Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jaybee319 (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 23 February 2016 (→User:Jaybee319/sandbox: 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. 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

'

Einstein Syndrome

Article contains multiple reliable sources from Scientific American, a published book source, a published journal response, and an article from the MIT press. -Ylevental (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend rejection. AfD advises no notability and nothing has changed. MIT is not a reliable scientific source in this area and it was a blog anyway. Online, Scientific American is also a blog and also self published, which was the concern in the AfD re Cowell's work. Established as not a notable condition, and I believe it's symptoms/diagnostics were incorporated into the Autistic spectrum as part of the DSM-5 anyway. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Einstein_syndrome. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, multiple sources have been added since 2007. Also, a person with Einstein syndrome outgrows autistic symptoms, so it is not the same thing. Ylevental (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct and not proven either. There is no non self published coverage as noted in the AfD. This has not changed. Scientific American is self published and therefore not acceptable. No one outgrows autism - that is impossible. Einstein syndrome is not medically valid and therefore does not medically exist. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The journal article is non self-published. I wish to wait for an official response. Ylevental (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is self published by Darold Treffort. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the journal. That is not reliable. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for an official response Ylevental (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will not undelete; the recreated article had (in essence) the same content as the article that was deleted at AfD. If the draft can not be improved as recommended above, this has to go via DRV ultimately. Lectonar (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @203.15.226.132: WRT to whether this is or isn't a recognized syndrome -- we don't have hoax articles, intended to mislead readers. We do have articles on hoaxes -- like Piltdown man. If WP:RS have written about "Einstein syndrome", it may merit an individual article, even if genuine experts all state it is not a real syndrome.

    If this is taken to DRV I'd like to weigh in there. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know nothing about Einstein Syndrome, but if the closer of an XfD blindly dismissed something hosted on the Scientific American magazine's site because it was called a blog i think they made a serious mistake. Similarly, those advocating not restoring this because something was called a blog, are also making a serious mistake.

    99.x percent of things called blogs are of very little value, and should not be considered reliable, verifiable sources -- because they are written by nobodies, who almost certainly don't have any kind of expertise, almost never bother to back up their opinion with any research, and, perhaps most importantly, aren't having their writing subjected to a skilled review by professional editors.

    However, the remaining fraction of one percent of things that call themselves blogs often are reliable, verifiable sources. Consider the Scotusblog, that comments on the US Supreme Court. Its writers are highly respected, and writings offered there are routinely referenced, cited, paraphrased by respected print editors.

    The term blog was first coined around the time that it became possible for respected institutions to allow their best writers to write about quickly breaking topics online. Print publications allowed their best writers to publish online only articles on topics that broke too fast for their print schedule, or for other reasons didn't fit within what they normally published online. Frankly the notion that we should apply the blanket dismissal appropriate to a non-notable blog to anything hosted by a respected publication merely because it is called a "blog" is such a short-sighted idea it really merits considerable mockery. It is a crazy idea, and it really disturbs me, every time I see this argument advanced.

    If Scientific American is paying for the hosting on their site I think it is absurd to not realize this "blog" was subjected to a review by the publication's professional editors -- unlike non-notable blogs.

    Finally, there are highly respected individuals, respected in their fields, who start publishing online, after they retire, or become consultants. If they are already highly respected, their online writings shouldn't be dismissed -- even if they call them a "blog". Geo Swan (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory B. Maffei

Please undelete. OTRS accepted. -Angus Guilherme¶ 18:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well,that fixes the copyvio concerns, but the article was still an advertisement, so: not done. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hesham Watany

we will put other types of references like news from news websites and youtube videos on a TV/online channels shows link -Carbon011 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Regardless, feel free to create a new, sourced article at Draft:Hesham Watany. By sourced, I mean referenced to non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, articles whose primary focus is Watany, not just namechecks or directory listings. That will be interesting: the first five pages of Google hits for either name did not show a single one, which is quite an achievement. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done For the bot... Lectonar (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Vyankatnath Maharaj

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Vsudhasindhu (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To, Whom It May Concern:

I would request you not to delete the article for the following reasons:

