Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
can't see revision history
Line 275: Line 275:


*{{revisions|Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/143.176.216.29}}
*{{revisions|Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/143.176.216.29}}
There was no reason given for the deletion, but more importantly: I need a copy of what I wrote (spend half an hour on it). -[[Special:Contributions/143.176.216.29|143.176.216.29]] ([[User talk:143.176.216.29|talk]]) 00:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
There was no reason given for the deletion, but more importantly: I need a copy of what I wrote. I spend over half an hour on the report and have no way to read it back in the revision history. -[[Special:Contributions/143.176.216.29|143.176.216.29]] ([[User talk:143.176.216.29|talk]]) 00:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:12, 28 December 2015

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

Robert Jordan

I intend to provide existing citations so that the page will be accepted. This is part of an ongoing project related to the publication of the artist's "catalogue raisonne." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.94.31.206 (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2015 (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. I've moved the article to Draft:Robert Jordan. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tantiv4 Comment

No discussion on deletion took place, I belive WP:A7 applied wrongly. I request undeletion to be able to demonstrate significance (I am not sure if subject will be notable, but significant it certainly is. Thanks, -Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 03:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • The article had no independent and reliable sources, which is necessary to show that the company is notable. On Wikipedia all articles must assert notability per WP:GNG or they will be deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will concede the organisation and it s products ar not notable. But the tag applied was A7, which made it a CSD without disscusion. I have replied on Zebedee's user page, which I now think is the correct place to have done so. Thank you Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 03:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghane (talk • contribs)
  • I've explained further on my talk page and have offered to userfy if the author can provide some evidence to support the inclusion of this company. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Latin Kaleidoscope.jpg

Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Latin_Kaleidoscope.jpg has determined that this file is not original enough to be copyrightable - just text and a copyrightable element that falls under de minimis however. Unless someone here disagrees, the first and larger copy of the file that was deleted for NFCC#3 reasons should be restored. -Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done One revision restored, the other revisions will be the same. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Solomon Moisevitch Sobol

I, 99.225.206.74, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 99.225.206.74 (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2015 (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) 21:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A N Nataraj Gowda

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -103.5.132.12 (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This is the English-language Wikipedia, but the article was written in Kannada. You can find the Kannada Wikipedia at https://kn.wikipedia.org, but note that articles about living persons need to cite reliable sources to verify what they say. JohnCD (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pellenc Selective Technologies

I, 84.55.165.156, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. We will be working on this article in the next couple of months. -84.55.165.156 (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2015 (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) 11:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lifeism

I, Kaetalist, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.

Reason: A book has now been published on this topic so is now known fact. Please reinstate page for editing. Kaetalist (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaetalist: 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.
Before you put a lot of effort into this, please read WP:No original research ("If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it") and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms. The draft says "the term Lifeism is not yet in general use" and also lists many different interpretations. If an article is to be accepted, it will need to show that a particular use of this term has achieved enough acceptance to have been discussed in reliable published sources outside the immediate circle of its inventors. JohnCD (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Polo Instructors and Players Association

I, 91.141.1.116, 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 has not been edited for six months. For this reason it was deleted before I could update it. Please undelete it -91.141.1.116 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What has been deleted was only the abandoned draft page. The actual article Polo Instructors and Players Association has not been deleted, and you are welcome to improve that. JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maulana Samiruddin Qasmi

(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.) 2.99.201.10 (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined pending further information. This was undeleted over six months ago with a pledge that it would be worked on, but no edits were made to improve the entry for resubmission. Articles for creation is not an indefinite hosting service for material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia's article mainspace. We may be willing to restore it again, but only if you provide a definite assurance that you actually intend to work on it and provide a short description of what you intend to do to improve it to meet our policies and guidelines. Please advise. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Azadzulfi/sandbox

