Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 121

Archive 115

←

Archive 119

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

→

Archive 125

LeafFilter Gutter Protection

• LeafFilter Gutter Protection · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This page was in the process of being edited and there was a pending discussion regarding deletion. This page is a company profile for a firm that has nationwide locations, has one numerous awards and accolades, is a large employer, and has hundreds of thousands of customers nationwide. There are many small-mid size businesses on Wikipedia that have company profile pages. If this page was deleted for being "promotional" then I would suggest editing to remove questionable content. -173.189.242.180 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeafFilter Gutter Protection designated this as a "soft delete", which allows for the possibility of undeletion by request. However, I am hesitant to return it to main article space in its last state, which was blatantly promotional and likely not salvageable. If you have a user account, I can userfy it to your user space for further development before you move it back to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Can the article be moved to this account, User:Gregbanig, for editing and revisions? — Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done to User:Gregbanig/LeafFilter Gutter Protection. Please check with the deleting administrator, user The Bushranger (talk) before returning it to the mainspace. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Northwest Pipe Company

• Northwest Pipe Company · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This page is included in a student education project, and the course page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uttsinghuajoint2014/Course_Page .Since it was deleted for Expired PROD, I sincerely request for undeletion, so I can improve it. Thanks a lot! -Kekoukele (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user DGG (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. Articles from student projects still need to meet the encyclopedia's standards; if you wish I can "userfy" this - move it to a subpage in the author's user space where it can be worked on. See WP:CORP for the relevant notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Schellhorn

• Matthew Schellhorn · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Messiaen recording included World Premiere recording, which indicates notability -HFJ (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This was deleted almost 2 years ago. Regardless of notability (which I don't believe it fits yet) and WP:COPYRIGHT (which makes in impossible to undelete), as a WP:BLP it was required to have multiple reliable sources - it had zero. DP 01:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• CommentSuch sources are apparently available; the article refers to reviews in major publications, though it does not give the specifics beyond giving the name of the journal. Reviews of that sort are the ideal source for proving notability of a performer. However, the article does read like copyvio to me also--it's the sort of artist bio that is typically found on a program note. If you rewrite in your own words and cite the sources exactly there should be no problem with an article. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC) ,

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shane Stay

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shane Stay · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Novemberflower, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Novemberflower (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

&Comment I notice in the AfC that the awards are utterly trivial, and the one book is not even in worldcat. If more substantial information is not soon added, I shall probably nominating the page f at WP:MFD as having no conceivable chance of being an acceptable subject for a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarun Vyas

• Tarun Vyas · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

i am unable to understand why my page deleted, i am genuine person and bollywood actor, kindly help me out to sort out this matter, if there is some paid system than do let me know, my website is also there www.tarunvyas.com and you can check me on shuddh desi romance movie page on wikipedia itself. -117.207.141.71 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Paid editing is frowned upon; don't even think about trying that route. The article was deleted because you created it about yourself, for publicity purposes. Wikipedia is not to be used for publicity. See also Wikipedia:Autobiographies. Do not write about yourself on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeenyx Software

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeenyx Software · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Blesuer (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.. Check out WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:Notability (summary). JohnCD (talk)

SubmitINme

• SubmitINme · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Hi,

I'm Neha and am here to request for a copy of my page @ wiki 'SubmitINme' which has been deleted due to some reasons. I'd like to create a new page for the same by abiding the wiki guidelines. Please send me a copy. My username is : Genothampi

Thanks, -Genothampi (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I have emailed you a copy of the text. As this article was deleted after a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/SubmitINme, you should not simply post a new version. Make a draft in your user space by clicking on Help:Userspace draft and filling in the title. Read WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:Notability (summary). When it is ready, show the draft to user Secret (talk), the administrator who closed the deletion discussion. If he agrees that you have overcome the reasons for deletion, he can give you permission to post the article; if not, you may appeal at WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hirsi Hapacha

Kindly do not delete this article

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hirsi Hapacha · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

many people are searching for this persons biography so deleting it will give many a head ache.Kindly save it from deletion -41.79.230.130 (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done This draft article was extremely promotional, fawning over the subject and proclaiming how wonderful he is. It was thus a page that if not deleted as abandoned, would properly have been deleted as blatant advertising.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rotstein Sources Version E3

