book review that seemed relevant, and I thought of adding a one line summary of that review with a link. However, I failed to do that before it was deleted. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it was not deleted as no indication of imrotance, because that criterion does not apply to books, but the criterion of promotionalism applies to all articles. The key point is that the article consisted essentially of a detailed table of contents, and we regard that as promotional. The article additionally had no references at all; if there are multiple significant 3rd party reviews , such as from major magazines and newspapers, reviews such that he book will meet WP:NBOOK, then a new article could be written. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lookout Emergency Aid Society

I wish to complete the page and submit it -207.216.136.161 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for copyright reasons - on inspection, this is pretty well a straight copy from the organization's website. Wikipedia cannot host copyright material, even temporarily, unless the actual copyright holder makes a formal copyright release. That is unlikely to be worth arranging, because Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world their own story. You would do better to write about the organization in your own words. See User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard and WP:Your first article for advice. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Nuclear_Labs

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -WikiHelper2134 (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is up for deletion and I am protesting this decision. It is claimed that this company does not receive enough attention for it to "count".

Phenoix Nuclear Labs has been around for 9 years, it was founded by Dr. Greg Piefer, who has been a pioneer in IEC and Fusion for over 15 years. The company gets press in the wisconsin area for it's technology and VC fundraising. It has grown to 30 employees since its founding in 2005, and the technology they have developed is really cutting edge stuff. Their patents discuss gas-based IEC devices. These machines do nuclear fusion reactions which produce neutrons. PNL has developed some of the worlds best commercial neutron sources - 10^14 Neutrons per second is no joke. This technology puts them in a unique position to develop radioactive isotopes for medical use. These isotopes (like MOLY-99 or Mo-99) are very rare, and very expensive. They have been made in giant machines (such as particle accelerators), PNL has scaled down the size of these machines considerably. The company has a credible, extensive list of partners and staff: the US Army, the NNSA, TechSource and (a few years ago) Los Alamos National Labs. As a kicker, they have a NASA astronaut on their board of board of directors. This is one of the best examples of a commercial application of inertial electrostatic confinement fusion devices. WikiHelper2134 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please read the green box at the head of this page. Deletion is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Nuclear Labs, not here. You have commented there, and may continue to take part in the discussion; see WP:DISCUSSAFD for advice. JohnCD (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goddessy Organics

Goddessy Organics is a skincare line that was written about and sourced with over 30 links, most of which were third party sources and reliable, such as Conde Nast, Style Blazer, etc. If some of the links made it seem improper, then please re-add the article and revise it, rather than deleting. I had asked for help with the article prior but did not receive a reply. Only an abrupt deletion which I am just now aware of. Please undelete the article and either improve it or allow me time to, as the company indeed exists and is relevant, with the owner also having an article here also. Thanks. Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC) -Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dj hop deezy page

I, HopDeezy, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. DjHopDeezy 20:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. Before you continue, please see WP:Conflict of interest. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.. If this is to be accepted, it needs references to reliable sources, to verify what it says and to establish Wikipedia:Notability to the standard of WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/San Pedro Art Association

(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.) docoed (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/San Pedro Art Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docoed (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done Make sure to take a look at the comments on the draft for areas to improve it. I think that were the article shorter and less promotional it would be accepted much more readily. Protonk (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deane Winthrop

I, Jm3106jr, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jm3106jr (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Read WP:Your first article for advice: you need to provide references to reliable sources for two reasons: to verify what the article says, and to establish thet Deane Winthrop is notable (in the Wikipedia sense) in his own right - see Wikipedia is not a directory #2 Genealogical entries. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kozo Kanatani

I, 2A02:1810:3880:9800:80C2:4621:56AA:2C51, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 2A02:1810:3880:9800:80C2:4621:56AA:2C51 (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kozo Kanatani

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -2A02:1810:3880:9800:80C2:4621:56AA:2C51 (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done This page has never existed. AFC restoration has already been requested above - only 1 is needed the panda ₯’ 10:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/releaseMyAd

I, Slunia, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Slunia (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is already a "live" article with this name on Wikipedia, so a draft is no longer required at this time the panda ₯’ 12:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, @DangerousPanda: — The AFC submission had been declined, and the main space submission that was just created is substantially the same. It's pretty bad form for a user to go ahead and create a main space article after it was declined in AFC. AFC is where this belongs for now. I recommend restoring it and deleting the main space article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normal process would be to move the article back into draft. You're right, AFC is where it belongs (actually, "nowhere on Wikipedia" is where it really belongs) the panda ₯’ 14:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

releasemyad

Have updated with relecant links and references with proper sources and then click the "Save page" button below -Slunia (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purling London