I, Azadzulfi, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Azadzulfi (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done This was incredibly promotional, so much so that it'd need a complete and total re-write in order to meet NPOV guidelines. I noticed that you'd also re-created it with what looks to be the same content, which I've deleted as unambiguous spam. It's also copyvio from here. I also noted that you moved Rankersbo's talk page to Wikipedia:Zulfi Azad, which is seen as vandalism. Given that your only edits have really been to try to promote yourself on Wikipedia, I'm going to block you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing that the move was done in retribution for him declining your spammy AfC article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stasis Systems Australia

I, Neoprometheus, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Neoprometheus (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done This was pretty promotional in tone, so much so that it reads like a press release. We can e-mail you the content, but I would highly, highly recommend that you re-write everything from scratch. Also, if you are related to the company and have a WP:COI, you need to disclose this, even if you're a freelancer or marketer that was asked to create the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pnc

Deleted 2007, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc. This remains a matter of ongoing WP:N / WP:GNG vs WP:SNG controversy/discontent. This template was active at a peak in the discussions in 2007, but as seen at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Mixed_messages the substance of the discussion continues. From my recollection (I watched more than I engaged), this template has substantial edit history, and possibly a significant talk page, that is a missing part of the discussion history that led to the WP:GNG. I would like access to this history. Would you please userfy for me, the template and its talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC) -SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hideout

The page should be redirected to Hideout (disambiguation), where several articles with this name are listed (The Hideout (film), The Hideout Golf Club and The Hideout, Pennsylvania), all unrelated to the original "The Hideout" article about the radio show which was deleted via AfD and G4 between 2007 and 2008. -Cavarrone 07:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the dab page is Hideout, I just wanted to underline it was a disambiguation page! Thank you. Cavarrone 10:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figure that I'll leave the page protection off given that the AfDs were so long ago and it's possible but unlikely that they'll come back after all this time to recreate the deleted pages. If they do, I can always re-protect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zi Corporation

The article has had some rather significant sections deleted (for no good reason) during its lifetime. I think this corporation is quite interesting and significant in terms of how software patents work (or not). I have made a proposal that include the deleted content here: User:Egil/Zi Corporation -Egil (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mattmill30/Comparison of computer hardware market products

The article contains a comparison of the functionality of the current products available in the computer market, which once matured will be submitted for review. -Mattmill30 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done U5 invalid, most user edits were in mainspace. Though the topic is probably too big for your level of detail. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Ayala

Need to recite and improve the information -Feylinepresents (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2015 (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 Acroterion (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. The page is complete unsourced nonsense. There is literally nothing there reciting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaishankar chigurula

my page is a notably & good source i updated so meany references but still my page Jaishankar chigurula was tagged deletion policy please remove deletion policy tag on my page. -Teena D'souza (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. Make your argument to keep it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaishankar Chigurla. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resul Hasan Ertaş

The Page should be up and viewable to all readers of Wikipedia until the 25th of February 2106; for circumstances and changes to the page will occur in the following weeks. It is not necessary to delete the page without full permission or knowledge of the initial page creater. Request the page to be undeleted as soon as possible. The person in the page will be signing for a new professional football team and the page needs to be viewable for the process to workout. Please undelete the page. -24.52.198.53 (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2015 (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/Resul Hasan Ertaş, 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 The Bushranger (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.. If something exciting happens to make this person notable on 25th of February 2106, (or some other earlier date) eg a game played in a fully professional league, then this page could be recreated then. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Because it was n article about my website so anyone could know what is this website not kind of pormotion or advertising. Wikipedia is a place for information and knowing what is this and this so best idea was to let my website be known and anyone could know what is this website about he could go to Wikipedia where anything you want to know could find it there. "Save page" button below -Bumbleboss (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done This page was an advertisement. Also there is no indication that this topic is important for an encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ReConnect Hungary

This is not a promotional page but an informational page, exactly the same as Taglit Israel and other birthright programs. Our program is even referenced in Taglit Israel! This was the reason we received: 02:13, 19 December 2015 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page ReConnect Hungary (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.240.24 (talk)