1. The supportive data or links required to support my article 'Shri Vyankatnath Maharaj' is not based online.
2. The supportive data is based on reference of books in local dialects and articles and one to one approach to disciples and devotees who have experienced the grace of their Guru Shri Vyankatnath Maharaj which cannot be find on the Internet.
3. Just if their are no links or websites related to the data submitted are not available does not means one should delete the article.
4. On the request of all the devotees this article was posted on wikipedia so that the new devotees should now the biography of there guru.
5. There had been no advertisement done in the article and had been pure biography of the concerned personality.
6. The article mentions the name of the trust which runs the school in his name whose Government registration code can be found and verified same by the links given below

http://www.datapedia.co/schools/india/samarth-vyankatnath-public-school-deogaon-r-in-deogaon-of-aurangabad-maharashtra-1093379 http://www.studyapt.com/school-samarth-vyankatnath-public-school-deogaon-r-1

7. The following link mentions the death anniversary of the personality.

http://www.hindu-blog.com/2015_02_03_archive.html

Kindly rethink over deletion process. I would appreciate if you reinstate the article and add the vital information to wikipedia

Thanks & Regards Chetansingh Chhatre

  • Not done This was extremely promotional in tone and while this may not have been your intent, sentences like "Lives of great personalities have always been torch bearers for all successful persons" are seen as unambiguously promotional. While you are correct in that sources do not have to be on the Internet, they also have to be independent of the guru and his followers and be in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable per WP:RS. The reason I specify this is because your above phrasing gives off the impression that coverage might be based on writings by people who follow his teachings, which would make them WP:PRIMARY. If you can show where people unaffiliated with him have written on him, those would count. They don't have to be on the Internet, but they would have to be able to be checked at some point to make sure that they're in-depth. Also, be careful about writing an article when you have a conflict of interest (as I suspect that you do), as it can be easy to write in a promotional manner without ever intending it to be promotional. Finally, please be aware that Wikipedia is not meant to be a place to raise awareness - all content must be neutral and be about topics that would pass notability guidelines (WP:NBIO). This can often be very difficult to establish, given how strict guidelines can be.
None of us can restore the content because it was very promotional, but you can try making a new version. I'd recommend that you go through the articles for creation process rather than creating an article live, given the conflict of interest. You may also want to ask for help at WP:INDIA, a WikiProject devoted to coverage of India related topics. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:DSI Informationstechnik

(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.) 79.195.135.77 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John Henry House

I, ChriCom, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. ChriCom (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Peter M. Cohen

I, 23.240.169.155, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 23.240.169.155 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jerry Rothwell (2)

I, Msalexmenz, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Msalexmenz (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Class assignment -Msalexmenz (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:PurpleHan

Hello, I wrote this page as a requirement for a University assignment, and I would really like it back for further use and work, for personal and educational purposes. Thank you very much. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleHan (talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of League of Legends champions

requesting userfication, the deleting admin, sandstein, has declined to restore the page for a draft -Prisencolin (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm somewhat hesitant to restore anything deleted at AfD that was declined by the deleting admin, in this case Sandstein. Maybe he'd be willing to e-mail you a copy? Otherwise I will note that much of the same material is already present at this Wikia for the game, but I am mildly concerned that there might not be enough sourcing to justify a character list page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've declined undeletion because I don't think this can become viable as an article, it's just fancruft better suited for fan wikis. What other admins do with this request is up to them.  Sandstein  12:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the near unanimous deletion consensus at the last AFD, I think beyond a doubt that this article is notable. Just look up 'league of legends champions' (without quotes) in the reliable video game sources custom search engine.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can some other admin restore a draft to userspace? I'd like to have all of the edit history available, so it would be preferable to an email copy.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

buysmaart

We are a new startup in India and this article was written to educate people about the product, Buysmaart. We felt having in Wikipedia will enhance the trust for the users. Pls approve -183.82.105.176 (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done This was deleted as WP:G11, unambiguous promotion and a look at the article shows that it was pretty promotional in tone. We don't restore these at REFUND and a look at the article shows that you'd pretty much have to re-write the entire thing from scratch. I'd recommend that if you're looking to make the article, that you go through the articles for creation process since there is a conflict of interest. However I need to caution you that Wikipedia is not a place to raise awareness or grow trust for a product or service and writing an article along these lines will only result in the deletion or decline of any submission. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RoPeCast (no proper undelete request, but providing a copy)

Hi.

