Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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

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 (G6) or rejected Articles for creation drafts (G13)), or in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all.

This page is only for requesting undeletion of pages and files which have already been deleted. If the page you are concerned about is still visible, but has a warning message (template) at the top, please do not post here, but follow the instructions in the template or on your talk page. Please do not request that pages deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7, G4, G5, G11 or G12 be undeleted here.

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

Instructions for special cases

Contents


Orlando's Summer of Love[edit]

The page was apparently deleted/merged with reasoning that was evidently entirely meritless. I've explained the situation at length (right here) where I have asked the deleting administrator for assistance. However there has not been a reply to date. I am not certain that new evidence is actually required here. Nevertheless, there is also new evidence. Clearly, this era in Orlando was notable and the era has been dubbed "Orlando's Summer of Love" as reported . This era evolved into the Orlando Sound as documented in various reliable non-local sources.(see also Second Summer of Love and Madchester)—Johnvr4 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Johnvr4: we can't just overturn the deletion discussion here, if you want that then try WP:DRV. We could restore the deleted version as a draft for you to work on or merge somewhere else, however you would need to make changes to address the concerns raised in the AfD before moving it back to mainspace. The main concern in the AfD seems to be that some sources mention the subject as existing but don't discuss it in much more detail than that. I don't think the link you have there will help much with this as it also doesn't do much more than mention that the subject exists. Hut 8.5 21:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Hut 8.5. Alleged NM WP:GNG (A7?) was the supposed issue raised. That the sources don't discuss it in much more detail is just one of bogus assertions in the discussion that I am referring to. Can you at least verify the absurdity/validity of such assertions before sending me on? Please just read the quotes from quality sources on the subject... and the new one.Johnvr4 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:REFUND is not the place to have this discussion. Please follow the instructions above for the next steps.
@Johnvr4: Are you asking for advice on whether the sources are good before you proceed to the deletion review? A deletion via the AfD process will not be overturned here. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, C.Fred Yes, if possible please offer your opinion on the apparent source quality--it's nothing official. A simple, "You're probably right and should go about this in the following way..." or, "You're wrong, this is why, and forget about it... would be fine.
The indication in AfD discussion was that the reliable sources in the deleted stub were somehow inadequate for basic general notability WP:GNG (there were fifteen expansive sources on this era at the time of deletion not counting the new one and there even are more available). The assertion(s) were so absurd that I've asked the deleting editor advice about how to best handle it because WP:DRVPURPOSE did not seem to apply to a scenario where new evidence is only required because all previously presented evidence was blatantly misrepresented in Afd and just ignored in any subsequent discussion. I know the sources are good but if any admin would like to confirm, provide opinion, or guidance on any particular source or the specific DRVPURPOSE to use for requesting a DRV, it would be appreciated--even if only one source

By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theater... By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self".