Purling London was under speedy deletion for unambiguous promotion of a company. I am still trying to figure out how the article was promoting, I tried to write neutrally and am happy to try again. I am simply just attempting to create a wiki article for this company, there was no promotion intended. if I could have some guidance as to where in the article the promotion may be occurring I can try to edit it. Thank you. -MTInternship (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Actually it seems there was promotion intended, in the sense of using Wikipedia as a publicity medium, which is not allowed. The product descriptions made it read like a corporate brochure rather than an article having relevance to an encyclopedia. If you are in any way associated with this company, you need to disclose your WP:Conflict of interest on your user page, and submit the article through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kamrul Ahsan

I, Lixiaowang, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Lixiaowang (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already restored over 3 months ago. What are you trying to accomplish by making these repeated requests? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:PD-NCGov

Discussion referenced at User_talk:ChrisRuvolo/Archive/2006#PD-NCGov, the question of NC-Gov works copyright status emerged on Commons, knowing about previous discussions can be helpful. Thanks in advance. --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC) -Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin H.: The entire content of the talkpage is:
==Property of the people==
(moved here from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/October 2005#Template: NJGov)
Actually, NC does dedicate state-held information - termed in law as the property of the people - see link from Template:PD-NCGov. I created the NC template after requesting permission to use several images from state agencies, who always referred me to that statute. The text of the template borrows heavily from the statute.--Mm35173 17:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a need to restore the content for that bit of discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about the edit history? It was edited more than once. (And Template:PD-NCGov was deleted 3 times.) 'Support restoration'. To user space if there's some dispute. No good reason to censor discussion. If the works are not just public record, but public domain too, then the template itself should be restored, but I am not confident that's the case. On the other hand, when it comes to deleting PD-[state]Gov templates, the track record shows a lot of (what have turned out to be) erroneous deletions by the powers that be. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 01:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mm35173: If that was the entire content of the talkpage it is indeed not needed to restore it, i.e. its not helpful for the project in terms of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G8. Thanks for having a look into this, request withdrawn. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Elvey: There was only one edit to the talkpage, by only one user. There is no need to restore the talk page for one edit where I copied the entire contents here. Edit (20:18, 4 November 2005 . . ChrisRuvolo (talk | contribs) (531 bytes) (clarification on rationale)) @Martin H.: If you need anything else, please let me know, I would be happy to get you anything that you need for your discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks.--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 17:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maharshi Maheshananda

I, Markputnam108, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. The page was deleted because of non-activity. I changed jobs and was so busy with work that I neglected my Wiki editing. I'd like to get back to it now. Thank you. Markputnam108 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ali Khedery

I, Elvey, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. {{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 16:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He just wrote this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki--and-lost-iraq/2014/07/03/0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop and he's in 68 Wikileaks cables: https://search.wikileaks.org/search?q=ALI+KHEDERY. Perhaps this deleted article is a good start. WashPo: "From 2003 to 2009, he was the longest continuously serving American official in Iraq, acting as a special assistant to five U.S. ambassadors and as a senior adviser to three heads of U.S. Central Command. In 2011, as an executive with Exxon Mobil, he negotiated the company’s entry into the Kurdistan Region of Iraq." Knew Nouri al-Maliki well.--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 16:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spider Project Professional screenshot.png.

Hello. The File:Spider Project Professional screenshot.png has been deleted, because the article, which was using it has been deleted. The article is now restored: Spider_Project_(software). Please undelete the aforementioned file now. This has already been pre-discussed on User_talk:Ev2geny#Orphaned non-free image File:Spider Project Professional screenshot.png Ev2geny (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It has been restored as a no longer orphaned image. You're welcome to reach out directly to me as the deleting admin in the future if you need something restored like this. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oldjams

I, Hypnotizedfilms, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Hypnotizedfilms (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, because it was unambiguously promotional. Start over, after you read and fully understand Wikipedia:Golden rule. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Clarke

If there is anything potentially useful I would like it restored to history, so I can see if it's something that can be added to the current version, with appropriate sources. Without seeing it, I can't say for sure if anything in the history might be useful. I made a new article, based on her receiving a leading role in a major film, and understand the reason for the deletion was there was no claim before. -Rob (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - nothing useful there, previous article was a childish autobio, not the same person. JohnCD (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Tandy

I, Mr Baulk-Line, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Will correct it and edit it to be submitted again for final approval. Mr Baulk-Line (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.
For advice, read WP:Your first article and WP:Biographies of living persons. Note the need for references, both to verify what the article says, and to establish Wikipedia:Notability. Be careful to avoid a promotional tone. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omar Slim White

Latrina1974 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kate O'Brien and the Fiction of Identity (2)