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rotstein Sources Version E3 · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Bella3b65, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Bella3b65 (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done. @Bella3b65: Hi Bella. I'm a bit confused by your edits. Can you explain your reason for creating 13 different versions of the same draft article? One topic needs and should have only one article and the same is true for draft articles. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nancy-Gay Rotstein still exists. The other twelve drafts you created should stay deleted. If the issue is that some deleted version has content that is different from the existing version then maybe we could retrieve for you some of that language but looking at the existing draft and the deleted draft that is the subject of your request, they look word-for-word identical.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I just found a 14th version and have deleted that as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dean M. Brenner

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dean M. Brenner · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, SlatersGarage, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. SlatersGarage (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done. This draft article was extremely promotional, being essentially half-resume, half-panegyric, singing the subject's praises. It was thus a page that if not deleted as abandoned, would properly have been deleted as blatant advertising. It also appears to have been a blatant copyright violation of various preexisting material such as this. While at times material can be copied the other way around (from Wikipedia), here every phrases in the draft seems to turn up a few different pages showing marketing going on. That is not bad in and of itself, but not for material we are going to use in a neutrally worded encyclopedia article backed up by reliable sources. Note that even if this material was suited for an article, and you own its copyright, it would need to be released by a verifiable method under a free copyright license compatible with the licenses our content is licensed under.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yung_Lean

• Yung Lean · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

He has over 41,000 facebook likes, over 41,000 youtube subscribers, over 35,000 twitter followers, over 34,000 soundcloud followers, he's in the iTunes music store and on spotify -Clinton Baptiste (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. None of those metrics you list prove notability. Popularity does not correlate to notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that none of the things Clinton Baptiste mentions are valid measures of notability for an encyclopedia. Try again when this person meets at least one of the criteria spelled out in WP:MUSICBIO. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that King Crimson have less than 49,000 likes on facebook and Yung Lean will most likely overtake them in 2014.

Yung Lean is easily the most famous Nordic rapper ever even though he's still a teenager.

He had the 7th best bootleg release of 2013 according to Rate Your Music the biggest user review music website in the world: http://rateyourmusic.com/customchart?page=1&chart_type=top&type=unauth&year=2013&genre_include=1&include_child_genres=1&genres=&include_child_genres_chk=1&include=both&include_archival=t&include_live=t&origin_countries=&limit=none&countries=

He's had multiple write-ups by Vice (magazine), the website of one of the biggest cultural magazines in the world, with a monthly circulation of 900,000: http://noisey.vice.com/en_se/blog/meet-yung-lean-doer-the-tee-swedish-white-rapper-whos-easily-the-weirdest-thing-on-the-internet-this-month http://noisey.vice.com/en_se/tag/Yung+Lean

The lyrics to basically every song he's ever released are on rapgenius.com, the biggest lyrics site on the internet: http://rapgenius.com/artists/Yung-lean

Multiple write-ups by Sveriges Radio the website of Sweden's national publicly funded radio broadcaster, the most popular radio broadcaster in Scandanavia: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=4067&artikel=5527311 http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=4067&artikel=5674308 http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=3964&artikel=5721766

Multiple write-ups by Consequence of Sound: http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/10/top-10-albums-by-artists-under-18-years-old/2/ http://consequenceofsound.net/artist/yung-lean/

The music-notability criteria is incredibly rockist and dated: “Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.” “Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.” “Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels...”

Given that in 2014, music isn't album-centric and people rarely actually buy music. How many CDs/MP3s have you bought so far this decade? I can count on one hand. Nobody listens to radio anymore either. Clinton Baptiste (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

People are actually buying MP3s more often since it's just as convenient to do that as opposed to pirate, and people do still listen to radio. (I suggest looking up academic studies on music piracy as opposed to just following the pro-corp lines.) As to the sources and arguments:

• Lyric sites are unusable as sources for two reasons - they don't talk about the artist and including them is contributory copyright infringement, as lyrics are copyrighted to their author.
• Rate Your Music is a name-drop and unusable.
• Facebook likes are, again, utterly irrelevant as popularity does not correlate to notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
• One of the Vice links is an interview with the guy (which doesn't help notability) and the other is a search engine result (which is meaningless).
• The CoS links are a name-drop and another search engine result (respectively).

You need to do better than this, especially because our biographical policy strongly applies here. We need substantial third-party sources with no ties to the subject and editorial oversight; without those there's no way this is happening.