I got a highly polite pointer to put the following request here despite it not being an actual request to undelete an article. :-)

Could someone please provide me with a copy of the latest version of RoPeCast before deletion, I'd like to reuse the information in that article on a different page. A temp copy to user NS would be great, maybe User:Chrkl/RoPeCast would be suitable? Thanks! --chris 論 —Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done See User:Chrkl/RoPeCast @Chrkl: --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Zachrison

I am requesting temporary userification to User:Geo Swan/temporary userification/Astrid Zachrison.

This was, apparently, an article with no hint of controversy, so there are no privacy concerns. I contacted User:Sandstein, the closing administrator, expressing an interest in seeing the full history. He or she wrote: "an individual editor's curiosity isn't enough for me to deviate from standard practice."

I'll probably only want to view it for a day or two. Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC) -Geo Swan (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Antoinetta Vogels

I, 76.28.204.208, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 76.28.204.208 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!"
Please read WP:Your first article, and note particularly the need for references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish "notability". JohnCD (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Selective Chemical Labeling of 5- hydroxymethylcytosine

I, MPOG2014, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. MPOG2014 (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPOG2014: Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request to a new location at Draft:Selective Chemical Labeling of 5- hydroxymethylcytosine. 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) 14:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Digital Fabulists

(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.) Aduffin (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed title and revisions template Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aduffin: 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.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Majocchi (photographer)

I, Jacqueline C. Moorby, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jacqueline C. Moorby (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacqueline C. Moorby: Declined pending further information. This was undeleted in July 2015 after this request, but no edits were made to improve the entry for resubmission. Articles for creation is not an indefinite hosting service for material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia's article mainspace. We may be willing to restore it again, but only if you provide a definite assurance that you actually intend to work on it and provide a short description of what you intend to do to improve it to meet our policies and guidelines. Please advise. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Speaker Gillett Signing the Suffrage Bill.jpg

Clearly public domain as it was published in the US in 1919. The original source is International Film Service. -Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari:  Done. The reason for deletion was lack of source information, so if you add the source all should be well. Pinging Explicit, the deleting admin, as I am not sure how much detail of the source is required. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch Bank

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Beschwartz (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch Bank and our company history need to be saved as the company has been sold. We have a great story created by over 1000 people, have given back over $2 million to the community, and once the merger is closed no record will exist of the company. We are/were a nationally recognized company and won numerous awards for "Putting our employees first". As community banks disappear in the US due to regulatory forced mergers the history will be lost. The goal is to have the history and accomplishments be noted. Please reconsider, this is not advertising but our legacy.

@Beschwartz:  Not done. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not for what you want to do, because an encyclopedia only summarises existing published sources. If "no record will exist of the company" an article would not be able to meet Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy, summarised as "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." See also 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."
I am sure there are local-history websites where you could publish an account of your bank - you may get some ideas from Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fred Bendheim

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Staffer55 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Staffer55: Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!"
Check out the advice you were given here when the page was moved to the Draft space. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tommy Hittz

I, 104.35.230.218, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. There was a lot of confusion as to what sources could and could not be accepted, what information could be included, and what sources were deemed reliable and then click the "Save page" button below -104.35.230.218 (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2016 (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) 22:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah elyon sunday school

this page is it just an organisation for children so i just want the name of the organisation to be known -13:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)SegunIMichael (talk)

Note: This page was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11, indicating an page that was irredeemably promotional or blatant advertising. Note that G11 deletions are more an issue with the tone of the page as opposed to its sources or formatting. As articles deleted under G11 need to be rewritten from scratch, they will not be undeleted as-is here; try contacting the deleting administrator (JohnCD (talk · contribs)). Alternatively, you may request the page be restored as a draft or to have the contents of its last known revision emailed to you provided you have email enabled in your account's preferences. That isn't what Wikipedia is for, and we routinely block users who're only here for that reason. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 01:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anamika Mishra

