Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gayatri0704 (talk | contribs) at 07:59, 24 February 2014 (→Trendspotters.tv: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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.

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 on 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/Amora gem

I, HeartoftheMadder, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. HeartoftheMadder (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done and will not be done. @HeartoftheMadder: The page was a blatant copyright violation of amoragems.com's website. Please note that if you own the copyright to that text (even if it was suitable for the content of an article), we could not use it by permission for our use but would require the copyright to be released by a verifiable method. In any event, even if this was not a copyright violation it would not be undeleted as it was blatant advertising and would have been properly deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I am trying to get the page un-deleted so that I can revert it to an earlier instance that has scientific links. What "verifiable methods" are acceptable for clearing the content, with the owner's permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeartoftheMadder (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Faceplants

This was requested by 70.68.60.9 (talk · contribs), but the request was malformed. I am merely restoring it on their behalf and have no opinion one way or another on the merits of the request. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:41, 16 February 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. Read WP:MUSICBIO for what a band need to have achieved before having a Wikipedia article. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lachlan Clyne

I, 122.105.129.147, 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 have new information to include in the draft page which I believe may be sufficient to have it accepted for inclusion in Wikipedia. 122.105.129.147 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<List of information removed - this is not the place to post it. Add it to the draft article.>
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) 14:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AAPG AUSC

Is a good article, I feel sorry about this procedure exclusionary -Afatoh (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done and will not be done @Afatoh: This was a copyright violation of this page and this page. Please do not infringe on other people's writing by copying and pasting it anywhere on Wikipedia. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several camping templates

These were straight forward deletions. I would like to reestablish the templates so I can fill them out. Two of the three deleting admins aren't very active right now. Please advise if this can be done. --evrik (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary astrology

At one time this page represented one school and only listed books from one publisher. The published books now include listings from 5 different publishers, in contrast to the one source, as the accusation has been made. This is obvious. The accusation is from an earlier version of the site. This field of astrologer is recently founded and this site is a fair representation of both founders, versus one as the accusation is now being made. In addition there are other authors who work independently from both primary schools, whose books have been listed. Curiously, when references were made to site and support theory from books, IRWolfie,the same person who is now making the request to delete this page, also deleted the new version, reporting that copyright issues had been violated. The site had a been red-flagged due to the obvious bias of one party. The book references where deleted, the site re-posted, an assessment was made by wikipedia staff, the red-flag was removed. The site received further editing from wikipedia staff and was reposted. This site now represents an unabiased perspective of the field -Celticstarlight (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: this page has not been deleted. Deletion is being discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary astrology (2nd nomination), and that is where you should comment, but read WP:DISCUSSAFD first. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Scott (pastor)

Page was deleted per AfD, I'd like it userfy'd for work. — Brianhe (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niali

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Pksahooctc (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Speedied as G11 yesterday. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Risk

External company practices caused deletion of our page and then click the "Save page" button below -66.192.28.194 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently a Marketing Analyst with Digital Risk, and it has been brought to my attention that the Digital Risk wikipedia page we once had has been deleted. After chatting with a Wikipedia representative, I was told that the company who had initially created the Digital Risk page (and paid for) was involved in unapproved practices resulting in them being banned along with all their created pages. I have no idea who this company is that created the initial Digital Risk page, and have no intention of using any outside company to manage going forward. For this reason I am requesting that the Digital Risk Wikipedia page be restored. As stated earlier, this page will be managed internally by Digital Risk marketing team, and have no intention of hiring any external company.

If you need any further information from me regarding this matter, please let me know.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.

 Comment: This is a G5 on content created by one of the blocked Wiki-PR accounts. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done and will not be done. The company you paid was spamming Wikipedia with hundreds of paid-for articles written (to conceal their tracks) by hundreds of throwaway accounts. They have been banned, which means that all their contributions are deleted. If their articles were restored on request, they could happily carry on, and Wikipedia would cease to be an encyclopedia and become a free advertising noticeboard. They knew quite well that what they were doing was against the rules and their articles would be deleted when detected: I suggest that you ask for your money back.
The next thing to say is that Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, and is selective about subjects for articles. If there were an article about your company, it would not be "managed internally by Digital Risk marketing team"; you would be very strongly advised not to edit it. Please read the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide which tells you what you can do. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rugrats main character pages