(As an aside, I did not include the Sveringes Radio links above because I cannot read Swedish. Someone else who's able to should assess them.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the Sveriges Radio links. (Clinton Baptiste is right about SR being the major radio broadcasting company in Sweden, though I'm not quite sure how he reconciles that with his claim that "nobody listens to radio"... but that's by the by.) One of the links leads to a page announcing a news feature about Yung Lean. Another one announces that Yung Lean will be mentioned briefly in a radio programme - apparently just a name drop. The third one seems to be just an image and a Spotify link - I can't tell what it is beyond that. So of the three links, only the first one would count towards notability, but I don't think it does it on its own. --bonadea contributions talk 19:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again,  Not done. This page is not the venue for requesting undeletion of articles deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. Facebook likes, 7th best "bootleg" mentions on lyric sites and sites consisting of user-generated content, a single interview on Noisy, listings on iTunes, name-drop mentions in sources, coverage in blogs, etc. do not count toward notability here. If you have a problem with the guideline WP:MUSICBIO, then go to the talk page and propose a change. Bottom line, we don't publish articles on up-and-coming musicians. He must have already arrived. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

“substantial third-party sources with no ties to the subject and editorial oversight”: http://www.thefader.com/2013/07/09/download-yung-leans-unknown-death-2002-mixtape/ http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/60237/Yung-Lean-Unknown-Death-2002/

Check the Alexa rank of vice.com, it gets more traffic than the official websites of MTV, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, NME, VH1 etc. Getting tagged in six different articles on vice.com is HUGE in the music/arts world: http://noisey.vice.com/en_se/tag/Yung+Lean

From the criteria: “Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city”: Yung Lean is on the Mount Rushmore of cloud rap emcees, along with: Mac Miller, ASAP Rocky and Lil B. Cloud rap = most popular musical subgenre to debut in the last five years or so.

“Has won or been nominated for a major music award”: Yung Lean was nominated for a P3 Guld, a major Swedish music award. Clinton Baptiste (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

OK let's look at those:

http://www.thefader.com/2013/07/09/download-yung-leans-unknown-death-2002-mixtape/ - indie record label, providing coverage of something they distribute themselves. Not independent.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/60237/Yung-Lean-Unknown-Death-2002/ - prominently presented as a "user review". We don't use user-generated content as references.

We have a single interview on vice.com. That has been mentioned already. Alexa ranks don't count for anything in terms of notability. Blogspot has a higher ranking than vice.com too, but we don't use it either. And being tagged is not "huge". It isn't even coverage.

If you have evidence that this artist meets any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, then present it to the deleting admin. We don't undelete WP:CSD#A7 articles here, as has been stated repeatedly. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I should note that our own Alexa rank is why we get so many people trying to use Wikipedia for promotion, and a very large reason why we come down hard on articles that don't meet the notability standard. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you request to restore speedy-deleted articles? Clinton Baptiste (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ask the deleting administrator, in this case user Malik Shabazz (talk); then, if you are not satisfied, go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hypovisor

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hypovisor · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, 200.3.95.36, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 200.3.95.36 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review: please edit it and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Read WP:Your first article for advice, and note particularly the need for references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish WP:Notability. See also WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Material Sciences Corporation

• Material Sciences Corporation · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This page is included in a student education project, and the course page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uttsinghuajoint2014/Course_Page .Since it was deleted for Expired PROD, I sincerely request for undeletion, so I can improve it. Thanks a lot! -Kekoukele (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

General Assembly and Church of the First Born

• General Assembly and Church of the First Born · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Dear Sirs or Persons, I am uncertain why my church's history would be deleted. We have over 100 assemblies across the United States of America, which represent thousands of people. I ask that you please reconsider this action no matter who initiated it's deletion.

Best Regards,

Bro. Charles J. Kesti General Assembly and Church of the First Born 574 Valley Rd. Brewster, WA 98812 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B126:8A41:507C:EF47:60FD:52C2 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it not mentioned in a section of this list? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Fae (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. The reason for deletion was problems of sourcing: the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source", but most of the article is referenced to a book which cannot be found in reference library catalogues such as Worldcat. As you are connected with the Church, you should not edit its article directly (please read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide), but you may add to its talk page a note of any reliable, published sources which may help to verify its contents. JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bonnie++

• Bonnie++ · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Bonnie++ is notable as the most commonly used linux disk benchmarking tool. -Cjrt35 (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Tedickey (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. To establish Wikipedia:Notability requires references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United Metaphysical Churches