Also note that in addition to 20+ years of local media coverage, there is an expansive L.A. Weekly source article as well as a multi-page Rolling Stone article on the subject in issue No. 0767 too!
Thank you,Johnvr4 (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Johnvr4: I looked at the deleted article, and if you went to DRV, I would endorse the deletion while suggesting you create a new draft. I really think the best course of action is to start from scratch. Start fresh at Draft:Orlando's Summer of Love. Build a draft that cites extensive coverage in reliable sources. If you do that, then the draft can be accepted and moved to mainspace. I really think you'll get better results that way than trying to bring back the train wreck of an old article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
C.Fred Thank you very much for your assessment of the situation. Of course my intent is to improve the stub or new page draft or whatever. However, I'm just not understanding the previous WP:GNG concerns at AfD or any of the concerns questioning whether these sources support GNG of this era, in this place, as well the naming of the era as "Orlando's summer of love".
This part of your advice above stood out: "...that cites extensive coverage in reliable sources. If you do that..."
Was this not already done with the 15 extensive coverage sources the deleted page? I can see what was deleted here
Any new or improved article will have to include restatement and WP:CITETRIM of the exact same deleted, but highly reputable, reliable and verifiable information on the subject and will cite the exact same sources plus any others I find that were not included previously.
If the deleted information is to be included, wouldn't I first need to present the evidence (here I've presented actual proof) to show these sources are are adequate for WP:GNG and that all previous concerns that led to deletion at AfD were meritless? If so, where? I'm such a rusty editor, please treat me as a beginner. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Johnvr4: Again, what you need to do is write a draft that demonstrates the notability of the subject through the article text, not just quoting a bunch of sources. The prior deletion was in order. I look forward to seeing a new draft of the article; I will be glad to discuss improvements further at Draft talk:Orlando's Summer of Love after you do so, but there is nothing further to discuss here. —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you again C.Fred. I do appreciate the help. Is that principle called WP:CONTN? Please try to grasp the confusion that the conflict between above guidance and this policy is causing me.
Is it the quality of a publisher, or the coverage in a source that is at issue? There is national, extensive coverage of the subject in multiple outlets. Is this disputed?
WP:NEXIST, WP:NRV, and the WP:SUSTAINED coverage of several local publishers all apply to the sources covering this subject. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
After taking another look at the original concerns raised, per WP:FAILN an editor requested that the author (me) provide additional sources (I suppose I am the default "subject expert" too but there may be others or better subject experts on WP). That editor was offered and then received many additional sources that should have easily satisfied any concern per WP:FAILN. Despite the additional reliable sources added to demonstrate WP:N and WP:GNG for the requesting editor, the merge discussion was opened at Talk:Orlando anyway. The original question of WP:FAILN was the only concern put forth to continue the merge discussion and then AfD discussion continued following that.
Please note that the original and specific WP:FAILN concern was that the term "Orlando Summer of Love" was coined by only one author in 1998.
However, some 19 years after the 1998 source, a new 2017 source from a different author was published which also uses the term.
The 2017 source was published between the two merge/delete discussions but was never discussed (as stated to the deleting editor at User talk:Malcolmxl5#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love).
This new source shows that the concern of the term being used by only one author is unfounded and that there is also WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this subject. Should the deleting editor decline to resolve it, this is the issue WP:DRV would need to consider.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, the original deletion discussion was not "meritless". It was not conducted on the grounds of whether the subject was notable or not — it was conducted on the grounds that as written, the article was a piece of junk that did absolutely nothing whatsoever to demonstrate whether the topic was actually notable or not. It literally consisted of a single sentence stating that "Orlando's Summer of Love" was a thing that happened, ended right there without containing so much as one comma of context for what it actually was or why an encyclopedia should care about it, and then reference bombed that sentence to 15 separate footnotes that contained very large passages of text, quoted verbatim in defiance of our copyright violation rules. As the deletion nominator of the first version, I certainly never said that the topic was an inherently non-notable thing — the problem was that the article, as written, was a substanceless piece of junk that was failing to demonstrate the topic's potential notability at all. Unusually, one of the commenters in the deletion discussion even posted a screenshot of the original article to the AFD page to back up how bad it was — and you can plainly see that regardless of whether "Orlando's Summer of Love" is a notable thing or not, that version of an article about it was completely failing to demonstrate its notability at all.
    Please realize that deletion is not a permanent ban on a subject ever being allowed to have an article at all — we have lots of topics in Wikipedia where a bad early version got deleted, but then something (new notability achievements, better sourcing, etc.) happened later on to change the equation. It is entirely possible to write a bad, deletable article about a topic that would be allowed to keep a good one — copyright violations, articles that just state that the subject exists while failing to actually explain why its existence might be noteworthy, and on and so forth. So the fact that the first version was deleted does not mean we have to overturn the original deletion — the first deletion discussion does not mean you're not allowed to try again: it just means you need to do better than the first version.
    If you can write a proper article about Orlando's Summer of Love, which contains a lot more detail to contextualize its significance and properly cites better sources than the first version did, then by all means bring it on — but we don't need to restore the original version before you're allowed to do that, because that's not how Wikipedia's rules work. If you do a good job, then the new article will be accepted entirely on its own merits, and will not get redeleted just because a bad version got deleted before. If you can do a better job than the bad first version, then there's no rule that we would have to reverse the deletion of the bad first version before you're allowed to try. Even DRV does not have to weigh in before you're allowed to try to write a better article — DRV is for questions of whether the original closure was objectively incorrect on a matter of policy, not situations where you just want to take a stab at creating a better article based on new evidence that wasn't already offered the first time. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Bearcat Thank you for the reply here. I know you are an experienced editor. No one, including me, ever said the stub article was good. I said it was notable and that it has good sources that demonstrate it. I also noticed some WP:OWH over this page from Feb, 14, 2017 that I saw today harassment.
I've asked about the original concern by another editor--the very first one: "edit: 768073072; date: 2017-03-01; summary: Term coined by a single reporter is not notable enough for its own article. Merged to Orlando, Florida#Local_culture".
As you are the deletion nominator of the first version, you in fact are saying it is a non-notable thing just by nominating it for deletion.WP:FAILN. All of the deletion concerns raised by yourself and most of the other editors are entirely meritless and irrelevant by WP policy rather than by my observation or assertion. They should all be ignored.
Any deletion discussion that "was conducted on the grounds that as written, the article was a piece of junk..." or "the problem was that the article, as written, was a worthless piece of garbage..." is illegitimate (again WP:AADD). I am sure "we have lots of topics in Wikipedia where a bad early version got deleted" but your admission here that it is being done despite reliable sources and, in apparent violation of WP:N, WP:AADD,WP:CONTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:NRV, WP:SUSTAINED, and other policies is troubling.
Anyone can verify what was removed at the screen shot: Here. You said above that you personally already reviewed it.
With all due respect, your assessment and statements about what was deleted when compared with the screenshot are obviously untrue. You've alleged that the removed content:
"...did absolutely nothing whatsoever to demonstrate whether the topic was actually notable or not.