Main characters of the show Rugrats. -CityMorgue (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main character of the show Rugrats. -CityMorgue (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main character of the show Rugrats. -CityMorgue (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why these pages were deleted, as they serve an important purpose as an extension of the show's Wikipedia page. While I did notice the pages were poorly organized, I think it is possible for them to be improved. Not sure who removed these pages or what their reasons were, but I am interested in helping expand and improve the articles to Wikipedia standards if they are restored. Thank you. – CityMorgue (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CityMorgue and Drmies: Hey CityMorgue. None of these pages have been deleted; they have been redirected. Thus, this project has no applicability (as there's nothing to undelete). If you want these pages to 'no longer redirect, you have the technical ability to revert the redirection. However, these pages were mostly or entirely unverified (as noted in the edit summaries) left when they were redirected. This means that they failed to contain reliable sources that verified their information content. Secondarily, this also means that they failed to evidence notability as stand-alone topics. You should also be aware of the verifiability policy's subsection known as WP:BURDEN, which essentially provides that if unsourced content is challenged, the burden is on the person wishing to retain the content to provide reliable sources using inline citations verifying the content. I take the redirection here as a species of challenge and believe that if you want these to not redirect, it is up to you to source them when you undo that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fuhghettaboutit, thanks--yes, you give a good sketch of the situation. It's like the Pokemon situation: a whole bunch of minor characters who deserve an article on Wikia, but not here. Editors are reminded that all subjects need to pass WP:GNG. For the record, I don't see what any of those articles added to anything, or how they could possibly be expanded in an encyclopedic manner. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuhghettaboutit: ok thanks for clarifying that. I do not claim to be a Wikipedia expert. I do not disagree with anything you pointed out. I just felt like the articles could be good extensions of the show's main article. That's all I meant. And I did mention that I realized the pages were complete shit in regards to the way there were organized and researched. I would be interested in attempting to clean up, accurately research, and cite the articles properly. That's what I was trying to get at. Sorry if you felt like I was trying to one-up you. I just try my best to make the pages I edit better. That's all. Thanks for taking your time to get back to me. – CityMorgue (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CityMorgue, no harm no foul--no need to apologize for anything. In principle those articles could be a valuable addition, of course, and you are welcome to try and make it such. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

akrit jaswal

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -24.57.114.63 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Expired PROD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Sdtte345 (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gramercy Property Trust

17:55, 26 January 2014 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) deleted page Gramercy Property Trust (Expired PROD, concern was: Subject lacks notability as per WP:CORP. No WP:RS source coverage is provided.)

The person who nominated the page for deletion obviously did not read WP:CORP or try to find any secondary sources--this is not the right way to handle a deletion of this type of article.

Publicly traded corporations Shortcut: WP:LISTED There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE, NASDAQ and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source). Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability. Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.

Please restore this page and I will edit it to include enough reliable sources to establish notability.

HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: It certainly has no business being in articlespace. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of businesses - WP:NCORP is quite clear about this. The article as written clearly fails the required notability. As it's a PROD, I'd be willing to userfy it for you to work on, but you would need to ensure that you verify with at least one senior editor prior to requesting it be moved back to articlespace DP 18:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


WP:NCORP is also quite clear that any company that is listed on the New York Stock Exchange is almost always notable, see above. If you want to put it in my userspace until there are reliable sources, that's fine. But what is a "senior editor"? Is that a new title on Wikipedia? HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Senior Editor service award though it is only a semi serious title. -- Brianhe (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined request to restore to main space. Will consider userfying.
WP:NCORP says explicitly with regards to being listed on the NYSE: Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. You quoted this yourself. And it is also untrue that any NYSE listed company has sufficient sources to establish notability; there are plenty of non-notable penny stocks, for example.
I agree with DangerousPanda. The article has no business being in main article space. I'll restore it to your user space for further improvement if you request it, but if you want to do that, don't move it back to mainspace without improving the sourcing and completely cleaning up the promotional tone, and verifying its suitability with at least one trusted high-volume editor or administrator. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point Inside

The Point Inside page was taken down in 2013, and I am requesting for it to be undeleted. It was not a case of bombardment- rather, it included earned press and factual information. http://dbpedia.org:8890/page/Point_Inside is the page in 2009. If it was created by a Point Inside member, this was obviously an error - However in 2009, that was not a publicized rule which we are well versed in now. Thank you in advance for your consideration. -22:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Crystal pointinside (talk)