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United Metaphysical Churches · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This was requested by Kevin33315 (talk · contribs), but the request was malformed. I am merely restoring it on their behalf and have no opinion one way or another on the merits of the request. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Read WP:Your first article for advice, and note particularly the need for references to reliable, published sources, both to verify what the article says and to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Fb team Inter Bratislava

• Template:Fb team Inter Bratislava · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The template will be been used -Jolicnikola (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: I see you have re-created it; but these fb team templates with a single link to the team are deprecated as unnecessary and have generally been deleted, see:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#FB team templates
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 20#Unused fb team templates
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 9#Unused fb team templates

JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

2012-13 Nadezhda Cup

• 2012-13 Nadezhda Cup · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

It has been announced that the trophy will be played again this season, so it became more notable[1] -stclaus (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Question: How exactly does that make it notable as per WP:GNG? Perhaps a single article on all years of the Cup if and only if it can meet the guidelines, but individual years are not notable enough - especially since it has not taken place yet DP 13:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Al Yarmouk

• Al Yarmouk · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Could you please restore the previous article history before it was PRODed. Thanks -JMHamo (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Cherry Street, Hong Kong

• Cherry Street, Hong Kong · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Deleted via PROD. I looked at this article, two years ago, when I helped straighten out the disambiguation page Cherry Street.

I am requesting userification. I request restoration of the talk page as well. I know we have dozens of images of substantial building on this street over at the wikimedia commons. If the PROD seems frivolous I will move it back to article space, so I specifically request the revision that contains the PROD tagging to be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC) -Geo Swan (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, restored to User:Geo Swan/Cherry Street, Hong Kong along with its talk page. The PROD tag is in the article history, but the most recent edit is me replacing it with {{userspace draft}} to head off any deletion resulting from the PROD being expired. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Мартинов Андрій Семенович

• Мартинов Андрій Семенович · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Сергій Казнадій (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done - a deleted page with this name does not appear to exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Reel Grrls

• Reel Grrls · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Article was prodded for "no assertion of significance"; I subsequently encountered it on a list of groups involved in the Stop Watching Us protest, so it deserves a second look. -Wnt (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. It was deleted way back in 2008. I have restored it. Please add any new information (particularly sources) as soon as you can to establish notability, otherwise it might get tagged for speedy deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! On further examination, it turned out that the group was involved in a very significant controversy related to the Comcast/NBC Universal merger of 2011 - apparently, Comcast gives out $1.8 billion in donations, for which it expects a very stringent standard of loyalty from its recipients. The degree to which companies receive tax exemptions while exerting ideological control over orgaizations less resilient than Reel Grrls is really a significant concern, and I'm glad I had the chance to look into it. In any case ... no trouble with notability now. :) Wnt (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hossein Jafari (Actor)

• Hossein Jafari (Actor) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Please don't delete this article, it is very sensitive , I have made about 6-7 articles for this person but they are being deleted. Kindly , don't delete this article and then click the "Save page" button below -Faqeeha (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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/Hossein Jafari, 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.

Furthermore, the other article Hossein Jafari that you repeatedly created, has been protected from recreation. Please don't try to circumvent the deletion process by creating new articles with variations on the subject name. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ladell Parks (actor)

• Ladell Parks (actor) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I believe this page shouldn't have been deleted because this person is a very well known actor he's worked with other amazing actors like Zac Efron and Linsey Shaw from pretty little lairs. Please undo the deletion Mikeunknown (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC) -Mikeunknown (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion a7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user GB fan (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

CardsApp

• CardsApp · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Would love to edit the article again and improve it. it was deleted for being "promo", so i would love to check the text again, add more 3rd party sources, add more notability evidences and so on. below -Lornesr12 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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/CardsApp, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Mojo Hand (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. You could ask Mojo Hand if he is willing to "userfy" the article - undelete it to a sub-page in your user space where you could work on it. You would have a better chance at DRV if you could link to an improved draft. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Snap (web framework)

• Snap (web framework) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Snap is one of the three major Haskell web frameworks, and I was looking for more information about its history and features. The other two, Happstack and Yesod, both have pages. Also, the number one result for the phrase "haskell web framework" on Google is snapframework.com/‎, for what it's worth. -98.250.79.35 (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user AndrewWTaylor (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. The article needs references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish Wikipedia:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Donald K Stewart

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Donald K Stewart · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Maud2013 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I am now in a position to cite my references, but I need some help in how to insert these references, then fit them in as footnotes.