..."Orlando's Summer of Love" was a thing that happened, ended right there without containing so much as one comma of context for what it actually was or why an encyclopedia should care about it."
"...was failing to demonstrate the topic's potential notability at all."
As shown in that screenshot, the deleted stub article had a sentence with 50 words. The first 15 words state that the subject existed. The remaining 35 words clearly provided context and demonstrated why it is notable despite your assertion. In addition, that sentence contains no less than eight wikilinks to other Wikipedia Articles that demonstrate its relevance to WP and "goes to 15 separate footnotes that contained very large passages of text". WP:CITEKILL I know that you read them because you alleged some sort of WP:NFC copy violation for using them. See: WP:LONGQUOTE, "Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a WP:FOOTNOTE to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability."
Despite the "easy to facilitate verification" purpose of the WP:LONGQUOTE within the WP:FOOTNOTEand the fact that you personally reviewed them, the most ridiculous of the assertions above comes in the WP:REFBOMB link. That policy only applies to: "loading an article up with as many sources as possible without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. The deceptive goal here is to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible, in the hope that it will fool other editors into accepting the topic's notability without properly vetting the degree to which any given source is or isn't actually substantive, reliable, and about the subject."
Again, by claiming WP:REFBOMB you are challenging the notability of the subject despite asserting above that you haven't/aren't. The assertion is absurd given the quality of the sources that you admitted to reviewing and I'm have difficulty understanding why you did it again. The repeated false assertions in your comment appear to be an effort to mislead the community or prevent review of verifiable facts. Please alleviate these concerns.
Thank you Johnvr4 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
REFBOMB is a completely correct assessment of what you were doing. You do not demonstrate that a topic is notable by stacking fifteen separate references onto a single sentence stating that it exists; you demonstrate that a topic is notable by using fifteen references to support several paragraphs of content. No statement in the article ever needs to have more than one reference for it, so if you have fifteen sources to support the topic's notability then you need to write at least fifteen sentences of content to justify them. And furthermore, you don't pack the entire text of a reference into the footnote tags by copying and pasting it; you cite the title, publisher and date of the content, but what it says about "Orlando's Summer of Love" needs to be summarized in body text rather than copy-pasted verbatim into the footnote.
There are many, many reasons besides notability alone why an article can still be deleted from Wikipedia — copyright violations, articles that just state that the subject exists while failing to actually explain why its existence might be noteworthy, and on and so forth — so just saying "but it's notable" is not an exemption from having to also be able to say "and I've written a good article to properly demonstrate that". Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Bearcat, Again you ignore WP:GNG, WP:AADD or any policy guidance. Your repeated REFBOMB assertion of that any source was added by deception without regard to whether it actually supports substantive or noteworthy content about the topic in the hope that it will fool other editors into accepting the topic's notability while offering no evidence to alleviate the repeated falsehood concern that I raised about your assertions or even answer a simple question raised to you is more evidence of WP:DE.
Therefore, can you point to a single source in the screen shot where you have a legitimate concern that it does not actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic? YES or NO? follow up-which one(s)?
Please answer the question of whether new source alleviates the following concern as one reference was not enough before more were added: "Term coined by a single reporter is not notable enough for its own article" YES or NO? follow up-if NO, Why?
Any new article/draft would not be able to use one of the sources used as it is now a dead link. WP:PLRT allows use of the citation(s) and quote(s) but the remainder of that source article has been lost already. Restoration of the old stub would alleviate the predicament for this source which was illegitimately put in peril by the nominator.
Johnvr4 (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not ignoring anything whatsoever — and I am, for the record, pretty close to the last person on Wikipedia whom you ever want to play the "I know Wikipedia policy better than you do" game. I've been around Wikipedia for more than 15 years now, and was directly involved in writing a lot of our policies and procedures — so trust me, you will never, ever win that game if you're playing it against me.
That said, you genuinely seem not to be understanding what I'm saying. So here it is again, in point form:
(1) You did not write a substantive or detailed article about "Orlando's Summer of Love" — you wrote one sentence about it, stating that the term exists but completely failing to say anything whatsoever about what it means or what effect it ever had on anything. In other words, literally the definition of "no substantive content".
(2) You then jengastacked that single sentence with 15 separate footnotes that were adding nothing but redundant reverification that the term exists, and still did not add any content to the article to expand the article into more than just a single sentence stating that the term exists. In other words, literally the definition of "reference bombing".
(3) Most of those references, further, copied and pasted the entire text of the source in a very clear violation of our copyright rules, and thus had to be deleted on those grounds regardless of any notability or sourcing concerns.
And wherever you're getting this "Term coined by a single reporter is not notable enough for its own article" thing from, it is not a thing I ever said, and it is not a thing anybody else who participated in the deletion discussion ever said. Whatever else might have been said to you somewhere other than the deletion discussion, by somebody who did not participate in the deletion discussion, is completely irrelevant to the matter of whether the deletion discussion was properly conducted or not. So that is not a point I have any responsibility to address, apologize for or even consider — if you even mention it again you're getting a 24-hour editblock for being disruptive, because it has nothing to do with the AFD discussion.
And GNG, incidentally, is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that has more than two". GNG is not just a raw number of footnotes, but takes a lot of other things into account including context, range and depth. If you believe the sources support substantive content about the topic, then the onus is on you to write substantive content.
As I explained above: if you believe you can do better than the first attempt, you are absolutely free to do that. But the original version was correctly deleted by an AFD discussion that was entirely correct on policy grounds, and we do not have to overturn it before you're allowed to try again. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a forum for debating the article content. Hut 8.5 21:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Bearcat, You are literally ignoring everything--especially those questions directly asked to you about the changes required for any similar content. Your alleged work creating and familiarity with these rules polices, combined with an obvious inability to remotely follow or even point to any of them to support your reasoning in any comment only serves to lessen the legitimacy of your argument(s) and supports my accusation of your own WP:DE in this thread. Your apparent credibility here is lacking based solely upon your responses to me above. Now you accuse me of "playing games" and again repeat three assertions which I have already accused you of lying to the community about and that have been proven untrue or would be proven to be untrue by a simple glance at the screenshot by anyone.
Now in your haste to edit block, please 24-hour edit block yourself. I have never once accused you of making edit #768073072 on 3 March 2017 that led to the merge and deletion discussions/nominations. Respectfully, that threat is unfounded and frankly kind of idiotic. For your own clarity, I mention it again: In perfect English above, I say that the "coined by one author" concern was the original complaint and that it was made by another editor. And here too: User_talk:Malcolmxl5#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love I state the same thing and give the name of that editor...
That you either refuse or are unable comprehend these messages is not really a point I have any responsibility to address, apologize, for or even consider unless my accusation of WP:DE is not taken seriously or you attempt to edit block me in any way what-so-ever. A certain basic [[WP:Competence] and courtesy is required to participate here. Again, you as the involved nomination editor absolutely do have responsibility to address and consider the initial and probably the only valid concern that first led to the merge and/or delete nomination/discussion(s) that you subsequently made. None of the concerns raised in nomination by you or anyone was a valid policy-based argument. I've pretty much shown that they were all just a bunch of meritless votes and WP:AADDs. You should probably apologize to me for the threat too.