  • Not done This was deleted as an A7 and can only be restored by the deleting admin (DGG) or via deletion review, however I will say that the page did seem pretty promotional since it seemed to have been written with the intent to entice readers into signing up with the program. I'd say that it's unlikely that this will be restored, as it's something that I wouldn't have restored if I'd been the deleting admin. As far as content on other pages goes, what's on other pages doesn't mean anything since those pages could also have problems with promotional prose or notability that hasn't been fixed yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it both for promotionalism and for no indication of importance. Thee are indeed a number of similar programs; some notable, some not yet notable. The Taglit article has well sourced criticism , and the program includes 40,000 visitors year. Your article discusses no criticism, and has covered a total of 30 visitors since the start. There is only one independent source, and it is not primarily devoted to the program. The comparison is absurd. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the article for speedy deletion because there was nothing noticeably salvageable and was best restarted. I also note that when starting a new section here, there's a noticeable header saying not to mention an article deleted with speedy A7 and G11. SwisterTwister talk 13:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ListenUp

(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.) Lpwords (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2015 (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) 21:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

optionpricing

I want the contents of the page emailed to me. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Optionpricing/sandbox I spent months working on this math paper. All of the old archives are purged. It was deleted for U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host -Optionpricing (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Example

(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.) Seliseli88 (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2015 (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) 13:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Reflections Unheard: Black Women in Civil Rights (Film)

I, Nevline, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Nevline (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2015 (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. In particular, make sure you add more sources to show the film is notable. BethNaught (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oussama Belhcen

The article has it's sources -Othmanebenjelloun (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:AspieNo1/sandbox

I, AspieNo1, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. AspieNo1 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Request undeletion AspieNo1 Talk and Sandbox.

Wikimedia unlocked images for use in articles.

Sandbox contains work and pages, coverage in the last few years of interest to Autism wikipedia and Irish Project

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AspieNo1/sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AspieNo1/

AspieNo1 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Science Fair (book)

As a result of my repeated requests to the administrator who deleted this page to nominate the article for deletion and follow the proper deletion process through consensus, I have decided to come here. I kept pointing out to the additional sources that I provided on the talk page which also get ignored and have been deleted alongside the article. Our latest conversation as seen:

"Please un-delete Star Wars science fair as there was no consensus in deleting it. If you're wondering which article I'm talking about it's here [1]. It has a number of reliable sources and sufficient coverage which I pointed out in the talk page. Thank you--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were also sources covering the subject that I posted on the talk page. And no, goodreads is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia and it's not a blog to my understanding. I don't use blogs as sources in compliance with WP policy. If you feel it does not meet WP:GNG, undelete it and open a nomination so consensus can be established. There you can explain your reasons why you feel it does not meet general notability. This happened with another previous article I created, also currently a stub, where an admin deleted it. When I requested an un-deletion and nomination, the consensus was keep with voters pointing to small, but reliable sources. If you still wish to delete it, you can un-delete and nominate it explaining your reason. I even provided coverage for this topic on the talk page including text and video coverage. If you un-deleted it, people would see and form a consensus.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming that Goodreads is a reliable source in terms of notability? It's not. Your sources were WorldCat (proving that the book exists), the Queens NY Public Library Catalog (likewise), and a personal blog. Your external links were Goodreads (as mentioned above), and a page on Planet Science that doesn't even mention the book. The stuff you mentioned on the talk page is similarly useless: it's available via Google Books (again, proving that the book exists), and then there's blogs and library catalogs. And... that's it. Even all those videos you dug up - those are about the experiments, not the book. I'm not claiming that this book is not notable, I'm saying that so far, you have not shown that it is. There's no evidence. None of the evidence you supplied is valid. If you want it restored, show me real evidence. Okay? DS (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