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. For advice on referencing, start with Help:Referencing for beginners. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Leo

• Peter Leo · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Peter Leo is a prominent artist in the Long Island Hip-Hop scene. Enough citations were made to show his notability. -Hizeak (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. Note that A7 means the article doesn't make a credible claim to notability, not that the subject isn't notable. It's a matter of requiring a rewrite to explain why he's notable. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wright Business, Inc.

• Wright Business, Inc. · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

According to the removed page, it was deleted for reason G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. But in fact, the page as originally written was deliberately balanced and not promotional in nature. It outlined the functions of the business as well as related controversies without placing undue emphasis on any detail or nature of the subject. Any promotional aspect of the article could be due to edits that were made to the page after I created it. Furthermore, on My User Talk Page, the company was listed for deletion for reason A7: No indication of Importance. The company satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements as it has been cited in reputable, independent secondary sources, for example, the Mackinac Journal: http://www.mackinacjournal.com/x2105856791/The-Readers-Writers-Transformational-leaders-Dr-Judith-Wright-and-Dr-Bob-Wright. The founders have been referenced in publications ranging from NBC to The Chicago Tribune. If the article is restored, I would be happy to include further secondary sources to meet notability status, and keep the article balanced in nature so it is not in violation of G11 in promotional or advertising nature. I do not believe the reasons given for speedy deletion are real or substantial, and they do not live up to Wikipedia's standards. -J TerMaat (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It did not look promotional to me either. I suggest you ask the administrator who deleted it, Y (talk · contribs), to userfy it to a sub-page in your userspace so you can clean it up further, before moving it back to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Promotional was perhaps the wrong word. I note it was an entirely negative article, almost within the definition of an attack page. From comments on the admin's page, I doubt he will undelete it, and neither would I. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

definitely not promotional, that was clearly an error of mine, but I'm with DGG and I won't undelete it -- Y not? 05:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Inch by Inch DVD cover.jpg

• File:Inch by Inch DVD cover.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I regretted requesting deletion on the file I uploaded as fair use. Now I want it undeleted. -George Ho (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lisa Stahl Sullivan

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lisa Stahl Sullivan · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This was requested by Stanleyeisen (talk · contribs), but the request was malformed. I am merely restoring it on their behalf and have no opinion one way or another on the merits of the request. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(Thanks, Jeremy!) 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) 10:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Biogerontology Research Foundation

• Biogerontology Research Foundation · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The Biogerontology Research Foundation is a registered charity in the UK with a number of published scientific papers to its name (e.g. 1, 2). Per WP:NONPROFIT, it meets the notability criteria for a Wikipedia article: the scope of its activities is international in scale (several international research projects funded) and information about the organisation can be verified by multiple third parties (though peer-reviewed scientific papers, audited UK Charity Commission reports). -90.203.107.174 (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - the deleted article was a copyright violation, a direct copy of the organization's website. Wikipedia cannot accept copyright material unless a formal copyright release is made, but that is seldom worthwhile, because simply copying a website does not make an acceptable article: (a) they are usually too promotional in tone, being the organization telling the story it wants the world to hear, and (b) references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources are required to establish notability. If you can provide those, you are welcome to write an article, though if you are connected with the organization you should first read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. There is more background at User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard. JohnCD (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust

• Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: this page has not been deleted: a deletion discussion about a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust decided to move it to User:Nunnsofunky/Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust so that it could be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. That was endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 28. As far as I can see, nothing significant has been done to the draft article since then. You are welcome to continue to work on it. When it is ready, you should probably check with user J04n (talk), the administrator who closed the deletion discussion. JohnCD (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

TY for checking this so promptly. That userfy page is a little different that the last version that I remember. The original editor was having a little trouble being new to WP and a COI and I don't know if they abandoned the page or not, but I now see where the Folly Wildlife is mentioned in other articles, and it has a really nice photo gallery.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You can see in the history of the userfied page that it was userfied on 27 Feb 2013 by J04n, the administrator who closed the deletion discussion. After that, nothing significant was done to it except a rearrangement of the images. It is therefore essentially the same article that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust decided should be userfied, and it should not be restored until the administrator who closed the discussion agrees that the reasons why that AfD decided it should not be in the main encyclopedia have been overcome. JohnCD (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Public Interest Advocacy Centre