Pretty please answer the question(s) already posed to you and cite the WP:N or WP:GNG parts or sections the of the guideline that you are concerned was not already met or surpassed by that one sentence and its 15 (plus a new one) sources. The onus is on you to not delete notable topics that have sources (not content) that well demonstrate a topics notability--precisely as it states at WP:GNG and in every subsection below!
I've spent literally all day asking you the same increasing simple questions--Which you won't answer! If that is not an example of WP:DE, then I don't know what is. I just can't simplify or dumb this down any further than the applicable policy and the yes/no questions already provided to you. Johnvr4 (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I am literally ignoring nothing; everything I have told you here is 100 per cent correct about the way our policies actually work. GNG does not mean "as soon you've shown X number of sources, the article gets kept even if it's so badly written that it fails to provide even the most basic explanation of what the topic actually is", and articles most certainly can be deleted for quality or copyright issues quite separate from notability assessments anyway. Secondly, if you have "never once accused me of making edit #768073072 on 3 March 2017", then why do you keep asking me to answer for it as if I did? I have no responsibility to answer for anything except the things I said, and at no time in this entire affair have I ever said anything that was even slightly incorrect about either (a) the quality of the article as it stood at the time of deletion, or (b) the way our policies work.
EOD on this end. You do not have my permission to speak to me, or about me, any more in relation to this matter. Answer C.Fred's question below, or drop the stick and walk away. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • To borrow a phrase from aviation... @Johnvr4: say intentions. What is the outcome you want from this discussion?
  1. If you want the article history restored to draft space for you to work on a new version, then say so.
  2. If you want permission to create anew article, you already have it.
  3. If you feel the AfD was closed improperly, then WP:DRV is where you need to make that appeal, not here.
I don't see any other reason why this discussion should continue here—and frankly, I'm ready to ask an uninvolved party to close this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Bearcat As I've previously answered User:C.Fred's now-repeated questions, days ago, above as well as providing these answers [User_talk:Bearcat#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love_discussion|in the message on your talk page that brought you here], I'm not sure why I actually need to respond your demand to answer it again (Really, just read the comments already!)-and especially in the face of your utter refusal and ignoring my direct questions to you--which still need answers:
  • Can you point to a single source in the screen shot where you have a legitimate concern that the source does not actually support substantive or noteworthy content about this topic? YES or NO? follow up-if YES which one(s)?
  • Does the new source alleviate the following concern as one reference was not enough before more were added: "Term coined by a single reporter is not notable enough for its own article" YES or NO? follow up-if NO, Why?
As stated repeatedly, the Additional sources were added as only as a result of an editor questioning notability of the topic when it was citing a single source. Additional sources were added which was basically a WP:CITEBOMB for editors to facilitate verification. user:Bearcat demonstrated, a sustained, and disruptive inability to verify that any source used covers this topic and ridiculously kept calling it WP:REFBOMB-which are only for sources with trivial or no relation to the subject. He is not the policy expert that he claims to be above because he is simply incapable of verifying a topic in a source under WP:GNG or pointing to a single rule for support of his concern. It's also apparent that he doesn't seem to understand the basic differences between a WP:CITEBOMB and a WP:REFBOMB and it shows!.
User:Bearcat's concerns-at least every single one of them raised to date, can be rightfully ignored. I do think his apparent incompetence here is feigned but also I do not think anything relevant to WP policy or productive will come from him on this issue. I think it is pretty clear that he is only here to disrupt any discussion about the clarification and restoration that I seek to improve a previously deleted entry on this topic.
C.Fred, (re-)Stating my intentions... As previously stated above I offer you both this copy-paste quote: "Of course my intent is to improve the stub or new page draft or whatever. However, I'm just not understanding the previous WP:GNG concerns at AfD or any of the concerns questioning whether these sources support GNG of this era, in this place, as well the naming of the era as "Orlando's summer of love" and whether the new source alleviates the following concern as one reference was not enough before more were added:
"Term coined by a single reporter is not notable enough for its own article."
As previously stated to you above (quote continues), "Any new or improved article will have to include restatement and WP:CITETRIM of the exact same deleted, but highly reputable, reliable and verifiable information on the subject and will cite the exact same sources plus any others I find that were not included previously."
"If the deleted information is to be included, I would first need to present the evidence (here I've presented actual proof) to show these sources are are adequate for WP:GNG and that all previous concerns that led to deletion at AfD were meritless."
C.Fred, Unfortunately I'm afraid cannot follow the advice that I previously solicited from you (But I do thank you for it anyway) as it would violate WP:CONTN as well as the other polices I described in response to your advice.
  1. I do not want the history restored yet, I am going to want the content restored if there was no valid reason to delete it or nominate it for deletion in the first place.
  2. I do not want to create a new article because it is still unclear exactly what needs to change except further expansion and WP:CITETRIM and (quote) "Any new article/draft would not be able to use one of the sources used as it is now a dead link. WP:PLRT allows use of the citation(s) and quote(s) but the remainder of that source article has been lost already. Restoration of the old stub would alleviate the predicament for this source which was illegitimately pet in peril by the nominator."
  3. Last, I do feel AfD was improper and I have shown that is the case however, I am going to wait for a response from the deleting editor. I'd like his review of the above evidence to show that every concern raised at Afd was meritless per policy. If that fails to restore the content for improvement, then that editor can clarify exactly what needs to change regarding notability as shown by the available sources on the subject or I can take all this nonsense to DRV. I just don't understand why I need to given the sources I have provided in the stub prior to deletion and here after.
Thank you,Johnvr4 (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hut 8.5, Please restore the content and page history and merge per the result of discussion here: Talk:Orlando,_Florida#Merger_proposal. As stated above, the new source put forth addresses the concern raised there. The subsequent Afd discussion was only initiated after and then closed before this discussion ended in merge. As shown below, the concerns brought forth at Afd were entirely meritless and were never remotely policy-based. Please help me determine which discussion outcome has merit (or the most merit) or should be upheld and which discussion outcome (if any) we should ignore. Last, Is WP:DRV appropriate to request overturning a merge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvr4 (talkcontribs) 19:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The assertion that a more substantial article is a WP article requirement violates WP:AADD#Article size and WP:STUB among others.
The assertion that that any of these fifteen (now sixteen) reliable sources are not significant coverage of the subject to demonstrate WP:N is also an example of Tendentious_editing#Disputing_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources.
IMHO, the question now is whether or not the notable subject era should--per two sources separated by 20 years--be titled under the topic "Orlando's Summer of Love" or something else. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Johnvr4: WP:DRV is the right forum for trying to overturn the results of deletion discussions, which appears to be what you're asking for here. I can't just overturn the AfD because you disagree with it, or even if I disagree with it, because AfD results are supposed to represent the result of community consensus and not just one person's opinion. If you want the page to be restored because of a procedural irregularity (e.g. the previous merge discussion result) then DRV is the right forum for that as well. Hut 8.5 17:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Materiales nanoestructurados[edit]