The videos we are referring to discuss the contents of the book and not just the fact "that the book exists" as the admin keeps repeating. There are plenty of search results for this topic online but I added a few as I felt they were sufficient enough. If the community believes references and external links in the article plus the additional sources provided on the talk page (which got deleted with the article) are not sufficient enough, it can be established through a nomination for deletion process. And to mention once again, another article I created was going to suffer a similar fate of deletion, until it was un-deleted and consensus established it does have general notability, so once again I am requesting that the keep/delete be done through this process rather than a single individual's decision. Thank you for reading this.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC) -Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First - what do you think "notability" actually means? Because "an elementary school included the book on their list of Books Of Science Fair Ideas" isn't notability. The Scientific American book of projects (ScienceMadness) is from 1960, and therefore does not mention this book in any way. Your link to a page of Google search results shows an article from Scientific American that includes the phrase "star wars" and also "science" and "fair". It does not mention the book "Star Wars: Science Fair" at all, not even once. I read all of your sources, both the ones you supplied in the article and the ones you put on the talk page. None of them are usable. None of them contribute towards notability for this book in any way, shape, or form. None of your videos were about this book. They did not contribute towards notability for this book. Even if we were to accept Planet-Science as a source for notability, that page you referenced does not mention the book "Star Wars: Science Fair" at all, not even once. Did they copy that "how to make a blaster sound effect" section from the book "SW:SF", or did they write it themselves? If you think they copied it from the book, where's your proof? Please. I like restoring pages. I want to restore this page. But you have to give me something to work with, otherwise it stays dead. DS (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven:

  • Give me the the draft of the article and I'll take it from there. Don't have to publish it, but let me have all the content that was lost. I'll work on it as a draft and add some new sources. I wasn't sure about using the scholastic site but I believe it passes WP:RS. If you don't want to publish the article, drop it on my talkpage and I'll save it to work on trying some new sources. However I still 100% stand by using goodreads as an external link as many book articles use reviews from there and yes the videos were experiments right out of the book. If you checked the books activity titles, they match the same activities as the videos it cannot be coincidence that it uses the same title as the book as this example. If you claim you want to restore the article, I take your word for it. But at the least you can give me the sources and draft version, which I'm sure is not too much to ask for and is negotiable. Only thing is I'm working on number of SW pages so this will be delayed until it is published because of my attention to these other pages. I also stillthink an AfD would have resolved this as users do provide sources when giving their verdict.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auramics

Auramics is indeed a notable band. and then click the "Save page" button below -Echoechoradar (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Echoechoradar: this page is for requested deleted pages to be restored, not for giving your opinion on if a page should or should not be deleted -- samtar whisper 22:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done (edit conflict) @Echoechoradar: the article has not yet been deleted but is the subject of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auramics. You need to make your case there but "they are a notable band" isn't enough of an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthep (talk • contribs)

Cynthia Dawn Ritchie

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -GlobalCitizenUSA (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that my page, Cynthia Dawn Ritchie, was deleted because of "copyright infringement" of Rose Lane Studio Productions... I am the author/creator of the very same content on Rose Lane Studio's website and create the content for our studio. I am the owner of the content, image, etc. I am writing about myself. Unsure why the page was deleted.

Because we can NOT accept anything that has been published on a website that doesn't explicitly release its content into the public domain or under a suitable copyleft licence. You need to read WP:Donating copyrighted materials and then follow the instructions on that page to allow us to use that text. (Do note, however, that our neutrality policy is not negotiable, and if the text is in and of itself overly promotional you're better off writing the article from scratch.) —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done This page is written in a promotional style, and has no clear claim to importance. So we won't be reversing the deletion and there is no point in trying to donate the copyrighted material. Instead it would be better to start from scratch with an encyclopedic style and references and write at Draft:Cynthia Dawn Ritchie. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Des van Jaarsveldt

If this was a page about Des van Jaarsveldt, Springbok Rugby Captain of 1960, please can you undelete? -MKzim (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Eugene_Richie&redlink=1#/editor/0

(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.) 100.4.157.93 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2015 (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 Draft:Eugene Richie. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/143.176.216.29

There was no reason given for the deletion, but more importantly: I need a copy of what I wrote. I spend over half an hour on the report and have no way to read it back in the revision history. -143.176.216.29 (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=697061326"