Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 193.198.44.68 (talk) at 19:11, 17 August 2017 (→Denis Periša: 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
    "WP:RFU" redirects here. For requests for unblock, see Category:Requests for unblock. For requests for unprotection, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection § Current requests for reduction in protection level.

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

    This page is only for requesting undeletion of 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. Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 or G11 be undeleted here.

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

    Instructions for special cases
    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

    Stanislovas Tomas

    The Isle of Sark is 0 % tax jurisdiction recognised by the UN as an independent country for the purposes of tax and company law. Stanislovas Tomas is a leader of political opposition in Sark, founder of Sark Company Registry, organiser of the first referendum on the island. There are 17 articles about him in the Sark Newspaper, BBC and Guernsey Press. The issue is very important for tge economy of Sark. —Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You should talk to the deleting admin User:Renata3 about this, as it was a speedy deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid that the admin has deleted the article about the politician because of admin's personal political opinion. Is there any procedure when the admin refuses to undelete for his personal political bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceknowledge88 (talk • contribs)

    I see you have added a talk page request. Renata3 has not rejected your request. There is no need to fear anything. Renata3 is not very active, and so may take a week to do anything about your message. We expect admin's to be independent of their personal opinion and to follow the policy. So just wait for a response first. If there is no response after a week then come back here. Depending on a negative response from the admin there are other avenues of appeal too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I would encourage you to back off on the claims of political bias. I do not see anything immediately obvious that suggests personal bias by the deleting admin. I do see you've left a message at User talk:Renata3; I also see that the user is semi-retired and not frequently active. I'd say to wait a week, and if there's no response, you can raise the issue at WP:DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I never heard of the subject until just now. I can see a case being made for notability of the Sark Company Registry, but not Stanislovas Tomas; and as we all know, notability is not inherited and cannot be conferred by association with something notable. There's nothing in that article that confers notability to him; in fact most of the sources cited appear to be self-published, and those that aren't don't provide significant coverage of the subject. I'd probably have deleted it as A7 myself, or at the very least proposed it at AFD, where it would likely be deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Anachronist, the only self-referring source is the website of the Sark Company Registry. Other sources are independent: the Sark Newspaper, BBC (2 articles), and Guernsey Press. The issue is wider than the Sark Company Registry. It also involves the first referendum is the history of the island, and the activity of the opposition party Sark First. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceknowledge88 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC) As you might see, in most articles on the Sark Company Registry end with personal perspective on Stanislovas Tomas. The Sark Newspaper is the only weekly newspaper on the island. Thus, the subject fully qualifies under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Even more so, given the fact that Sark is at the same international level as the US in the field of company law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceknowledge88 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Yes, you might not to hear about this, but you do not live in the Channel islands. The story is of interest for people who run their businesses via offshore jurisdictions like Sark.[reply] 