• Public Interest Advocacy Centre · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This was deleted in 2011 in a brief deletion discussion as not having an assertion of significance. Apparently someone tried to recreate the article and it was deleted as a recreation of a previously deleted article. One of the two delete votes in the discussion was based largely on the statement that the name is non-unique as there are both Canadian and Australian organizations with this name; however, according to the report of the Canadian organization, they assisted in setting up the group in Sydney.[2] Since the argument is one of notability, I see no problem with restoring the article at least to Draft namespace pending further documentation, which doesn't seem difficult to find.[3][4] -Wnt (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The person to ask that of is the admin who closed the AfD, HJ Mitchell (talk), who I will ping by that reference. JohnCD (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freak-n-Fries

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freak-n-Fries · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Alenadartford, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Alenadartford (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

New information is available, Freak-n-Fries has registered a trademark and other pertinent info has surfaced to address the reasons for deletion -Alenadartford (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Acquiring a trademark does not confer notability - it's a routine matter for a business. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review: please complete it and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Read WP:Your first article for advice, and note that you need to provide references that show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish Wikipedia:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Raffy Cortina

• Raffy Cortina · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Article was deleted because of lack of notability. However, notability guidelines for people clearly state a person is considered sufficiently notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Raffy Cortina won an Oscar last year for his film, "Bottled Up." Albeit, it was a Student Academy Award, but it is still officially bestowed by the academy and quite sufficiently well known. Past winners include Spike Lee, Trey Parker, and Bob Saget. -Buttons23 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was deleted as a result of a deletion debate. Admins will not undelete pages that were deleted with discussion here; go to WP:Deletion review instead. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Utsav Fashion

• Utsav Fashion · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Article Page has been deleted without any prior notification, even I can't track the reason now as wiki doesn't show "delete log" or history of the page. Now there is a single tag shown on the page - (Expired PROD, concern was: Advert for unnotable entity). If there was language problem then it can be resolved by updated the article. -Amardeep Yadav 07:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please get it back so I can look into this.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amardeepyadav (talk • contribs) 07:49, 4 March 2014‎

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Mean as custard (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) 10:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Primrose schools

• Primrose Schools · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Because it was left unattended and was not completed as the creator was busy with her exams in school -Marshini Ganesh (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Y Userfied. From the user's deleted contributions it seems the article was Primrose school, chennai. I have restored it to User:Marshini Ganesh/Primrose Schools, Chennai where you can work on it. Read WP:Your first article for what an article needs, in particular references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish WP:Notability. Take care not to write in a promotional tone - anything that reads like an advertisement will not be accepted. When it is ready, click the link "Submit the page!" in the box at the top, which will send it to WP:Articles for creation, where an experienced user will look at it and either accept it or give you feedback. JohnCD (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonas Johansson (ice hockey, born 1995)

• Jonas Johansson (ice hockey, born 1995) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Please restore edit history of this recently recreated article. -Dolovis (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tim Spector

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tim Spector · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Vazquezcervino, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Vazquezcervino (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• • 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. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yuuki Ogoe

• Yuuki Ogoe · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Stanleycheong (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC) well the reason i updated this page and edited it myself is because i personally know this actor myself and i want people to know more about his back ground . that is my reason .sorry i did not fully updated it carefully since i need to get more of this information from him that is why since−→←×→÷§←←

Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive.

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done.

First, you have a conflict of interest, because you are associated with the subject. Please read carefully WP:COI.

Second, "I want people to know more about his background" is basically a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia is not to be used as a publicity medium.

Third, as Jeremy noted above, we do not undelete articles that were deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. Talk to the deleting administrator at [[User talk:Yunshui}}.

Finally, if you feel that the article subject is notable, your best approach, because you have a conflict of interest, is to use the procedure described at WP:AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Behind the Burly Q the book

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Behind the Burly Q the book · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This was requested by Staarlet (talk · contribs), but the request was malformed. I am merely restoring it on their behalf and have no opinion one way or another on the merits of the request. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review; please edit it and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Read WP:Your first article for advice, and WP:Notability (books) for what a book needs to have achieved in order to have an article. Your only reference is not about the book but about the film, on which we already have an article Behind the Burly Q. JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Access to Music

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Access to Music · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

86.179.251.232 (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Cavayero

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Cavayero · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, 61.130.6.229, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 61.130.6.229 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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. This was evidently written by the subject and, with about 30 reproductions of his works, seems more like a display advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography, the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