El articulo que se hizo es enciclopédico, ya que cuenta con los requisitos de un articulo enciclopédico,

además de que esta bien hecho y cuenta con referencias confiables de donde obtuvimos la información —AndreHol8a (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
AndreHol8a Did you mean to ask this on the Spanish wikipedia? We don't appear to have had an article or draft by this title. Praxidicae (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
You can ask es:Usuario discusión:Edslov or ask here es:Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de los bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Solicitudes de restauración/Actual. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Arie Trouw[edit]

I, Techie3, on behalf of Hannig25, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as he intends to work on it. TheTrainNoch (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Reviewed and approved photo accidentally deleted[edit]

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Roy_(producer) Main TEMPLATE Photo

While editing/updating the TEMPLATE box (top right of page) with proper new info - the original photo displayed there (for quite a number of years) disappeared.

It is listed: Ron Roy File:Ron Roy (Actor).jpg Ron Roy at Golden Globes Awards

This photo was reviewed and approved many years ago by administrators - and has been the main photo displayed on the page since around 2013 or 2014.

The photo is quite important to the overall theme of the page.

I was only attempting to update the info properly in the template - not delete the photo.

I'm asking to have the photo reinstated due to my unknowingly, accidentally and unwittingly causing the deletion.

I sincerely apologize for any time and trouble it may take to rectify this.

I appreciate your help and understanding!

Sincerely and respectfully,

Ron Roy

PS: I have the original jpg if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whozjngalt (talkcontribs) 07:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you accidentally edited the page to not display the file by changing an "a" to "A". Is File:Ron Roy (actor).jpg the correct file? It is there not deleted and Sumanuil has put it back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Urban Sprinkling[edit]

I, Lorenafiorini, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Lorenafiorini (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


the article was rejected because the review considered the submission with "insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.". I could not resubmit it before but now I would like to do so by modifying the previous submission. —Lorenafiorini (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Regional Democracy[edit]

I, Wilandrewson, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Wilandrewson (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 20:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Charles Weinblatt[edit]

Enter your reasoning here My biography was listed by Wikipedia for about 20 years, until a few months ago, when for some unknown reason, it was deleted. I can think of no reason why my biography should be deleted. I continue to publish in retirement, including in 2015 by Texas Tech University Press, for fiction. I continue to write books and I have been a very prolific book reviewer for The New York Journal of Books, where I have authored over one hundred new book reviews, as requested by publishers and the NY Journal of Books leadership. Please republish my biography, as it was listed for 20 years and including my most recent published books. and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Cweinbl 20:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done for a start we very strongly discourage people from writing about themselves. Secondly the page was deleted because you don't appear to meet WP:BIO, and nothing you've mentioned affects that. Finally since this was deleted through a deletion discussion it doesn't qualify for restoration here, you would need to talk to the deleting admin or go to WP:DRV. Hut 8.5 20:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Let Them Eat Cake[edit]