    Scienceknowledge88 (talk •  —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the Sark newspaper, which is not independent. Or at least, it constitutes only local coverage. And you'll have a hard time convincing me that a tiny fiefdom is "the same international level as the US in the field of company law." No, it isn't, it has zero company laws. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Anachronist, the Sark Newspaper is independent from Stanislovas Tomas. In their very first articles they are very critical about his activity. This newspaper is independent from the Government of Sark. Why do you think that if the newspaper supports opposition, and not the Government, it looses its independence? This is your political point of view. As I mentioned in the article and supported with a source, the UN gave Sark country code 680. Yes, there is no company law, because the Government of Sark refuses to legislate it - however whatever you think about it, this your political opinion. This should not be admin's motivation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceknowledge88 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability of each article subject is judged independently. You might have a claim that Sark Company Register is notable based on BBC coverage. However, notability is not attributed and not inherited. I.e. you need to show that Stanislovas Tomas was a subject of significant, independent, reliable press coverage. Significant does not mean "mentioned once as founder of this" "mentioned once as a lawyer of that", but where he, his life and his work are discussed in detail. Independent means not published by him, his friends, his companies, or coworkers. Reliable means accurate and non-biased. Sark Newspaper, spouting about vendettas, feudal lords, and conspiracies, is a long shot from a reliable source. In Lithuanian press, Stanislovas Tomas earned a few mentions here and there as a lawyer of Rolandas Paksas, but the most extensive article by 15 min [1] shows that most of biographical claims by Tomas do not stand up against scrutiny. Thus using independent reliable press coverage, you could only come up with five or six biographical sentences. That is not enough to establish notability. Renata (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Renata3, there are over 100 articles and TV shows in the Lithuanian language about the political activity of Stanislovas Tomas, and you have picked up the defamatory one from 15min, which is a subject to a litigation. It proves that you are a Lithuanian, and you are politically biased. The subject of this article is his political activity on the Isle of Sark (company registry, referendum, leadership in the Sark First political party, and as a millionaire he is one of the largest job providers on the island). As you should know Sark is not a part of the UK, neither of the States of Guernsey. The People of Sark does not elect the Parliament of the UK or Guernsey. Sark has its own Parliament, Government, and laws. Sark is a micronation, and its only press is the Sark Newspaper. This newspaper is not controlled by Stanislovas Tomas, and it is fully independent. Moreover, there are critical articles about Stanislovas Tomas in the Sark Newspaper. Why do you think that if the newspaper criticises the Government, it is unreliable? Officially Sark is the last feudal State in Europe, since feudalism was abolished only in 2008, and from 2013 there are no elections in Sark. When you call the Sark Newspaper "unreliable", you express your political vision, and this is a breach of the neutrality policy. The Sark Newspaper is issued weekly since 2008. There are also articles about him in Guernsey Press, but they are for a fee. Thus, I suggest that you abandon your Lithuanian hostility against Lithuanian political opposition, as well as understand that any newspaper has the right to criticise the Government, and it does not make the newspaper unreliable. The article is on Sark politics, and it shall be undeleted.Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No, your responce, if anything, proves *you* are biased. I see a lot above that is puffery and superlatives, but nothing that actually rebuts the claims Renata3 or Anachronist have made. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My only political agenda is to make Wikipedia a reliable source. I did not pick the 15 min article. It is the first Google search result for Stanislovas Tomas. Renata (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Jéské Couriano, it seems you accept as "reliable" only the information from the Government of Sark, which is also your political position, and goes against Wikipedia policy. The issue of writing on political opposition is always political. Yes, the Sark Newspaper has a particular political agenda of opposing the Sark Government. However, calling the newspaper "unreliable" for this reason is a political opinion. Renata3, we talk about his activity in Sark, not in Lithuania. And his contribution in Sark is historic for the island. Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I speak without looking at the article or the sources in question, and am only going off whatever you are saying and providing - and while you talk a good argument, you haven't provided any sources as proof to back up your statements or rebut anyone else's. I also have no dog in this fight politically and in fact do not edit about politics if I can help it. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 23:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you read Wikipedia articles on Sark politics, you get an impression that the Sark Government is always right, and the opposition (including Lords Barclay) are always wrong. Lords Barclay are also wrong because they are billionaires, Stanislovas Tomas is a bad man, because he is a millionaire. I am a resident of Sark. There is no neutral attitude towards Stanislovas Tomas on the island. So if my article is partial, then correct the facts I describe. However, the attitude of the admins is to block whatever information on any political opposition in Sark, because they are supported by the opposition newspaper. Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We are talking about a biographical article and its place on Wikipedia, not about politics of Sark. That means that the article should cover all notable events in a person's life between birth and death, and even after death ("legacy"). So his activities in Lithuania and elsewhere are very relevant. I hope you realize that if Wikipedia had an article about him, its major source would be the article in 15 min which calls him a fake. That article is truly reliable, independent, significant coverage of him. Wikipedia would have to include the doubts on his educational credentials, use of "lawyer" title, etc. Given the multitude of issues with WP:BPL and general lack of notability, I deleted the article. If you want to concentrate on Sark-only issues, feel free to improve Sark article. Renata (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Renata, in fact, the very fact that there are many biographies of Stanislovas Tomas online in the Lithuanian language, already shows that he is notable. On one hand, your advantage is that you are Lithuanian and can get extra data. On the other hand, it makes you partial and biased. In fact, Guernsey Press also raised a question about his qualification (their article is online for a fee), and the Sark Newspaper replied to Guernsey Press in publishing copies of his PhD and professorship diplomas, as well as links to the places confirming his other qualifications. Thus, both in Lithuania, and in Guernsey there were attacks against his qualifications, and both attacks were dismissed as defamation. If I am not wrong, the article in the Lithuanian language is this http://komentaras.lt/advokatas-stanislovas-tomas-ne-apsisaukelis/ However, the very fact that there are many biographies online, some of which are defamatory, proves the notability. I have access to Guernsey Press, BBC and Sark Newspaper. If there is something useful in Lithuanian, you may add it. You are adult, Renata3, and should understand that there is always contradictory information on politicians. Such things as being a PhD holder, professor, and lawyer are easily verifiable online, however some journalists like Guernsey Press and 15min do not do this for political reasons. This issue is perfectly covered by the Sark Newspaper, and he is not the owner of this newspaper. Yes, this is a newspaper supporting opposition, and this does not make it unreliable. The Government of Sark is unreliable. Even Putin organises elections, contrary to the Government of Sark. Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC) By the way, Renata3, I wrote only once that he was the LAWYER of Paksas, and I made a link to the United Nations document. Whom shall we believe, the United Nations website, or unknown, politically biased and defamatory Lithuanian language website as you propose? Now I've googled, and I see that his status as a lawyer is also present on the website of Council of Europe, and the Ministry of Justice of Russia. As a Lithuanian, you must hate Russians, mustn't you?:))) By the way, the Russian Abramovich family had a house on the Isle of Sark, because it allowed them to pay 0 % tax, and everyone loved them on our island:)) Right now, they pay 0 % tax on other islands. Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The procedure here on this page is to decline restoration requests if an article was deleted in accordance with WP:A7 and refer the requester to the deleting administrator. That has been done. The deleting administrator has declined to restore the article, and has explained why, in detail. There is really nothing more to be said in the context of this undeletion request page. Your next step, if you feel the deletion decision was improper, is to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. As far as this request goes, the process has been followed, and further discussion is off-topic here.
    Therefore, this request is no Declined. You may request that the deletion decision be reviewed, and if the deletion decision isn't overturned, then your next option is to start over in draft space writing a new article, that addresses the concerns described above. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    James R. Fitzgerald