I, 1.39.51.102, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 1.39.51.102 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2016 (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/Anamika Mishra, 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 Jenks24 (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) 22:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cisco ASA

I, TeeTylerToe, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gloria Joyce Lindsay Hobbs

I, Echozone, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Echozone (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anthony Sheldon

(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.) Rdewan23 (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rdewan23, this has not been deleted yet and you can edit it at the above draft name. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace and if you do not edit this, it's unlikely that this will be restored if it is deleted, given that you've made a request here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nantongis/sandbox

I, Nantongis, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Nantongis (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC) 6 months + not worked on -Nantongis (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done Nantongis, this is fairly promotional in tone and would require an almost complete re-write to fit Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines. That aside, this also appears to be something that someone came up with one day and a search for the "Jackson Maxim" brings up nothing that would establish that this topic would ever meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia cannot be used to host material that is not intended to improve Wikipedia and material that does not fit within the site's guidelines cannot be used on here. I'm sorry, but we cannot restore this. A better alternative would be to open an account with Wikia or WordPress to host material on this topic, as their guidelines on content isn't nearly as strict as Wikipedia's. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note that your username is similar to that of a school in Nantong, so I'm going to have to give you a username block as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hi Babit

I, SteveChervitzTrutane, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveChervitzTrutane: Declined pending further information. This was undeleted last June after this request, but no edits were made to improve the entry for resubmission. Articles for creation is not an indefinite hosting service for material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia's article mainspace. We may be willing to restore it again, but only if you provide a definite assurance that you actually intend to work on it and provide a short description of what you intend to do to improve it to meet our policies and guidelines. Please advise. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Norman Partridge (Painter)

I, Jepst, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jepst (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jepst: 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) 14:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Soil Geography

I, Alloquep, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Alloquep (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alloquep: 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) 17:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ico Group

I, MariannaSchiavino, 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 was waiting for someone to check the article but it seems I didn´t do the right process button below -MariannaSchiavino (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MariannaSchiavino: Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. No, you never sent it for review - that's what the green button is for, when it's ready.
The article would not be acceptable in its present form - read WP:Your first article for advice. First, it lacks references, which are required for two reasons: (a) the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, summarised as "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source", and (b) because Wikipedia's test for inclusion, known as Wikipedia:Notability looks for references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
Second, its tone is rather promotional: "high-quality technology products managed by a qualified team" etc - we call those "peacock terms". It reads like the company telling the world about itself in a business listing directory. An encyclopedia article should be an outside view. See User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard for background. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Shapers

Hello,

Could you please restaure the page of the French punk rock band The Shapers?

The band has toured USA, Canada, China, Thailand, France and above all Indonesia where they performed on many TV Shows. The band has shared the stage with NOFX, Pennywise (band), Face to Face (punk band), Superman Is Dead, Pee Wee Gaskins (band), and many other bands such as the Japanese girls band Scandal (Japanese band) at Le Bataclan in Paris.

Please find below some articles about The Shapers:

In English:

In French :

In German :

In Indonesian :

Thank you.

Best regards. -Poppunkskate (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Poppunkskate: 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/The Shapers, 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 Juliancolton (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) 09:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Lee Carr

She is a notable documentary filmmaker. Not quite sure why it was speedy deleted, but the admin said to take it here if I had an issue. So I did. -~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki::  Done. The article was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 WP:CSD#G7 because the author blanked the page (pinging Starsxxx for comment). I have restored it, but you should improve it if you can, because I do not think it would withstand a notability challenge - the only achievement referenced is a single documentary film, which is not enough for WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:William Harvey-Kelly

I, Myleskelly, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Myleskelly (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Myleskelly: 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) 10:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anthony Donnelly

I, PereckDDD, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. PereckDDD (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PereckDDD:  Not done - this was hopelessly promotional ("focuses on providing exceptional care... dedicated to providing the highest level of service... " etc), and if restored would be speedily deleted as an advertisement. It needs a complete rewrite, but before putting much effort into it, you should read WP:Your first article, WP:Notability (people) and WP:Notability (summary) - Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, it is an encyclopedia and so is quite selective about subjects for articles. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:NPS Logo.svg