I, Sedaray, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sedaray (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg 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. SoWhy 07:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

anne carlsen center[edit]

Page was deleted for unknown reason. Would like to edit and resubmit —Sambrownell (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done – this page was deleted as a blatant advertisement under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. This does not necessarily mean a suitable article on this topic cannot be created. If it is a notable topic, e.g., multiple reliable, secondary, published sources that are entirely independent of the subject have written about it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), then a neutrally written article may be possible. This one was written like a commercial.
@Sambrownell: If you're going to attempt to submit a new article, make sure it maintains neutral point of view and is not a promotional piece. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


Draft:Erased Draft 1[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markstevens2986 (talkcontribs) 04:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. SoWhy 07:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Musikprotokoll[edit]

I want to make this austrian music festival visible in the english Wikipedia version. I found new sources, from external websites that shows that this festival exists since 1968 and that text should be more neutral. Btw. - which was never an intention of this Wikipedia article.—Rimba72 (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. SoWhy 07:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Nupur_Kohli[edit]

I was busy writing a book so all the attention was there. And the person providing technical help for this page was unavailable for a long time but now willing to provide technical help. So due to inactivity on the draft for more than 6 months the article was deleted. And I strongly believe the article is now of significantly more value to Wikipedia with new very important additions. —Vkohli1 (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

    • Yes check.svg Done – as an Articles for creation (AfC) submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click on the button in the AfC submission template that says Submit your draft for review!. SoWhy 07:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Gautesetehallen[edit]

I, Thebundok, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Thebundok (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


Was not aware that it was still in draft mode (I'm new to publishing/editing) would like to see where I left off and actually publish this time. :p —Thebundok (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wabash_Battalion_Army_ROTC[edit]

I, 2605:A000:1128:45E4:2D67:7A4D:5B0A:5F47, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 2605:A000:1128:45E4:2D67:7A4D:5B0A:5F47 (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)



Was waiting for the page to get published after stating it was ready for publishing multiple times and it was never published "Publish changes" button below —2605:A000:1128:45E4:2D67:7A4D:5B0A:5F47 (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. No one submitted the page, but I have now done so on behalf of MilhousTellsStories. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Manolis Emmanouel[edit]

(This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) 86.153.153.244 (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Manolis Emmanouel

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Steven Ball[edit]

Draft deleted through inactivity. Able to upload new content if undeleted and continue revision of article. . —Saintier (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft that was deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. However, the draft namespace, though it is intended to provide some breathing room to create and develop a page without the time pressure of immediate review, is not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the article mainspace. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion and then submit it for review—at the least, prior to another six months elapsing. When you are ready, a review can be requested by placing this code at the top of the page and then saving: {{subst:submit}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Laugo Arms Alien pistol[edit]

I, Walther Rohrl, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Walther Rohrl (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done – this page should have been deleted as a blatant advertisement under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. This does not necessarily mean a suitable article on this topic cannot be created. If it is a notable topic, e.g., multiple reliable, secondary, published sources that are entirely independent of the subject have written about it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), then a neutrally written article may be possible. This one was written like a commercial. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Wabash_Battalion_Army_ROTC[edit]

Have been waiting patiently for review for over 6 months —MilhousTellsStories (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. While I understand your frustration with a longer than usual wait time, this board is not for requesting a review of a non-deleted page. SoWhy 15:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:OZWE Games[edit]

I, Anoderger, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Anoderger (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg 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. SoWhy 15:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Frederick Edwin Alfred Manning[edit]

Working to address reason why declined Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —KManganese (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Princess Keisha Omilana.[edit]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Kunleomilana (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC) I am humbly requesting that article page "Princess Keisha Omilana" be undeleted. I just want to clarify below that I am Prince Adekunle Adebayo Omilana, a prince of Ipetu Ijesa. Arigbabuowo is one of the royal ruling houses in Ipetu Ijesa. Out of these ruling houses, a prince can be nominated to become the King. Royal ruling houses were created from the early Kings in the town. This is very sacred and that is why l am writing this. This is not just "that the man she married may be related to someone who was the king of that town roughly half a millennia ago". My wife is also a fashion Model with many achievements and they were referenced in the article. Please look into this and undelete the article. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Kunle Omilana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunleomilana (talkcontribs) 17:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg 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/Princess Keisha Omilana, 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, JJMC89 (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. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Unspecified[edit]

(This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) Weelarry (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Weelarry: is this regarding Draft:Rory Skinner? Hut 8.5 20:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:VoIP.ms[edit]

I, DanielaBrito01, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. DanielaBrito01 (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 20:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:NC Attorney General's Dogwood Award[edit]

It was deleted because I hadn't edited it in 6 months. This is an annual award and we are now ready to update it with the new award recipients. —Carolinehall219 (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 21:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Rory Skinner[edit]

Page to be updated with new information and then click the "Publish changes" button below —Weelarry (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneC.Fred (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Weelarry: Make sure to update the page and address the concerns raised before resubmitting. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

‎Q69961534[edit]

This page was requested for deletion by mistake —45.123.41.94 (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This was deleted from Wikidata so we cannot help you here. goto https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Mahir256 to ask if you disagree with deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Unfollow the Rules[edit]