    Speedy deletion bot mindlessly detected identical text from a legal document pertaining to a case wherein the subject of the page (James R. Fitzgerald) testified as an expert witness. The text was James Fitzgerald's CV, as CVs and other information pertaining to the qualifications of expert witnesses are a matter of record. The court document cited as the source is also *not* the origin of the text in question, but rather includes it as a reference. In other words, the supposed 'source' is itself a copy-paste of the CV provided by James Fitzgerald to the court in order to establish his credentials as an expert witness, as is standard practice. In sum, the page seems to have been deleted for 'infringing' on a 'source' that was in reality just a reference to a document that is not subject to copyright in the first place. There is simply no copyright violation here because there is (a) no copyright in question, and (b) the supposed source detected by the bot *is not the source*. Furthermore, content from the CV is used with clear, verifiable permission from James R. Fitzgerald. If this article is to be deleted, I would like to know what the specific source is that is being infringed as well as how it is a copyright issue in the first place. —Jlw280 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Jlw280 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Some points:
    • I don't know of any instance where a CV is considered a public domain document.
    • While federal court rulings are considered public domain, it isn't clear to me that this applies to civil district court rulings, which is what this is.
    • Fitzgerald may have given the court permission to reproduce that document, but I see no evidence that he released it into the public domain or under an acceptable free license.
    • As such, Fitzgerald has not given the Wikimedia Foundation permission to reproduce the material.
    • The website it's hosted on claims in the footer a copyright "2017 NOLA Media Group" with a very clear notice that "The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of NOLA Media Group." Has this permission been granted to the Wikimedia Foundation?
    Sorry, while I agree with the logic of your argument, I cannot agree that deleting as a copyvio was a clear-cut error. Maybe restoring it without the CV material? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think some of these points are covered by the fact that (a) any claim to copyright ownership of Mr. Fitzgerald's CV by "NOLA Media Group" or the Civil District Court of Orleans, Louisiana would be preposterous, because (b) neither the website nor the court document is the source. The CV is not the property of that Website or the aforementioned civil court. The CV exists independent of both the court record and "NOLA Media Group". It was given to me by the subject himself as personal correspondence.
    If anything, "NOLA Media Group" is violating Mr. Fitzgerald's IP rights by reproducing his CV and making it available to the public without his permission. A website can't just claim rights to someone's CV or resume by publishing a document including it as a reference. Speedy deletion bot did its job, but what it detected in this instance is clearly not a copyright violation.
    Thanks for getting back to me on this! (Sorry for all of the edits to this. I'm new :/)
    Jlw280 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you didn't write the text yourself we would need evidence that the copyright holder has made the text available under the licence that Wikipedia uses. Otherwise we'll have to assume you are violating copyright. You said above that you have permission from the copyright holder, but I'm afraid that just saying that isn't sufficient as evidence, as you could be anybody and you haven't supplied any evidence. To use the content you would have to follow these instructions to prove you have permission. I suggest you just rewrite the article without using the copyrighted material, as it would need substantial rewriting anyway. (Wikipedia articles aren't CVs, so content copied verbatim from CVs doesn't fit very well.) Hut 8.5 06:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the feedback! I think I will just rewrite it after all, as Hut 8.5 suggested. Doing so will make it a better Wikipedia article, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlw280 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —Trm5y (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trm5y:  Not done for now. You are an employee of Lightbox. You agreed to comply with Wikimedia Terms of Use when you created your account here. You must disclose your paid editing status. Please see WP:PAID for details. Please get into compliance, then contact me or re-request here, and we can restore the article to draft space, not main space. Editors with a conflict of interest, like you have, should be using Wikipedia:Articles for creation to submit draft articles for review, not creating them directly in main article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am happy to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation

    Thanks

    Tina Trm5y (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Lexicon

    There was no advertising material present on the page at all. The page was based on a shopping centre. I didn't include any advertising at all. This is the first Wikipedia page I have made, and so would appreciate any advise on how to ensure this no longer happens. —BracknellSince85 (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @BracknellSince85: Not done – this page was deleted as a blatant advertisement under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. This does not necessarily mean a suitable article on this topic cannot be created. If it is a notable topic, e.g., multiple reliable, secondary, published sources that are entirely independent of the subject have written about it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), then a neutrally written article may be possible. This one was written like a commercial.
    More specifically, your use of unsubstantiated puffery words like "excellent" and "state of the art", and the overall presentation that reads like a company brochure, clearly indicates that the article was created for the purpose of publicity or promotion. Also, please see WP:PAID and comply with it, if you are associated with The Lexicon, you must disclose it.
    Furthermore, if you have an association with The Lexicon, you have a conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more guidance. As an editor with a conflict of interest, you shouldn't create and edit articles in the main article space directly. It is preferable for you to create the article in your sandbox or in draft space, and submit it for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation before it can be published in main space.
    Once you publicly disclose your association per WP:PAID (or if you are not receiving compensation, disclose your conflict of interest), we can restore the article to draft space for you to work on. You may contact me once you've made that disclosure. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi. Would you be able to undelete it, and I will remove words such as "excellent" and "state of the art" please?

    I also have no association with The Lexicon. I am just a local resident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BracknellSince85 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @BracknellSince85: I have restored the article to draft space. Please work on improving Draft:The Lexicon and submit it for review using the button in the gray box at the top. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Gandang Filipina

    De-merged by author please retrieve and merge here to Wowowin Thanks. —38.96.9.224 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. The merge proposal has zero discussion; in fact the author of Gandang Filipina, who requested its deletion, also requested specifically not to merge it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Micronesian Empire

    There are many references of the island empire in available online and in libraries —Chuukesenei (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. This appears to be a copyright violation of the book e-Study Guide for: Diversity amid Globalization by Lester Rowntree, according to the deleting admin's rationale. I recommend you start over from scratch. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical_Club_of_Madison

    It looks like this was PROD a few years back and accepted. The Technical Club of Madison is a nearly 100 year old organization in Madison and a number of important people in Madison's history have been members. I haven't looked at the page in a number of years but I remember coming across it when doing research on some work on city planning history, and tracking down people who were involved - the page had a list of people involved with the club. I remember it wasn't a particularly well-sourced page but maybe if we bring it back we can add some more details/citations. Thanks for considering this request. —Erik s paulson (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Erik s paulson: I restored it to draft space at Draft:Technical Club of Madison because it's a ripe candidate for WP:A7 speedy deletion if it stays in main article space in its current state. Work on improving the draft, then move it back to main space when you're done, or ask an admin for help if you can't move it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:International Union of Electrical Workers

    I, Kurt20008, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Kurt20008 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kurt20008: Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    UCD Dramsoc

    Reason for initial deletion: "article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject."