 Not done. The first record we have of this entry is in January 2013 (the dbpedia entry's 2009 seems to be the date the company started). It will not be restored because it was posted by one of the hundred of sockpuppet accounts of a notorious commercial spammer. They have been banned which mean that their edits are automatically deleted and will not be restored, the reason for that policy being that if their paid-for articles were restored on request, they could continue spamming, and Wikipedia would become an advertising noticeboard rather than an encyclopedia.
The next thing to say is that Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, and is selective about subjects for articles. Read WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:Notability (summary). Many perfectly worthy companies do not meet the requirement, which is not at all to their discredit but means they are not suitable subjects for a global encyclopedia.
If you think there are references to show notability in Wikipedia's sense, read the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for what you can do to make a draft article for consideration. JohnCD (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edway Group

The Edway Group is a well known Labor Hire company in Australia. I recently had to do an economics report on hiring, workforce and competency for school and I came across them repeatedly as well as the CEO. All of it was research for a paper in my business class. I was surprised there was no Wikipedia page for them so I felt compelled to create one. It is not for promotion because I have no ties to them. I was just stating facts about what I found and I made sure to provide references. I would appreciate it if you would undelete the article because it is about a notable topic, and company in Australia, specifically, their workforce and stipulation for entering it in certain industries. Thank you in advance and I appreciate the hard work put in as it pertains to curating the site. Onefourall (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Wormhole Series

I, 212.219.10.158, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 212.219.10.158 (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The draft article contained blatant copyright infringement of text associated with the stories. Although the text appears on the author's website which bears a form of free copyright license, there are a number of reason why it can't be used. First, the free copyright license is incompatible with ours. Second, it appears there in quotation marks indicating it actually is from another [unspecified] source, and, even if all this wasn't true, it was plagiarism as it was unattributed as the writing of another.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MUHANDIRAM WILMOT HARRY KULATUNGA

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Preenitha (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Good day, I have not violated any rules nor did I ever wanted to do so.. as you guys are doing such a great service to these people who lived a colourful legacy. The Celebrated Gent MUHANDIRAM WILMOT HARRY KULATUNGA is a man worth having in the list of MUHANDIRAM's of Sri Lanka as he is the only person who has donated his Walawwa (the grand old bungalow) worth millions to a school even after his death. I have little time too and I did send this to you coz this is worth sending for people to know... and if you are not convinced I leave it to you to republish as I can't see it.[reply]

keep well Preenitha

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/A7

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G11

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G12

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G4

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/U5

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G10

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G5 We are not here to spread the word about people; we exist only to collect what those who have heard the word have said. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Forrest Fenn

Tyblossom (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - @Tyblossom: 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian Shaw

  •  Not done Although a G13, it has not been undeleted for 2 reasons: first, as a WP:BLP, there needed to be at least one source - even in draft mode. Second, there was so little content, it's easily recreatable, as long as it's sourced next time DP 10:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Tomicki

I CAN PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVERY FACT ON MY DELETED PAGES

Request a review please...happy to send backup for all claims, representations on this listing

I object to being deleted without due process...

Thank you

WILLIAM TOMICKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddymcgough (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There was due process: a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/William Tomicki. That being so, the page will not be undeleted here. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user The Bushranger (talk). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at WP:Deletion review. If you are William Tomicki, please read WP:Autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Karp

The article had some third-party and independent references (quad city autism society, radio iowa, and quad city times) and so did not meet the cited PROD criteria of being completely based on self-promotional sources -LyrlTalk C 03:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Mfwitten (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpina

Redirect and possibly useful merge material lost after a tempetuous set of AFDs in 2013 that caused the redirect's target to be deleted. -—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done It was 1000bytes of original research. I could email the contents to you, but it's pretty lame. Let me know on my talkpage if you'd like the contents DP 10:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Riverfront Beautification Project

The article was nominated for copyright problem listing. However, only few paras of the article had copyright issues, the article could have been restored by removing the disputed text. I would request you to restore the page, as the article had substantial non-infringing materials which were contributed by multiple users over a period of time. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC) -Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. @Amartyabag and MER-C: I just looked at the first revision to get a base from which to look. It was a copyvio of not just The Hindu newspaper article that was highlighted at copyright problems (this one) but the first paragraphs were direct copy and paste from here and the very last section was from here (though the content is no longer available at this last). In other words, it looks like every word was a copyvio. Now, comparing that first revision to the last, all the same content remained with only slight modification and there was no new content but for the one sentence lead and the two sentences you added. I can provide to you the content you added if you want, along with a skeleton of the article, but this must remain deleted. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:: Is it possible to userify the article to my userspace/email. I am interested to work on it. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
>I can provide to you the content you added if you want, along with a skeleton of the article, but this must remain deleted
I've emailed him exactly that. MER-C 08:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospelsmässan

Retrospelsmässan is the largest convention in Scandinavia for Retro Game fans. The first year the event took place was in 2010 and the organizers had hoped for 100 visitors, but at the end of the day 700 people had visited the event. In 2013 the event had 2800 visitors and gained a lot of recognizition in mainstream media such as Gp [2] (One of the Sweden's largest newspapers) and Gt [2] (Also one of the largest newspapers in Sweden). SVT [3] (Swedens official public TV network) recorded at the event which was broadcasted on public tv. Wired.co.uk also went there and an article was published on the net. [5]

Retrospelsmässan has the equal amount of visitors as noteable retro conventions as Portland Retro Gaming Expo. [5] Although not quite as many visitors last year, Retrospelsmässan has grown a lot faster then Portland Retro Gaming Expo. It took PRGE almost 10 years to gain 3000 visitors. Something Retrospelsmässan did in just 4 years.

One could argue Retrospelsmässan is the largest retro game convention in Europe but I haven't any sources to confirm that today. Retrospelsmässan also is sponsored by Bergsala which is the official distributor for Nintendo in the Nordic countries. Norwegian mainstream meda also wrote an article about Retrospelsmässan last year.(with a video). [6]

Retrospelsmässan is quickly rising to become Scandinavias largest retro game convention, maybe already Europe? And possibly in the future the worlds? Sweden were also behind the worlds largest computer festival (Dreamhack)

[1] http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.1664619-langa-koer-till-retrospelsmassan [2] http://www.expressen.se/gt/retrospelsmassan-drar-rekordbesokare/ [3] http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/vastnytt/gammalt-ar-hett-pa-retrospelsmassa [4] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/11/retrospelsmassan [5] http://retrogamingexpo.com/history_of_prge.php [6] http://www.aftenposten.no/kommentarer/Retrospill-er-i-vinden-7200920.html#.UwRS3nl5OCY

Cheers! // Mikael -Baconfiesta (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/A7

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G11

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G12

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G4

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/U5

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G10

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G5 G11s are usually an issue with the words and tone used in the article, as opposed to the sources. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SK Media Group

I want the page to come back, as it DOES represent a media organization and I am continuously working/editing it to provide more information. -S.M.A.A.R (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

world of dmcs

there was no promotional material, the association is very notable, the article is written objectively -Victoria.veiga.lima (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: One G11 and one G7 speedy. There's also a declined AFC submission. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Opto-Digital

I, Opto-Digital-Technology, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Opto-Digital-Technology (talk) 14:43, 19 February 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. Please request a change of username, as explained on your user talk page. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TekTone Sound & Signal Mfg. Inc.

There is no copyright violation and is verifiable via sources. Also did not receive notification that article was deleted. -Ttmktgmgr (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Oz Principle

We were in stages of providing more secondary sources to support the page. This research, as well as securing a proper editor, have been taking some time. Please undelete so that we may be able to finish. -PILWiki (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already  Done, two weeks ago, see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 117#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Oz Principle. You were notified on your talk page here. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation/Aventis Systems

The time between when this article was tagged for deletion and deleted was less than 12 hours. This article is about the creation of the company and a list of independent organizations that nominated that company for the awards. It has been flagged promotional, so I will review the contents to determine which section was flagged and revise it, but I will need the article restored in order to do that. Thank you. -Creeptick (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done and will not be done. Advertisements are speedy-deleted as soon as they are spotted, and this was a blatant advertisement, the company addressing potential customers "What can Aventis Systems offer you?" and puffing itself: "Industry Leading Warranty... Vast Inventory... Dedicated Technical Support... our extensively trained sales and marketing team... " etc. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform, and anything like that should be deleted at sight; it is worrying that it lasted so long. I presume you work for the company: please read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bluelounge

I, Hbardenheuer, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Hbardenheuer (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - @Hbardenheuer: 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rin Tokiwa (JAV Actress)

Come back soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im5yrsold (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. @Im5yrsold: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rin Tokiwa was entirely an untailored, misformatted (and unattributed) copy of the existing content of Sakura Sakurada, and sat for six months with that content from another article so there's no useful or original content to undelete.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camp Joy Entrance.JPG