David Jay Brown

• David Jay Brown · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

According to this article from Salon magazine, the deletion of the original David Jay Brown article is tainted by the long term disruption of the dreadful User:Qworty. So I request full restoration of the original contribution history, and full restoration of the original talk page's history. Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC) -Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Notwithstanding the fact that the requester is a respected editor, I'm reluctant to unilaterally overturn an AFD decision on the basis of a news article. In the deletion debate, Qworty had his say, so did others independent of him, and I don't see how negative press in Salon suggests that his comments in deletion discussions are completely without merit and should be ignored. You need to talk to the deleting admin Spinningspark (talk · contribs), and if SpinningSpark doesn't agree to restore the history, then you need to go to WP:DRV. I have asked SpinningSpark to comment here. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Under most circumstances, an article deleted by community consensus should not be undeleted without some evidence that the community now supports such undeletion. This does not apply to talk pages where they have been deleted automatically simply as a talk page of a deleted article. In fact, I have never been convinced that deleting talk pages of deleted articles is such a good idea in the first place. I therefore have no problem restoring the talk page and the old threads can now be found in the history and at Talk:David Jay Brown/Archive 1. This would not apply if the talk page had been explicitly deleted in an XFD or for a CSD reason. The article itself is a different matter, but we should note that the AFD deleted it solely on notability grounds. The article has subsequently been recreated and, since it has not been renominated, we should assume, at least for the time being, that the community has accepted this new version as notable. There is no longer any pressing reason to keep the old versions of the page deleted and I have restored the history here also. Should the article be succesfully nominated for deletion in the future, all versions of the page would, of course, be deleted again. In the meantime, it makes sense to keep them. SpinningSpark 11:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sen Publications

• Sen Publications · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Please do not delete this page. I will update this page with more Information -Suman Sen 303 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about companies. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject.

Also, Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves or their own companies, even if notable, because of their WP:Conflict of interest. Please read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Koto Bhoot! Ki Adbhut!

• Koto Bhoot! Ki Adbhut! · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Please do not delete this page. I will update the page with more information, and it is a real story book which going to be publish in next month. -Suman Sen 303 (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done. Wikipedia is not a place for authors to promote their not-yet-published books. Please read WP:Notability (books) for what a book needs to have achieved before it can have a Wikipedia article, and the conflict-of-interest links in the reply above for why, in any case, you should not be the one to write about it here. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Biogerontology Research Foundation (2)

• Biogerontology Research Foundation · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The article on the BGRF was removed for copyright violation. I am willing to write an impartial article about the charity myself without drawing on copyrighted sources. The charity itself meets notability criteria, and has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -- see [5] and [6], and its published research [7] and [8] -Henry Stanley (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: we cannot restore the copyright version, but you are very welcome to write an article. Read WP:Your first article and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) for advice. If you are connected with the organization, also read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and use the WP:Articles for creation process rather than posting an article directly. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Henry Stanley (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The Great China Wall (clothing)

• The Great China Wall (clothing) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

It is about a popular clothing brand which was founded in Los Angeles -Fashionster (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC).

 Not done. This article was deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. Take it up with the administrator who deleted it, Chrislk02 (talk · contribs). This page is not the place to contest deletion. You have to do that on the article talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Winbank Piraeus Bank

• Winbank Piraeus Bank · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

edit and remove suspicious content for wikipedia -Vradwiki (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion G11. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Kgalagadi Breweries Limited

• Kgalagadi Breweries Limited · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

No reasons given speedy deletion. Granted it was a stub with few links to it and I was the only editor - however it was to the best of my abilities written from a neutral point of view. If the content is significantly unsuitable I request that it is released as a user page for me to make the appropriate adjustments. Coaching gladly accepted! -&Brew^t@lk 18:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Userfied to User:Andbrew.downes/Kgalagadi Breweries Limited. Basically it looks like an advertisement, and there is no proof of notability as required by WP:CORP. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ded Engine

Just got real busy and hadn't been back to work on the page more. I am current and founding member of the band 'Ded Engine', and maintain the official website dedengine.com.

Thanks!

G.H. (Chip) Lorimer, Jr.

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ded Engine · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Clorimer (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Please work on it, but I suggest you don't submit it for review until the article demonstrates that the band meets at least one of the inclusion criteria specified in WP:BAND. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ramakrishna Mission Shilpamandira Computer Centre

• Ramakrishna Mission Shilpamandira Computer Centre · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This page is about a very well known institute in West Bengal, please bring it back.