    Reason for proposed undeletion: The article is about a very active drama society, where a number of renowned performers began their careers, including Frank Kelly, Chris O'Dowd, and Dermot Morgan, to name a few. The society is nearly 100 years old and, together with Trinity College's DU Players, serves as a major talent pool for Irish theatre (something that this article did assert). The society alone is the reason why some people choose to study at UCD, and it's recruitment value for the largest university in Ireland cannot be overlooked. The significance of the subject rests in the dynamism and product of the society, which I believe more than warrants a wikipedia page. —Baldr191 (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2017 (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/UCD Dramsoc, 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 MBisanz (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. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:6d Technologies

    Romichugh (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jovian Mandagie

    I would like to request to unblock this title as I would like to re-write a new article about this person, which is valid person and a famous Fashion Designer in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. We understood maybe the previous article was wrong due to advertising and promotion, but as for this new version, we would like to re-write it in a neutral way and not biased but to write the truth about the man named Jovian Mandagie. You may google his accomplishments in his career and as proof of his existence. Thank you."Save page" button below —Jammygie6686 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In this case since you appear to be connected to the subject you should be using the WP:AFC process and start writing at Draft:Jovian Mandagie. The page was deleted 3 times already, so the chances are slim that it would be good a fourth time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Elias Andra

    Move to user space, until today, I did not see that the page was recommended for deletion, so I would like to redirect the article with history —Jax 0677 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jax 0677: Because this already went through AFD, please contact the deleting administrator Mojo Hand and ask if it's OK to userfy that article. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. I restored and moved the page to User:Jax 0677/sandbox2. Let me know if you need anything else.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kid Lunch

    Hi, wondering why this page was deleted when its a legitimate musical artist with a pending 2017 record release. Thanks. —99.254.166.21 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It was properly deleted as an unreferenced BLP. All biographies of living persons require references. And Kid Lunch doesn't seem to meet any of the inclusion criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. A "pending release" doesn't confer notability; it's what happens after a release that matters.
    However, I have restored the article to Draft:Kid Lunch so that it can be improved before moving it back to main article space.
     Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Freeze

    Could you please undelete, or move my draft space, the just-deleted Christopher Freeze article. I put a lot of work into improving the content and referencing of the original deleted version I found, and would like to continue developing it some more, as it was my first article and the guy seems to be notable. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mrg00dbar (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mrg00dbar: because the most recent deletion constituted an agreement by an administrator that your version probably wasn't different enough from the previously deleted version, I'm reluctant to override the deletion decision without a response from the deleting administrator. Please contact the deleting admin Spinningspark (talk · contribs) and ask if he's OK with restoring the article to draft space for further improvement. I can see that you did a good amount of work on it, so I think you have a good case. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I already have reached out with no response. I would be content with restoration to a draft space, and am glad you recognize the improvements. Mrg00dbar (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was only an hour before the response above. So please give them a chance! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    48 hours, and no response for the original admin. Mrg00dbar (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put it into draft space, but this probably should go back to AFD for reconsideration if it comes back to mainspace more or less as it is. SpinningSpark 22:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    List of alderpersons of Carrboro, North Carolina

    Offered factual list of elected board members for the Town of Carrboro, NC. A list of Mayor's is maintained on a separate page. Carrboro is governed by a Mayor and six Aldermen. The name is interchangeable with Council, Board, Government —198.85.222.157 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Morty_C-137/SPI-Case (2nd request)