This image was deleted for this reason: 01:51, 20 April 2011 Orphaned image deletion bot (talk | contribs) deleted page File:NPS Logo.svg (Unused non-free media (bot)). I would like to request this page be restored so I can license them under a free license or in the public domain, because I believe the NPS is simple and only consists of text, simple geometric shape (circle), and ellipsis. However, I'm not sure that the NPS may be possibly complex enough to have a copyright or not, but maybe I will license it under a free license, instead of in the public domain. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. XPanettaa (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@XPanettaa: This is an organization logo, more than text and shapes, it has an actual design to it. As such cannot possibly be public domain or released under a free license, unless you are a representative of NPS who is authorized to release it. The licensing and fair-use rationale for the image was valid; the only reason it was deleted was because it was not used in any article. If you can specify which article will have that image, I can restore it, and no further work will be needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amatulic: Yeah, but this logo was deleted back in April 2011 because it was not used in any article, but I think you can restore it, because I am a representative of the NPS who is authorized to release it. I believe this organization logo might be simple enough as it consists of text and ellipsis. However, I want to see how simple enough this organization logo is. XPanettaa (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@XPanettaa: We cannot rely on the word of an arbitrary user account that it represents an organization and is authorized to release copyrighted material. You need to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Be sure to send the email from an address that is verifiably from your organization, rather than from a free email service.
I also recommend that you disclose your conflict of interest publicly on your user page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Translation Pedagogy

OTRS ticket received -Darwinius (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Darwinius:  Done, though as usual when something written for other purposes is copied here, it will require work to make an acceptable article that is not original research.
As the link you provided goes only to the OTRS login page, and I do not have OTRS access, will you add the appropriate release templates? JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnCD:  Done, can you please check the draft talk page to ensure everything is Ok? I'll also forward your advice to the permission sender.--Darwinius (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MaheshDarji

This is not about Personal biography.This article is made for giving inspiration to the youth and this is required for today's Generation,So Please Consider This Article as Helpful and Refund This Article
Thank You -MaheshDarji (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done and will not be done. (User has been blocked for persistent self-promotion). JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jubin nautiyal at promotions.jpg

OTRS ticket received -Darwinius (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Darwinius: I added a note to the OTRS ticket. Some investigation needs to be done concerning the actual author of the photo. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lant

I don't agree that there's no place in wikipedia for this article, one now must visit several pages to collect all the interesting facts regarding this -koszik (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Koszik: Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Riventree (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) 16:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs in wiktionary not wikipedia. It's a term that describes a transition product that is discussed (well) in the directly related pages on either end of the transition: (urine, ammonia, saltpeter, phosphorus, urea, silver fulminate, etc.). Don't hit me with the WP:IDONTLIKEIT stick. The differences between a term definition (for wiktionary) and a topic (for wikipedia) are subtle for some people, but this is manifestly the former, and there is little that might be legitimately added here that isn't better inserted under the (more) relevant extant pages. (Vis, very few backlinks, even from the historical process pages)
I counterpropose it be moved to wiktionary, and then filled out as the undelete-proposer likes. Would that suit everyone?
Riventree (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree. There is already wikt:lant, which is about the word; this is about the thing. JohnCD (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Italian school of differential geometry

I, Ema--or, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ema--or (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: more precisely, I would like to userfy said page. Hope we can come to a solution. Ema--or (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ema--or: Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request to a new location at Draft:Italian school of differential geometry (better than userfying, you can work on it there, but it's also more easily accessible for anyone else). 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) 16:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 21 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk

I, 2601:742:4000:B60:DD39:3CB2:9ED4:86B3, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 2601:742:4000:B60:DD39:3CB2:9ED4:86B3 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please give the name of the page you want undeleted. JohnCD (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Folklife Collection

OTRS ticket received -Darwinius (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tosin Adarabioyo