I wish to review the draft page and add references. -F. Squid (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. See WP:Notability (books) for the relevant notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fastunlocker

i am new to wikipedia , by mistake i have done something , wikipedia is not easy for me, i dont know what to do exactly , so i just copied some codes from another articles , i placed it in new page , , exactly i have to learn some cource in university to write pages in wikipedia ..?

i dont know ..where to study ... why my article deleted i dont know , all new articles deleting ..why ..?

can anybody give some knowledge about writing article .? wikipedia is full of codes , its not like blogger or website , some codes ,

how i can get my page back ..?

wikipedia not easy for me , so how its easy for another people ..?

this is why wikipedia visitors low..

if you make it easy publishing articles then all people will come to here

wikipedia deleted my page , but not told me why deleting ..?

whats the wrong i have written..?

i hope i will get return my page ..

also you will give some informations .. "Save page" button below -Sibipaul (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. If we make it "easy" we essentially gut our policies regarding content - WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Spam, etc. As an aside, the deletion log clearly lists the deletion as an A7/no indication of notability (the deleting administrator generally leaves an explanation as to why an article gets deleted). Have you tried going through articles for creation as opposed to just posting in main article space? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 17:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. The article was deleted because it did not explain why this company is important or significant enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not list every company that exists. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about their own companies: please read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rathnam

Self promotion , article only gives you tube video links, Google search or other searches does not give any notable information, as a person living in the same country and state , this person is not worth mentioning in wikipedia -R.srinivaas (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This area is for requesting the undeletion of deleted articles, not for requesting deletion of an article. If you want to request deletion of the article, you can do so at Articles for deletion. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops sorry about that, requested for deletion Thanks!--R.srinivaas (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Damn Truth (Band)

I have not edited the page for over 6 months, but was not interested in deleting it. I wish to consider editing the page and then resubmit it for review, when ready. -Hypermeter (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. See WP:BAND for the relevant notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shyp

I, 50.189.93.211, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 50.189.93.211 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get a chance to make the neccessary edits prior to deletion -50.189.93.211 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endurance Warranty

I, bradcgarrett, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. The page was previously denied creation due to lack of relevant sources, of which I now have, and I would like to contribute these sources. Because of the lack of sources, the page was left dormant and was inevitably deleted. However, I ask that you please restore the former content so I can edit it for resubmission in light of the new information/source. This in-depth and useful content establishes notability in regards to Wikipedia's Golden Rule. Thank you very much. Bradcgarrett (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AC Oxgangs Football Club

I, ACOxgangsFC, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. ACOxgangsFC (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. @ACOxgangsFC:, please read WP:FOOTYN and explain why you believe this club is notable in light of Wikipedia:Golden rule. Also read Wikipedia:Username policy, which you are violating, and go to WP:CHU/Simple to change your username. I am hesitant to restore an article being edited for publicity purposes by an organization. Finally, be sure you are familiar with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest because you clearly have one. When you have done all these things, as well as publicly disclosed your conflict of interest on your user page under your new name, we can reconsider your request. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omar Slim White, again

I, Latrina1974, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Latrina1974 (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already  Done in response to your earlier request, and you were notified at 10:28. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Juerg Neuenschwander

I, Feberles, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Feberles (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lee Terbosic

I, Cmclementi, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Cmclementi (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I paused my work on creating this page and obtaining the proper credentialing for the individual to have a Wikipedia page. I am now ready to begin working on this page again, however it was recently deleted due to inactivity. -Cmclementi (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Soul and Body in the bible

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Arktiskblomma (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs,

I want you to undelate this page, because it points to the fact that in the New Testament, the concept of soul and spirit are two very different things and not two words for the same.

I do know that words spirit and soul have walked a long way and today so mixed to gather that we lose a very importent message to all of us.

Please don´t censure this, pepole really do want to know what it´s means,

from the point of the New Testament!

Not done. The article was deleted because it duplicates an existing topic: Soul in the Bible. Consider expanding that one, but be aware that your edits must refer to reliable sources independent of the Bible. Proselytizing or posting original thought, as you were trying to do with your article, will be quickly reverted as disruptive editing. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Korzev Ivan

Иван Коржев (Коржев-Чувелев) (родился 24 ноября 1973, Москва) - русский скульптор, архитектор, заслуженный художник Российской Федерации. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAGuseva (talk • contribs)

 Not done. For one thing, this is the English Wikipedia. If you want to make a request, do it in English.
Also, the article was proposed to be deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7, and was ultimately deleted by Bbb23 in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. Please contact Bbb23 first. The article could conceivably be restored to Draft space or your user space for submission to WP:AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=616137293"