    Deletion was inappropriate and done in a manner calculated to harass. I was CURRENTLY working on that material. —Morty C-137 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You cannot work on that type of material over the course of months. It's usually allowed only over the course of 1-2 weeks. I tried to blank it, so you had temporary access to the history, but you reverted that. I'll undelete temporarily, for a few minutes, so you can copy everything offline. But then I'm redeleting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided you the diff of an admin saying otherwise, but you'd prefer to beat me up. Now I see why admins are considered suck stuck up jerks on wikipedia. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Morty C-137: if you want this restored then I suggest you go to deletion review. This deletion is actually out of process as the given reason is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion, this kind of material should be dealt with at WP:MFD rather than through a single admin deleting the page. I think it's quite likely that the page would be deleted if sent to MFD though. Hut 8.5 19:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is covered both by WP:POLEMIC (a policy), and WP:CSD#G10 (a speedy deletion criterion that references WP:ATP, a slightly different but essentially similar policy page). I referenced the first policy in the deletion log, kind of assuming the link to G10 was clear, but if that's too lazy and if it helps in dotting the i's and crossing the t's, consider it deleted per WP:CSD#G10. We generally haven't considered short-term compilation of evidence an attack page, but they aren't allowed to linger in user space for a long time; in this case over a month, plus a week since its undeletion. From WP:ATP: "keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate". If it's going to take a long time to compile evidence, that should be done offline. Morty now has this material offline if he chooses to use it. If an admin thinks WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP doesn't apply here, they can certainly undelete (I'll say as much at ANI in a moment). Or ditto if Morty wants to take it to WP:DELREV instead. But it pretty clearly qualifies to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this material isn't appropriate in userspace, at least not in the long term, but I think it would have been better to send it to WP:MFD instead of speedily deleting it. That is what usually happens for pages alleged to have violated POLEMIC (which is a guideline, not a policy). I think that arguing that it's an attack page is a little dubious, pages such as SPIs are not considered attack pages if filed in good faith so a draft of one won't be an attack page either. Plus if it is an attack page then the timescales are irrelevant and we shouldn't have waited a month to delete it. The author has now filed an SPI using some of the information on the page, so this is now moot. Hut 8.5 21:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's covered in WP:ATP too "However, this policy is not usually meant to apply to requests for comment, requests for mediation, and similar processes". POLEMIC and ATP are basically saying very similar things, it's just one is clearly referenced in G10 and one isn't. My experience is different, I've seen pages like this speedied several times before (sometimes while an MFD is in progress), but it probably won't shock anyone that sometimes similar things are handled in different ways on WP, so I don't doubt you're right that you often see these go to MFD. If you think ATP (and therefore G10) doesn't apply, feel free to undelete, I trust your judgement. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mostly a moot point now but a lot of hurt feelings could have been avoided if Floquenbeam had so much as left a message on my talk page or a decent explanation somewhere instead of expecting me to read their mind when they blanked the page and gave no explanation at all that would make sense to anyone. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a pretty good case can be made that when in the past various editors have tried to discuss things with you your responses have ranged from aggressive to insulting. Also, you did get an explanation. It was posted in your recent ANI case.
    Why do you feel that this material must be where other editors can read it? When I gather evidence, I keep it in a text file on my computer. If I need to work on formatting, I paste it to my sandbox, edit it until it looks right, then save it to my text file and leave the sandbox without saving. Is there any reason why you cannot do the same? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Go away. You know you only posted that garbage to harass me. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?"[2] --Monty Python and the Holy Grail
    If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Floquenbeam: @Guy Macon: The proper place for this page is as one of the many sub-pages of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. It needs to be trimmed significantly to be in line with the guidelines described on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse (specifically be careful not to include too much evidence), but in my opinion, that's where it belongs, not user space. Any objection to restoring it to a sub-page there? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. The contents of this page have now been copied to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cjhard, so it no longer needs to be restored. From what I understand at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cjhard, no one has definitively shown that this editor is linked to an LTA. If it is eventually proven (I really have no idea whether it will be or not), then the SPI would probably stand on its own, but if it is standard procedure to save this as an LTA subpage after the SPI closes (I don't think it is, but I could be wrong), then I wouldn't object. But that would probably be an SPI clerk who does it, not you or me. And anyway, then the material would probably be copied over from the SPI. There are other possible actions (f.ex if Cjhard is not an LTA, maybe some of this info could be added to an LTA page about the LTAs who are pestering Morty, scrubbed of Cjhard's name), but we should wait for the SPI to conclude before trying to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have no objections to that, but would advise waiting until the open SPI case closes. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    How has User:Morty C-137 created so much drama and gathered so much evidence in 4 months? This isn't a problem that resolves itself with a deleted page nor is it a problem typically seen with brand new users. --DHeyward (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Indigo Records

    I, Johnwellsking, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Johnwellsking (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Johnwellsking: Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sebastien Gavillet

    The page was deleted due to creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban G5. I'm a wine author willing to maintain the page and add to it. —Rgbboy (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Respelled/doc

    Looks like when {{Respelled}} was merged to {{Respell}}, some of the content of Template:Respelled/doc was merged to Template:Respell/doc, but the former was subsequently deleted. Hence now the latter fails to attribute history. This needs to be fixed by restoring the former. —Nardog (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There are no revisions to restore, as it was moved :
    07:02, 22 December 2008‎ Kwamikagami . . (3,622 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Template:Respelled/doc to Template:Respell/doc: templates merged. move to shorter name)
    so it is already in the history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:FlightTime/Alternate talk page

    The direction I was going to go, isn't going to work, so I'll need that page back. Thank you very much —- FlightTime (open channel) 20:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I moved the page back. I don't know if there is any useful history that remains deleted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to restore, there is only a redirect and speedy delete nomination. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:8DE8STeamBracket