I, Another Believer, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Please restore the talk page as well. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 13:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – as a draft that was deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. However, the draft namespace, though it is intended to provide some breathing room to create and develop a page without the time pressure of immediate review, is not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the article mainspace. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion and then submit it for review—at the least, prior to another six months elapsing. When you are ready, a review can be requested by placing this code at the top of the page and then saving: {{subst:submit}}.
@Another Believer: Please make sure to demonstrate the album is notable--which may be hard to do if the title isn't even confirmed yet. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sheena Parveen[edit]

I, Sheena5486, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sheena5486 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: Please see WP:COI. Editors should not be editing articles about themselves. — Ched (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Sheena Parveen[edit]

We would like to correct the citation errors —Sheena5486 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: There is no such article. See above about the draft. —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76)[edit]

These pages were incredibly useful to the RPG community because the original books containing the info are long out of print and inaccessible to most players. The info from the editions released in the 70s is not the same as the current edition. It's notable as it's a major part of D&D, one of the most culturally important and historical tabletop RPGs written. If the page can't be permanently restored, please at least make the article's data temporarily available for download, otherwise it will likely be completely lost to a large percentage of players who utilized it. —12.106.168.148 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

While I sympathise, Note: The page was deleted as a result of a deletion debate. Admins will not undelete pages that were deleted with discussion here; go to WP:Deletion review or contact the administrator that closed the deletion debate instead. —v^_^v Make your position clear! 19:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:FCP Euro/alt[edit]

I, Alex at FCPEuro, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Alex at FCPEuro (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: please see WP:COI — Ched (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

TechnoArt LIVE[edit]

I'm willing to do changes needed and delete any copyright violations in the document —PesTenamo (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@PesTenamo: We don't restore copyright violations, so the better course of action is to start a new (draft of the) article that doesn't contain infringements. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Brian Pinkney[edit]

I, Sjbarbarian, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sjbarbarian (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – as a draft that was deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. However, the draft namespace, though it is intended to provide some breathing room to create and develop a page without the time pressure of immediate review, is not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the article mainspace. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion and then submit it for review—at the least, prior to another six months elapsing. When you are ready, a review can be requested by placing this code at the top of the page and then saving: {{subst:submit}}. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Flickyard/sandbox[edit]

I, Flickyard, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Flickyard (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 21:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Catch 23[edit]

(This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) Sharnadogg (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's the page in question. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg 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.
@Sharnadogg: You will need to show additional work by the band or coverage of the band in reliable sources to bring this up to article grade. Draft space is not for the indefinite hosting of material that doesn't qualify for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/An Introduction To DCP[edit]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —MZ 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC) An Introduction to DCP. Not published previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateenzar (talkcontribs) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done I'm going to decline this one after reviewing the deleted text. Frankly, there's enough self-promotion in there that it could be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11, blatant promotion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Example[edit]

(This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) TimeEngineer (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

TimeEngineer, do you mean Laya Crust? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


Jewish Immigrant Aid Services[edit]

I still want to work on the draft, and I think it is a page that should exist —TimeEngineer (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Joseph Annamkutty Jose[edit]

I, Ajimathew908, request the undeletion of this I would like to work for thus draft, I think it will be approved. draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ajimathew908 (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg 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.
@Ajimathew908: Make sure that you add reliable sources to the draft; the last review noted the draft was lacking them. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Paris Métro Line 16[edit]

The article was redirected in 2016. At the time the line was only a project. Now the construction of the line is well under way for an opening in 2024, with construction of the western stations of the line and launch of tunnel boring machines to dig the tunnel. See here for instance. —Hektor (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Nothing to do. @Hektor: I don't see any deleted versions. —C.Fred (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry I thought there was a full article. Hektor (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Unge Ferrari[edit]

(This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) M1N5TR3L (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Cowgirl Magazine[edit]

I, Kamorosano, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Kamorosano (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Edwin Alexander Smalls[edit]

I, Snesnow, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Snesnow (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Aahvaan[edit]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —47.29.11.110 (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Midnight Cities[edit]

I, Mrgweder, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Mrgweder (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – as an Articles for creation (AfC) submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click on the button in the AfC submission template that says Submit your draft for review!. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List_of_commercial_failures_in_video_hosting[edit]

I, Handroid7, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Handroid7 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please restore it into my user name space. --Handroid7 (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. –– –– Handroid7  02:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Raltsevich[edit]

I, CRB, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. CRB (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Omar Ammache[edit]

I, Nehme1499, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Nehme1499 (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft: TNO[edit]

I, Reneeshdonga, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Reneeshdonga (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Arijit Das[edit]

I, Sudhabindudas2012, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sudhabindudas2012 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NesC[edit]

The page describes an old programming language. It was deleted via PROD for "not being referenced". Still, the page is the only immediate information on DuckDuckGo (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nesc). —193.171.243.173 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

If it isn't referenced, then we should not have it, full stop. —v^_^v Make your position clear! 18:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:SEE-FIM Protocol[edit]

I, 50.234.189.31, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 50.234.189.31 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

North Road Records[edit]

I, FloridaArmy, request the undeletion of this article. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Planning to redirect to Dave Mallett. If it needs to be moved to draft space before I redirect it that's fine. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hattie Longstreet Price[edit]