I believe that the uploader mistakenly forgot to add the license, but that the licensing should be identical to File:Camp Joy Sign.JPG ---evrik (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. You are probably right, but neither you nor I can make a copyright release on the uploader's behalf. That is user Ruarkr.2008 (talk · contribs), who has not edited for over a year, and unfortunately does not have email enabled. If I restore the file now, it will just be deleted again in another 7 days. All you can do is leave a note on their talk page and ask them, next time they are around, to request undeletion here; then they can make the necessary release. JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

outpsyjah

i need to add more information to the article. you have stated that 'every question has been answered' which is some sort of vague overstatement and likely an attempt at censorship; an appropriate response would be appreciated... -Tomahawk333 (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable sources will you be basing your additions on? It would help our consideration of the request if we knew the sources, since the article was deleted previously for lack of assertion of significance or importance. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, these sources; http://www.irrigator.com.au/story/199937/art-space-a-dream-for-artist/, http://western-riverina-arts.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/tom-vallance-rides-again.html; prove the existence of the artist behind 'outpsyjah', whilst soundcloud, facebook, youtube, and any number of websites that share information with others can be used to prove that outpsyjah's music exists. the importance is self-evident, it exists. no claim as to 'greatness' has been made, and your attempts at labeling this as flagrant advertising are in vain - the article must exist merely to cite the presence of outpsyjah online, and that presence's significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again (for the fifth time) Not done and will not be done None of your sources support a credible assertion of notability for inclusion in a global encyclopedia. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Existence is not a criterion for inclusion. Please stop spamming this noticeboard. Acroterion (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomahawk333: the fact that this is your fifth request, that you are refusing to hear what you've been told by multiple editors and based on your post higher on this page where you state "if you refuse to undelete the article, i will persist", I am giving you notice now that your behavior is disruptive and further persistence will result in a block from further editing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i seek no 'inclusion', i just want my article reinstated so that i can add more information. you cannot call yourselves a 'global encyclopedia' if you fail to recognize an artist that dwells upon this 'globe'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any point where we've ever called ourselves a "global" encyclopedia. That's usually assumed. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion did use the term four entries above; but the fact that someone "dwells upon the globe" is not a reason for inclusion. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicfox.co.uk

I feel this page was deleted unjustly, the page was not promotional in nature and in fact very similar to in style and content to another page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebox.com) which is why I feel the page should exist. -37.191.108.138 (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/A7

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G11

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G12

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G4

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/U5

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G10

User:Jéské Couriano/REFUND/Ineligible speedy/G5 Please note the "X exists, so Y should" argument doesn't fly here. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Pathak

Addition of more information to improve significance and then click the "Save page" button below -122.162.157.135 (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user Alexf (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review..--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iska Dhaaf (band)

My reasoning for requesting undeletion is because I wasn't given enough time to discuss why my article was validly in the namespace. Since I live on the West Coast, my article was technically deleted 'overnight' through the speedy deletion process, and I wanted to get the opportunity to discuss my article that was up for deletion. Through that discussion I would also get better insight on how to improve my article so it would survive the creation process. However, I believe I had found an additional source to explain why my page was valid. Please consider undeletion. Thank you. -Mewhho18 (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please read WP:BAND for what a band need to have achieved before having a Wikipedia article. "released two singles, and plans to release their first album" does not sound as though they are anywhere near that level, yet. JohnCD (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tarun vyas

i am an actor of bollywood industry, and doing quite good in films, but dont know why my articles and pages getting deleted from wiki pedia, kindly put me on wikipedia. my website is (Redacted) and i have my name on wikipedia in shuddh desi romance film page in casting. -117.222.221.17 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Of the speedy deletions this article has, the most recent deletion is a G11. Articles meeting this criterion are generally not undeleted either because they require a complete rewrite or they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. All of the deletions have been under G11, which means an article is clearly promotional. In addition, you should not write about yourself. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 23:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The latest version is not promotional in style at all. Its appearance may be for promotion by the writer. However not much claim of importance either. So bring this to WP:DRV or ask Jimfbleak to justify. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronald Masahiko Sato MD

I, Jasonespinoza89, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jasonespinoza89 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I see you have created a new version, and as it is rather fuller than the one from August last year, there is no point undeleting that one. Read WP:Your first article and WP:Notability (people) for advice. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Treviño

I, Treviner, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Treviner (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: this has not yet been deleted, but it is liable for deletion because it has not been touched for over six months. If you now make any edit, even a trivial one, that will prevent immediate deletion and you will be able to work on it further. Please then 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. Read WP:Your first article and WP:Notability (academics) for advice. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhiram Behera

subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhiram Behera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.110.177 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing Pangolin