Please restore the editing history prior to this article being deleted by PROD. Player now notable. Thanks JMHamo (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Draft:Holly Van Hart

User:Sky arth sky 23:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sky arth: 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) 17:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Goddess Garden Organics

I, TraciThomas, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. TraciThomas (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Parent Aide

137.118.104.172 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!"
Read WP:Your first article for advice, and note the need for references that verify what the article says. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Open Championship

My reasoning is I work for the Illinois PGA as the senior director of operations and public relations, who owes and administers the Illinois Open Championship, and has since the early 1920's, and I uploaded the image of the Illinois Open trophy that we own and we photographed, thus we own the rights, making it fair use for us to do what we please with. Thanks! -Beeonenine (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, nothing to do. The article isn't deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft talk:Sandbox

Like Draft:Sandbox, the talk page was also deleted by mistake. -96.41.0.15 (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayna Tida

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Jennifer2427 (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC) I would like to retrieve the contents written for this article as it was deleted. Have been advised by Cahk (talk) to do so here[reply]

Kind Regards Jennifer

Draft:Derek ong sieng hui

I, Dreamity6, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sincerely Yours 14:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dreamity6:  Not done - that was not an encyclopedia article about a person, it was an advertisement for his restaurant and his "(world famed) but (locally) designed (wood-fired) pizza... Balinese & water features themed garden venue... " etc. Nothing like that is allowed in Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Room for More

Would like to updates article and provide additional references -Ncandr (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncandr: 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) 20:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Journal

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -ArtistAeron (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC) There is currently no definition for this term, used by journaling folks, anywhere on Wiki... I was trying to start a page to explain what it is. I am NOT trying to promote or sell anything! Not sure how you came up with that... I don't have time to read the 800 page user manual; I used to write for wiki many years ago. Nowhere in my article, which I was planning on improving, was there anything being promoted![reply]

@ArtistAeron: checkY restored to draft. I agree that this is not promotional, but it is not ready for the encyclopedia so I have restored it to Draft:Omni journal where you can work on it. I am not too optimistic about its prospects, because an encyclopedia is not a place to introduce new expressions - Wikipedia is quite resistant to neologisms (see WP:NEO) and an article would require references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", i.e. that that this term is being used and discussed, independently of you. The only reference in your page is a deadlink; a quick Google search found only your Youtube video, several sites selling this kind of notebook (which may be why your article was thought to be promotion), and some journals called Omni.
So, if "Omnijournal" in your sense is a concept being widely used and discussed, please add to the draft references to show that, and click the "Submit" button when you are ready. Read WP:Your first article for advice. But if it is your new idea then, sorry, but Wikipedia is not here to help you spread the word. JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you, I will work on it..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistAeron (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tenet (ensemble)

I, 124.171.142.179, 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 had been working on this page over the summer; however, I had then travelled to Australia to start schooling and became too preoccupied to work on the article. I would like to continue editing it and hopefully get it approved. -124.171.142.179 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2016 (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) 22:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dada Nada

Article was deleted by prod (I was the tagger) and subsequently recreated as a redirect. Article creator is contesting the prod on my talk page. I think the redirect is the obvious best resolution, but I'm willing to let it be restored so I take it to AfD. ---Finngall talk 23:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Finngall. Done. Upon a quick glance, maybe there's some content that can be merged from it into Robert Ozn (if sourced), and maybe that page should have a dedicated section about the act (if it doesn't already), but it doesn't appear there should be separate articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jompson Brothers

I, Danielclower, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Danielclower (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Danielclower:  Done as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jompson Brothers was SOFTDELETE, the article has been restored on request. You are encouraged to improve the article to address the reasons for its nomination at AfD. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fbot/Blacklist2

Could someone copy-paste the contents of this page to my userspace at User:Fastily/Sandbox? This is one of my old bot configuration pages that I'd like to apply to my current bot. Thanks, -FASTILY 10:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily:  Done JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -FASTILY 11:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaybee319/sandbox

I, Jaybee319, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jaybee319 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaybee319/sandbox

Trying to locate documentation took longer than anticipated -Jaybee319 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=706539573"