I, FloridaArmy, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – as a draft that was deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. However, the draft namespace, though it is intended to provide some breathing room to create and develop a page without the time pressure of immediate review, is not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the article mainspace. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion and then submit it for review—at the least, prior to another six months elapsing. When you are ready, a review can be requested by placing this code at the top of the page and then saving: {{subst:submit}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Strawberry Plains Audubon Center[edit]

I, FloridaArmy, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Walter Craven[edit]

I, FloridaArmy, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – as a draft that was deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. However, the draft namespace, though it is intended to provide some breathing room to create and develop a page without the time pressure of immediate review, is not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the article mainspace. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion and then submit it for review—at the least, prior to another six months elapsing. When you are ready, a review can be requested by placing this code at the top of the page and then saving: {{subst:submit}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Mallett Brothers Band[edit]

I, FloridaArmy, request the undeletion of this article. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Planning to redirect to Dave Mallett#Legacy. Also would loke to see what was there. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Article deleted by WP:PROD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
"Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion.." (PROD)FloridaArmy (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Userfied – the page has been restored to the userspace at User:FloridaArmy/Mallett Brothers Band. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:George Herscu[edit]

I, Libanius, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Libanius (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as an Articles for creation (AfC) submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click on the button in the AfC submission template that says Submit your draft for review!. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Patricia Coffie[edit]

I, ThatMontrealIP, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Userfying is also OK.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Shelley Stamp[edit]

I, FloridaArmy, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Culbreath Heights[edit]

I, FloridaArmy, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Joe Rosenthal[edit]

I, FloridaArmy, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hal Clements[edit]

I, FloridaArmy, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Termux[edit]

I, Nealmcb, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Note also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Glow_oli/Termux ★NealMcB★ (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Termux but I think with growing interest we can clearly make the case for notability now. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Crown Oil Ltd[edit]

I request that this article be undeleted so that I may edit it and improve it to Wikipedia's standards —PanaMarkides (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Example[edit]

(This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) EvanVenn (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Danish & Dawar[edit]

A couple phrases could be a bit better, but this isn't written in a terribly promotional style. I'm not convinced it'd survive AfD but I'm not convinced it wouldn't -as I'm great with evaluating Indian sources —219.90.106.201 (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done – this page was deleted as a blatant advertisement under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. This does not necessarily mean a suitable article on this topic cannot be created. If it is a notable topic, e.g., multiple reliable, secondary, published sources that are entirely independent of the subject have written about it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), then a neutrally written article may be possible. This one was written like a commercial. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Giuseppe Ragona[edit]

I need to change content to make independently verifiable —Hjuma (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hjuma: This would be the third time the draft would get restored. What has changed with Ragona that is likely to get his article accepted now? Draft space is not for the indefinite hosting of material. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

iatrogenic botulism[edit]

I, Talkingfun, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Talkingfun (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

iatrogenic botulism[edit]

work in progress —Talkingfun (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Drafts and Articles for creation are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Above I meant to say I restored the draft. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

NeoReach[edit]

Deleting administrator is "presently taking a semi-break from Wikipedia" and "considering semi-retirement" according to their talk page. A Wikipedia alert on their page notifies that they are mostly inactive and thus unable to process an undeletion request or respond to the inquiry posted about it. There is not clear indication why the NeoReach page was deleted and, if not valid case can be given, the page should be restored. In the event that a valid case is presented, I request the opportunity to make the necessary edits to the page to restore its presence on Wikipedia as a source of information for the general public. Thank you. —Studentsearching (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

94.24.85.136[edit]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Publish changes" button below —94.24.85.136 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You will have to tell us what you want 94.24.85.136, as you have no deleted contributions to aid a guess. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Automated Pain Recognition[edit]

I, Sascha Gruss, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sascha Gruss (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Automated Pain Recognition[edit]

The article will be revised and new references (secondary sources) will be added —Sascha Gruss (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Dup request. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Booky Oren[edit]

I, Ovedc, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G11. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ovedc (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done – this page was deleted as a blatant advertisement under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. This does not necessarily mean a suitable article on this topic cannot be created. If it is a notable topic, e.g., multiple reliable, secondary, published sources that are entirely independent of the subject have written about it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), then a neutrally written article may be possible. This one was written like a commercial.
@Ovedc: Normally I would say to just start from scratch, but given the concerns about your conflict of interest in the deleted version, it is probably better to let an independent editor write the article rather than to have you start a new version. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform)[edit]

(This user used the preload form for G13 undeletion, but did not specify the name of the Draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) IOHKwriter (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform)

The Great Adventure (The Neal Morse Band album)[edit]

I, 136.223.34.8, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 136.223.34.8 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


Draft talk:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform)[edit]

This page has been worked on continuously for the past 9 months and contains research material that is valuable to me and others —IOHKwriter (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Optimist on the run/mainlinks[edit]

I speedy deleted this as U1 as one of my own user pages that I no longer needed at the time (I've been renamed since). Please restore and move (without redirect) to User:Voice of Clam/mainlinks, as I'll be using it again for AWB. Thanks. —— O Still Small Voice of Clam 16:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Wireless Society of Southern Maine[edit]

I, Kb1hnz, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Kb1hnz (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


Draft:Robert Frederick Smith School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering[edit]

I, Ktodi13, request the undeletion of this draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ktodi13 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


Draft:Robert Frederick Smith School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering[edit]

Want to edit and fix problems to get it approved —Ktodi13 (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)