Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matthew2c4u (talk | contribs) at 17:20, 7 August 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Content review

NOTE: This page is a template designed for inclusion in Wikipedia:Deletion review. Keep it very short and don't remove the header!

Editors who wish to have an article temporarily restored may place a request in this section. Common reasons are to use that content elsewhere, because the user suspects that an article has been wrongly deleted but is unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or because the full history may be needed for proper transwikiing.

Note that only uncontroversial content should be restored — not revisions deleted as copyright violation, potentially libellous content or similar. Using restored article text to recreate a deleted article without addressing the problems that resulted in its deletion can result in the article being speedy deleted. Keeping deleted content in your userspace if you have no immediate intention of using it for encyclopaedic purposes is frowned on, as Wikipedia is not a free web host. If kept too long, the page may be nominated for deletion at miscellany for deletion. Add {{db-userreq}} to the top of the subpage when you no longer need it.

If you only need to read a deleted page's contents, consider asking for them to be emailed to you.

Matthew2c4u i request that Plot of Naruto:Shippuden be temportaily reinstated so it can be Transwikied to the offical naruto wiki. I also feel that for many people if plot summaries(The main reason for deletion) Are moved to the offical wiki HereThen not only would it satify major discontent surronding the article i think it may set a new pattern in order to deal with the ridculaus plot summaries popping up in wikipedia. One of the other reasons is that while the article was deleted for the seond time rather hastily one of the main arguements was the name was Plot of ___ let me point out that it had been change to this is the first AFD. Also there were many opinons listed in the aritcle My brother a reader of it had pointed out to me some things that were put in the from the copiers point of view. meaning that no it wasnt all plot but someone who was not familar with the manga might not understand that. so i request that Plot of Naruto:Shippuden be temporarily reistated, or with that failing be emailed to em. Matthew2c4u 12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Channone I request that this article I wrote is relisted, I have read the approval criteria and believe it qualifies as WP bio (Won AVN Award and famous in Industry for scene under the Eiffel Tower, also voted Best in a Catagory), I would like to have the chance to edit sections to make the qualification even clearer than it already is. I have tried to discuss this with the administrator who deleted the article but have received no reply. I would also wish to retain a copy of my article, as it took many hours to prepare. Many Thanks.
 Done - already userfied to User:Damiwi/Channone - please use {{db-userreq}} when done - Alison ☺ 05:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthony Chidiac - temp link to re-edited article for re listing is at User:T3Smile/Anthony_Chidiac I would kindly request that this article be re-listed in order for me to gain useful contact with other people that can cite/verify all the information, though I am unsure as to how to get transcript of radio interview on here to verify the entire bio, and I will soon be able to get a hold of video to all sources not linked to YouTube or other sources in the referwences section. Its just that, if its up there, it can get others to contribute that can complete this article and I've spent so much time on it that I want to know if my efforts are going to lead to such. Thanks in advance for your review and re-list. Its my first effort, admittedly.
Note: - you do know this article has been deleted five times and has now been SALTed? It's been through AfD twice now & I'm reluctant to restore it to anywhere given its history. Leaving up for another admin to review - Alison ☺ 04:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi There, RE: Anthony Chidiac, it is entirely untrue this article has been DELETED 5 (five) times!!! only been deleted once, and I tried re-adding it with a (hangon) awaiting links to all references, but alas, all this happened in a space of six days. Can I get a break with my first article please? TA. --T3Smile 12:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It actually has been deleted 5 times. evidence here (admins). However, I don't believe it should be userfied in its current form as it's been a source of major problems, one admin stating; "G4 twice after Afd, BLP violations (emails for sources, no sources, etc)". It's got major problems and right now, you should probably scratch-write it without all the BLP/Original Research/possible copyvio stuff. I can possible email it to you if you like, but it should not appear in mainspace without serious reworking and have comprehensive cites - Alison ☺ 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content already at the page mentioned above; a content review could do no further good to the encyclopedia. (Though I would say deleted 4 times, there was also a restore and 5th delete to clarify the deletion reasoning.) GRBerry 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - I switched the templates to {{tlx}} types, so it looks a little strange :) - Alison ☺ 05:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Content_review&oldid=149801771"