    The template was deleted in October 2016 due to its lack of use in articles. I'd like to see if the template is the same one that Liquidpedia is using for their bracket on The International 2017, and if it is, I'd like to use this one, as the one currently used here is a mashup of various tournament brackets that isn't clear to follow. —~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating Draft:Ralph R. Wright

    I have gathered more information and resources to prepare article for second submission. —Mrdougwright (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sony Entertainment

    I, King Shadeed, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. King Shadeed (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:The Matrix Model

    I, J15marti, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. J15marti (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Deweni Inima

    It was still being developed then as the internet connection was poor soif i could restore i will make it notable soon with citations etc.... Deweni Inima (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC) —Deweni Inima (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    rajesh bjym

    i have reference —Govoorsaiteja (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack Appleby

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —ThatGuyIsAlwaysRight (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating Draft:Wild Life Festival

    (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.) LukeOcana (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 17:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't delete Mahendra Kumar (magistrate)

    Mahendra Kumar born 05 May 1987), is an IAS Officer of 2011 batch borne to the Bihar cadre. He is 32th District Magistrate of Siwan Bihar (India). Please don't delete this page if you verify see this document >> http://www.siwan.bih.nic.in/GAD.asp —— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giteshs78 (talk • contribs) date (UTC) 17:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Current article (as of this writing) is the third creation under this title of an article previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DM Mahendra Kumar. --Finngall talk 18:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saniya_Zia_Ul_Haq

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —Kashan Khan Sherazi (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This page has not been deleted (yet). You can prevent it from being deleted by adding a reliable source to the article to confirm some of the content. Hut 8.5 20:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Mahaguru

    To match the recent draftification of Mahaguru, the talk page should be undeleted and moved to Draft talk:Mahaguru. —GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa

    Page vandalised by user:Thomas.W —Oficinalis (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    International Overdose Awareness Day

    I, 103.253.92.96, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 103.253.92.96 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done This article was not deleted under G13. It was deleted as an advertisement and copyvio. It will not be restored because of this. I suggest starting from scratch. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Liquid phase electron microscopy

    I did not find time previoulsy to finish my text but would like to finish it now and then post the entry —Nielsdejonge1 (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nielsdejonge1: no Declined. That wasn't a draft article, that was just a collection of test edits more suitable for your sandbox. You are welcome to start over. Or I could restore it to your sandbox. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    rich riley

    He is CEO of a popular app (Shazam) used by hundreds of millions of people around the world, and executive producer of a popular TV show (Beat Shazam), among many other credits; he also had a Wiki page for many years without incident —Nikolaievans (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done, nothing to undelete. Rich Riley is currently a redirect, and if you go to that redirect, all the history is there. It was converted to a redirect due to WP:BLP1E, and a subsequent request by an editor with a conflict of interest, archived at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016_December 5, was also denied. You also seem to be a single purpose account; what is your association with Mr. Riley? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your reply. I'm actually not at all associated with him, but I am a reporter who was doing some research on him and was shocked to see that he didn't have a Wiki page when I checked here for the basics. I've seen it and referred to it several times in the past so I was surprised to not see it here and hoping to use it as a baseline for info on him. I also actually think he is not just notable for a single event, especially with the Beat Shazam show and other things in the past. To be honest, I signed up just to request undeletion and got through the process, as I thought it had been deleted. It would be a very helpful page for me and other reporters or...really any tech industry people. Is there any way to simply restore it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaievans (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Every edit ever made to that article is available in the history of the redirect page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rich_Riley&action=history
    Keeping in mind that notability is not inherited (that is, just because he produced a notable TV show doesn't mean he is notable too), feel free to pick one of those versions and expand on it if you feel that he's notable for more than just one thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Gurpreet garry walia

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —42.111.52.102 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC) I wish to work on the article and will surely improve it. The article has many references .[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/Garry Walia, 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 RHaworth (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. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Prakash Neupane

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —Hermanonline (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2017 (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/Prakash Neupane (2nd nomination), 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 Northamerica1000 (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. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jordan Smith (outfielder)

    Closing admin, @SoWhy: stated that WP:REFUND applies. I think that this subject passes GNG. I don't think these sources were present in the article at the time it was deleted. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] —WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, article restored, along with its talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits were made in response to the reasons cited for deletion. —Mboxcar (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2017 (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/NAVEX Global, 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 Sarahj2107 (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. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Rentalcars.com

    I would like to edit this page and submit it for publication into wikipedia please —KatFishy (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Not done @KatFishy: Article has never been deleted. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:BPC-157