This page was deleted under Wikipedia's A7 guideline [A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)] This page is about a real organisation and group and verification can be provided by visiting the website sailingpangolin.yolasite.com This page is not of insignificance as it was made following every guideline of Wikipedia's policy including guideline A7. I have provided reasoning, you may now make you judgement on the fate of this page. -Jdbepono (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It is not enough to be a real organization: A7 requires some indication of significance or importance, and I'm afraid I don't see any. The article said only that you have produced one (self-published online) Enid Blyton parody, and plan another. Even if not speedy-deleted, in order to be kept in the longer term, the article would need to show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability to the standard of WP:CREATIVE.
Also, even if notable, you should not be writing about your own organization, for reasons explained at WP:Autobiography and the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Good luck with it, and if your group becomes notable someone else may write about you. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jay Van Poederooyen

I, KFijal, 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'd like to finish his page and submit it for Wikipedia's approval. Thank you! Katrina KFijal (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review; please complate it and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Read WP:Your first article for advice, and WP:Notability (people) and WP:MUSICBIO for the relevant notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BYU Department of Economics

I, Kerkphil, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Kerk (talk) 15:30, 21 February 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.. I should warn you that individual departments are not often able to show the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" necessary to establish WP:Notability independent of the parent university - see Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines, particularly the section Faculties and academic colleges. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OM

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Om.sukanta (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The article you posted was a copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot accept copied material - please read Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We have an existing article on the subject at Om, and the title The OM has been made into a redirect to that. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wolf People

I, Aetavel, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Aetavel (talk) 16:15, 21 February 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. Check out WP:Your first article, WP:Notability and WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. McCarthy

I am requesting full restoration of this article's revision history.

There is a discussion, at Meta, over the problems posed by paid editors, and those with a conflict of interest. I'd like to cite problematic edits made to this article, and I can't do so, because its contribution history, has been obfuscated, for reasons I'd like to explain here, but can't really, because the explanation offered to me didn't make sense.

(1) The suppressed portion of the history of this article shows it was targeted by a series of vandals; (2) The suppressed portion of the history of this article contains this edit -- the only time I made an edit at the direct request of a public affairs officer. This is the passage I most particularly want to discuss at Meta.

How did the early revisions come to be suppressed? One of the individuals who tried blanking the article, and other forms of disruption, eventually read some wikidocuments, and nominated the article for deletion. That AFD closed as no consensus. Shortly thereafter however administrator User:CIreland deleted the article, explaining in WP:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log that they were asserting the authority to summarily delete the article under WP:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs.

WP:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs says "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." But, as near as I can recall, the only "policy" they were willing to state the article violated was WP:COATRACK -- which of course if not a policy, and is more often misquoted than quoted correctly. The advice of the COATRACK essay is that concerns over COATRACK should first be addressed by regular editing, and attempts at discussion, and that deletion should be a last resort.

Over on Commons village pump I sought advice about the strange claims the nominator had made on the original Talk:Patrick M. McCarthy, providing diffs to them, which are now broken, so I am also requesting a complete restoration of the talk page as well. -Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log, the sanctions on this article have expired. I have restored the deleted contribution history. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PubCon

Page is a factual, non-advertising overview of a conference with a 14-year history, citing numerous sources. -Lane R. Ellis (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:55, 21 February 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/PubCon, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Mark Arsten (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lingua Franca Idiomas

I, 190.39.174.51, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 190.39.174.51 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The article is written in Spanish, but this is the English-language Wikipedia and articles must be in English. The Spanish Wikipedia is at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/. Also, the article appears to be an advertisement, and Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion, in any language.
El artículo está escrito en español, pero esto aquí es la Wikipedia en idioma inglés, y los artículos deben ser escritos en inglés. La Wikipedia en español se encuentra a http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/. Asimismo, el artículo parece ser un anuncio. Wikipedia no es para la publicidad o la promoción, en cualquier idioma. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Taves

