Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→ticsom: no claim of importance
Line 362: Line 362:
not contain any advertising materials here and then click the "Save page" button below -[[User:Mo3tasem88|Mo3tasem88]] ([[User talk:Mo3tasem88|talk]]) 11:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
not contain any advertising materials here and then click the "Save page" button below -[[User:Mo3tasem88|Mo3tasem88]] ([[User talk:Mo3tasem88|talk]]) 11:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:{{not done}} Neither did it claim any importance, so I have deleted it again. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:{{not done}} Neither did it claim any importance, so I have deleted it again. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

== Jana Kantorová-Báliková ==

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

Revision as of 15:25, 4 July 2014


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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Time For Change Foundation

I, ProvenceAntiquities, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. SaintClair (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The submission was restored by User:Tokyogirl79 and then deleted again because it was too promotional. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Ugly Mane

The page was deleted for not showing his significance as an artist - I disagree completely, the page speaks about his progression and graduation to popularity. I also plan to add more if given the ability. -71.95.42.251 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you need to talk to the deleting admin, FreeRangeFrog, possibly about userfying the article and re-submitting via WP:AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with userifying this despite the fact that it was a clear A7 with no clear assertion of importance. As long as you can tell us, in once or two sentences, if the subject meets at least one of these criteria and a link or two to verify the claim. Otherwise we're all just wasting our time. By the way, popularity is not the same thing as our notability requirements, although sometimes popularity does translate into general notability. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided @FreeRangeFrog: with what I believe to be credible evidence towards the page's revival, to which he disagrees with - the evidence I provided shows just as much significance as several other artist pages (ie, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yung_Lean), to which he also disagrees with. I'm hoping someone else could just give me the chance to add to the article with this information, as I feel it will supplement the page as needed. §Celestaphonecroak
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The existence of anything else on Wikipedia has no bearing on this particular article. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. Countless articles about obscure musicians (particularly rappers) have slipped through over the years, which were created purely as fancruft or for publicity purposes, and should be deleted. The coverage you offered on User talk:FreeRangeFrog appear to be blogs or otherwise niche publications. I see that Impose magazine is cited by other articles, but then we're back to WP:OTHERSTUFF again; you'd have to go to WP:RSN to get a community consensus about whether that should be considered a reliable source. The album releases need to be on notable record labels having a roster of independently notable performers, so you'd have to make a case that the two labels you named qualify as notable.
By the way, tweak your signature style attributes, it looks so similar to FreeRangeFrog's that it can be confusing. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, copying someone else's sig element-for-element is unacceptable the panda ₯’ 10:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahbub Mirza Chishti Qalandari Hyderabadi

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -39.50.201.246 (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Mahbub Mirza Chishti Qalandari Hyderabadi was a holy saint in Hyderabad Deccan, India. He follows Chishti chain.[reply]

Not done and will not be done. We will not restore copyright infringing material. In this case, content was pasted from http://auliyaechisht.yolasite.com/hazrat-mahbub-mirza.php ~Amatulić (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Dalton (Lisa Loving)

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Newton (artist)

I, LMGHS Webmaster, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. LMGHS Webmaster (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

garreous lisenbee

the page name is Garreous Lisnebee i believe that his page should not be deleted because he is a significant figure in his home town because he has been through adversity and has always never given up kids look up to him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizzle09 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this page under WP:CSD#A7. Lisenbee's most notable accomplishment asserted on the page was playing college sports; no awards were mentioned. No sources were included. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done for 2 main reasons: 1) our notability for athletes is very strict - although his hometown might find him notable, Wikipedia as an international encyclopedia does not. Second, all articles about living people must be suitably referenced - this was not. Finally, should you request undeletion in the future of some other article, please use the instructions provided the panda ₯’ 10:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meytal Cohen

Meytal is the most subscribed YouTube drummer with over 100M views and 800K Facebook fans. She is now working on her debut album, 4 original singles have been released - http://www.youtube.com/meytalll - when typing her name in Google, the first auto-suggestion from Google is 'Meytal Cohen Wiki', why doesn't she have a Wiki page? -172.248.116.249 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tetryonics

I, 75.210.85.198, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 75.210.85.198 (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This cannot be restored, because it is a copyright violation from http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/ABRAHAM_The_Gaussian_topolo_1.pdf. Even if the copyright issue were resolved, this would not be acceptable material for Wikipedia unless references can be provided showing discussion of the theory in independent reliable sources: see the fundamental policy WP:No original research, which includes:

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery."

JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meester Shay

'Meester Shay'

'This article shouldn't be deleted because she is a great singer and actress and she rocks. Also Her fans wants an information about her' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meester Shay (talk • contribs)

  •  Not done First, the next time you request undeletion of a valid article, please use the format provided. Second, we do NOT host hoaxes, made-up stuff, anything related to blogspot, etc. This is an encyclopedia the panda ₯’ 10:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cobalt fluoride reactor at F2 Chemicals Ltd.jpg

Permission (probably) obtained through ticket:2014062010009667. -Microchip08 (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Microchip08 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HOST1PLUS

l created this page to raise awareness about this web hosting page, there is nothing advertising it, if the links are controversial, then l will gladly remove them so that the article only provides useful information to users who are looking for free hosting websites}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladiepre (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2014‎

  • Not done The page was deleted because it came across as unambiguous promotion. Phrases such as "Coming from different countries and nationalities, the HOST1PLUS team members share different experiences and ideas, this helps the brand to stay open minded and flexible to ideas and new places where they can provide their services" come across as advertising. It reads as if it came from a press release or is something that someone in the company's advertising department wrote. I'm not against the company having an article, but the company must pass notability guidelines by having coverage in places that are independent of the company and in-depth. You cannot use the company's official website, routine database listings, or press releases. Also be aware that if an article reads as if it was taken directly from a press release, that article will not be considered usable. We're not really here to "raise awareness" per se- the company must already be notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ray Carr

I, 99.19.9.82, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 99.19.9.82 (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The concerns brought up at AfC MUST be dealt with before you re-submit this article. I almost didn't restore it because the tone here is so casual that it comes across as a little promotional. You also need to remove things that don't really pertain to the article, such as Carr's hobbies and marital status. Generally speaking, we only include those when the marital status and hobbies have received enough coverage to justify its inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Energy Technologies

I, Ladiepre, request that Digital Energy Technologies be undeleted because the page is written from a viewer's point of view and opinion. There are sources from other sites such as "zoomin" that offer further information about what DET is and what it does. i followed all the rules and guidelines in the help page and please, l implore you, let me know what exactly it is and l will fix the article because it is informative and educative. Thank you --Ladiepre (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only was it deleted under WP:A7, but it was also deleted under WP:G13 as unambiguous promotion. As far as the sources go, they do not seem to be the type that would extend notability because they all seem to be WP:PRIMARY sources such as routine database listings. It is expected that companies will have themselves listed in various databases, so that cannot show notability. The article's overall tone was so promotional that it would require an entire re-write to pass our guidelines for neutrality. As far as it being WP:USEFUL, we cannot keep an article solely because it is useful. The article must pass our notability guidelines by way of coverage in independent and secondary sources. As far as what came across as promotional, a good example is the sentence "DET is goal and people oriented towards making website ownership and management an easy task to carry out." That's the sort of thing you read in press releases promoting the company and is considered to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dwight McGhee

(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.) Wightgorilla (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. the panda ₯’ 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Kamrul Ahsan

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Limited Runs

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

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

File:Garden Ridge logo.jpg

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DOLLS

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Sports Builders Association

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

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

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

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

Willems Workflow Scripting Language

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dave Durand

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

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

Dukes at Komedia

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

Fabric_(Python_library)

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orlic

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric Fisher

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Altenor

(This user used the preload form for AFC undeletion, but did not specify the name of the AFC draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) Musicinspire (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Real Time Work Log

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

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

Dubai City Church

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

Mention of the church in the media is listed here

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

Survey on the average German

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keir Worthy

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

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

Gym Store

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

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

Sil Brook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Four Quarters Magazine

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SyndicateRoom

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

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

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

(This user used the preload form for AFC undeletion, but did not specify the name of the AFC draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) Pobega (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erica Meier

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iridium Suite

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

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

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

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

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

model of report

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

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Melvyn B. Nathanson

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MRIdb

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

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

ticsom

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

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

Jana Kantorová-Báliková

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=615586252"