    I, Erik.Bjareholt, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:International Documentary Film Festival CRONOGRAF

    I, Nerd1a4i, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Nerd1a4i (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the colored button in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft for review!" It's going to need some references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexicable

    I am requesting the restoration of this article since it discussed a public transport system in Mexico City´s metropolitan area. This was a page I was working on, and it is important that Wikipedia displays the information about this system, because people might be interested in its history, characteristics and other information in order to use this transport, specially because it was in spanish, which is the language of people that most likely would be interested in this page. According to user "Alelapenya" it was a "vanity page", which I must disagree (this user's profile seems to have a history of previous disputes regarding the elimination of other pages). I don't know the user reasons to consider it under this category, perhaps it was because it metioned the politicians that attended the inaugural event of the "Mexicable" (something I did not add). If this was the case, I think deleting the whole article was an exaggeration, since this user could have deleted just the sentence referring to the politicians (something I would be fine with).The dismissal of other valuable contributions in that page because of a small mistake seems outrageous to me. If the "vanity page" accusation was not because of the politicians, then its removal is even more absurd. I hope this is resolved soon and that, whatever the answer is, it turns out to be the best for the Wikipedia community. —Aninonimo (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Please note that 1) Mexicable is not deleted on English Wikipedia, 2) Spanish Wikipedia's standards for articles may be different from those on English Wikipedia, and 3) English Wikipedia administrators have no power over what happens on other wikis. --Finngall talk 17:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done. This is the English Wikipedia, completely independent of the Spanish Wikipedia. You'd have to go there and find a similar place to make this request. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Said "similar place" is linked to in the languages sidebar near the top of the page: [10]. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Lenny_Simpson

    I believe this was deleted because I did not edit it for 6 months. I had to put this on a back burner due to health and pressing matters but am committed to finishing it. Please restore. —Janetgaino (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Suman Kumar Kasturi

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —117.195.207.151 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2017 (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/Suman Kumar Kasturi, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    BENLAV Flight Systems

    This is a new and fast growing startup among Iranian aviation and engineering students, knowledge based, educational, eLearning, avionics workshop and this article is an info, so please do NOT delete and help for improvement and say reasons. thanks —Amir daryaei (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ghani Jafar Malik

    I, Masrorhausen, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. MasrorHausen 07:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

    Draft:Balboa Scale

    I, Bearyake, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Bearyake (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Katharine Gorka

    insufficient review by editors that were not previously involved with prior deletion and articles created by creator. New news worthy events have occurred since deletion of previous —Wikipietime (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wikipietime: It looks like Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs) has already userfied the article to User:Argento Surfer/Katharine Gorka. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Houndstooth (record label)

    Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —Butterworthrj (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the reasons cited for deletion of the page was that the label was using the page as a promotional vehicle, it merely listed it's back catalogue as many record label pages do. If this is an unacceptable format it should have been requested that it was changed.

    Houndstooth is a record label from fabric Records, the label has a Wikipedia discography page and the club has also has it's own Wikipedia page. A number of the artists on the label have their own Wikipedia pages.

    Houndstooth has been in existence for 4 1/2 years, releasing some notable albums in the electronic music world. The sites discussed that it had been given credit by include Resident Advisor the worlds's leading electronic music site. Being voted label of the month is a very high honour, that only 12 labels a year receive, given the hundreds of labels in existence this should be given far more credit than was disputed. Other sites including Tiny Mix Tapes, Dazed, Dummy and XLR8R are all significant sites in the music industry.

    Discogs page https://www.discogs.com/label/509824-Houndstooth

    Please reinstate this page.

    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/Houndstooth (record label), 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (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. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Mónica García

    I, Jefferson.crain, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jefferson.crain (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Elíz Camacho

    (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.) R3adyWrit3s (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The draft isn't deleted... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Golden sun cast.png

    Please restore this file as I have restored the page which it was formerly. (It is a non-free file.) —Steel1943 (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, but are you sure it's appropriate? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    File:GS-TLA Cast.jpg

    Please restore this file as I have restored the page which it was formerly. (It is a non-free file.) —Steel1943 (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, but are you sure it is appropriate? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Jonno Davies

    (no text provided) Rob Bolton (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Denis Periša

    Denis Perisa plays major role in Croatian cyber culture back from 90's . Its really a shame to delete his page. Maybe it had lot of intern links related to his country but still, he made impact on most Slavic countries and it's not right to delete his page -ivan —193.198.44.68 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&oldid=795984419"