The content of the article clearly indicated the importance and the likely notability of the subject. The article lacked references, and had been tagged to that effect, but the public accomplishments of the subject detailed in the article meant that those references were likely forthcoming in short order. The article was deleted within 1/2 hour of the speedy deletion tag being applied (overly hasty in my opinion). Please undelete so that the article creator (and I) can continue to improve the article. Please see WP:CHANCE. -Dwpaul Talk 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Dwpaul Talk 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss this with the deleting administrator Alexf (talk · contribs), and list the credible claims of notability that were in the article that would disqualify it from WP:CSD#A7. You might want to request him to WP:USERFY the article to your user space so you can work on it at your leisure without concern about deletion, before you move it back to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Dwpaul/Heather Taves.. -- Alexf(talk) 23:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vaginal acceptance trainer

I, Wiredleicester, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Wiredleicester (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

update on topic

have been collating various medical references from nhsuk corst and bashh re proof of use in gynaecology field. Have now citation details etc and need to update the page. sorry taken a while but verification of data needed and now have approved data ready to upload to wiki re the invention nomination now recognized by Edison Awards 2012/13. important info for female health. please message me to allow uploading of new data. thanks

have been collating new medical data including nhs uk, corst, bashh and edisonaward nominee re innovative gynaecological product for womens' 21st century health. now details need uploading,because it has taken a while to compile the data in a good reading format. permission to now proceed is requested. please message me with update because data/citations need uploading, thanks

  • 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. DP 10:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Monem Limited

The sole purpose of this page was to only spread the general information of this highly respected and renowned company of Bangladesh that have many publicized works and have many reliable resources and references through out the internet. So I kindly request to consider the undeletion of this page -Amlbd (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Of the speedy deletions this article has, the most recent deletion is a A7. Articles meeting this criterion are generally not undeleted either because they require a complete rewrite or they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. The other one is a G11. Please note that your "spread the general information" is what we call "advertising". Wikipedia is not here to spread the word. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sugaspott restoration

because at the time of deletion there was not enough resource and reference material to affirm notability. In the time that has passed since a number of reliable sources and reference materials have emerged and as such may warrant the restoration of this article. I hope to work on this article and improve it according to the guidlines and policies of the wikimedia community.

A small brief of source material applicable at discretion

Now under the extensive discussions and debates held on my talk page about this particular page it was cited that the major points causing contest for notability where that he was not played on National Radio anywhere, and where the Zimbabwean National Radio corporations have very little online resource or have no records at all, he was played on the BBC Radio channel 6Music in the UK

i guess i could go on all day but i think i should keep it short and easy to digest. -Wikispott (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept Wikipedia (or affiliated sites such as Commons), the subject itself, blogs, or user-generated content sites as sources. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as an aside, REFUND does not undelete articles deleted because of a deletion debate. The proper venue is WP:Deletion review. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for pointing me in the right direction, i did not intend to use the wikipedia and wiki commons links as sources but merely as tools to put context into the current stage of the article or rather to be more concise show the only remaining history of the initial article around wikipedia, i will move over to the correct venue and start proceedings there but i was curious to know whether me putting an AfC was also a good or a bad move ? thank you very much for your assistance Wikispott (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cutting Room Floor (wiki)

If people on this damn site could read, this wouldn't have happen. I said Please Do NOT delete and guess what, it's deleted and the reviewer is definitely stupid to see that. I WAS gonna ask an admin to move the page within my sandbox but I didn't get the time to. -Tomlamusga (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

buytoamerica

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Tnycman (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a description of an entity company called buytoamerica.. this is by no means advertising or spam.. As many companies have a page on wikipedia we tough would be informational to have one as well..

Again, our intention is not advertizing or span, its simply informational..

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion G11. 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. Note that "X exists, so Y should" doesn't fly as an argument. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thouless Theorem

I, Ciccio85, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ciccio85 (talk) 19:00, 22 February 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. There still needs to be references, and using "we" is not the style here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Envision

I, Ukperch, 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 have more substantial references for this page now -Ukperch (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. If you're going to request undeletion of an AfC article you need to include the slash and everything before it. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceMax

The article was speedily deleted as the creation of a banned editor [1] but a new article has been made to replace it. I'm requesting undeletion of the earlier version. I'd like to compare it to the current version. I have a suspicion that the new article may be the work of the same writer, but I'd like to compare the two to see whether that suspicion is justified. Could this be placed in my user-space, please? -—rybec 02:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not likely to happen, but you could ask an admin to email you the article contents at time of deletion. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done The two articles are fairly different, but the common features are very similar infobox, and a history heading. The content and references are different. But perhaps both are the result of paid editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I request its temporary undeletion so that non-administrators may make the same comparison in an Articles for Deletion discussion. 13:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Two ways I see to go about this, restore as part of the history, then alter delete the lot and restore back the new version. Or move the current one, restore the old one and move again. Both will be disruptive to the content. But someone may be ahppy with that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Galal Amin

I, Mgohary, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Mgohary 08:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

sound world solutions

108.73.128.221 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done because a new version has been created, no need to undelete the old one. JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Venus Cow

STM (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user expanded on this request at the AFC help desk. Mz7 (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loadout

Recently an article called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadout was deleted,the admin that deleted it filed it under the reasoning A7 of criteria for speedy deletion: (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject).

The content of the article the admin deleted though fell under none of what A7 states, the article was about a free-2-play shooter game available for free only on the game distributor,Steam. The game does not fit under the criteria because it's not a browser game or web content.

If I could have another admin look at the archived version for review purposes to verify for me, that would be great. Please look into this case. -Thdegy (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, I'm glad to see the article restored again. Thdegy (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Thdegy[reply]

Myra Sky

Myra Sky is a prominent Pop star who people know about according to her 100k plus twitter followers and various articles written about her on line"Save page" button below -Clairebraemar (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Twitter followers and articles on her own web site don't convey any notability for Wikipedia purposes. WP:MUSICBIO outlines some criteria for inclusion. As this article was deleted according to WP:CSD#A7, it does not qualify for consideration for undeletion by request on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crocodile in Water, Tiger on Land

I, Urmibhanja, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Urmibhanja (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a delay in edit, article got deleted as it appeared to be abandoned. -Urmibhanja (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delay in edit, article appeared to have been abandoned and thus got deleted. -Urmibhanja (talk) 19:09, 23 February 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.

Dark York

the page provides valuable information regarding Le1f's first mixtape and can be updated with various notes from valued muic sources including Pitchfork, Billboard, and Stereogum. I'm not sure why it was deleted in the first place tbh. -cmilette (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lincoln Hockey Club

I, 86.23.23.147, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 86.23.23.147 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paramount Channel

I, Chkurz, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. User12 22:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Coro (sport)

I understand this sport is not notable and not verifiable. However, I would like more people to know about it because I feel it is a very cool sport. I also understand that even though it is very unlikely that it will be restored, but I would like to be able to see the history of the page because I don't have an updated copy of the page anywhere else and I would like to be able to copy it and save it, so I will have it forever. -76.107.222.230 (talk) 23:01, 23 February 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/Coro (sport), it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Mojo Hand (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.
Also, we have no way to provide anonymous IP addresses with copies of deleted articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Windows 8, Good or Bad

I, 99.98.66.147, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 99.98.66.147 (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Work on it" for what purpose? This is an essay, an opinion piece, and "how to" article -- none of which are appropriate as a Wikipedia article. As such, it is not salvageable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum for people to air their personal views. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Ganchev

I'm not sure what was wrong with the page but I want to know before I make a new one. Note: Since I didn't write the article I don't even know if it was about the same George Ganchev. The one I'm interested in was the leader of the Bulgarian Business Bloc and later formed a new party named after his. If you can give me some info that would be appreciated! Thank you. -Kndimov (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in 2004 ago as a copyright violation of https://web.archive.org/web/20120727044657/http://www.omda.bg/page.php?tittle=Ganchev,_George&IDMenu=361&IDArticle=603
I'd say, feel free to create a fresh, well-sourced article in your own words. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous (Musician)

Hi, There was no discussion about the legitimacy of my copyright ownership, so i am asking to please undelete both the Frivolous (musician) page as well as the album recording "Somewhere In The Suburbs" by Frivolous. I own this material, and if there is another website claiming ownership, they are doing so in violation of my ownership of this material. If I'm missing something please tell me how to proceed in compliance with your mandate. Thanks -Stubbyd (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Some random username claiming they own some material carries no weight. Even if you have permission to distribute it, Wikipedia does not have permission, and will not have permission based on the say-so of some user account. If you want to reproduce copyrighted text, you need to prove that you are who you say you are, by writing to the Wikimedia Foundation from an identifiable address or domain name that verifies you are the copyright holder. See WP:CONSENT for more information. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Klonarda Nezaj

I, 119.59.82.149, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 119.59.82.149 (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Channel 5 Old Logo.svg

This image is nominated for deletion in Commons. Also, it is UK-copyrightable, like Introspective. Therefore, the local copy should be undeleted. -George Ho (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trendspotters.tv

Enter your We need time to edit the page, add references and sources. The page was deleted in its initial stages. -Gayatri0704 (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=596884776"