Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 133

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

→

Archive 140

Vin Rana

• Vin Rana · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Vin rana is a famous Indian TV actor,curently seen as Nakula on Star Plus Mahabharat (2013 TV series) you can check the star cast . though it is his first tv series.but vin has done various tv commercials too one can chec its video on this link http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUELzBArmLMynWi9Oapp26w .if in doubt one can also google about him,he has various interview articles too.so please consider this article and dont delte it -Rashmi11 08 (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• This page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. This is for articles that have already been deleted, so this is the wrong time/place for this. I also notice that there's a copy at Draft:Vin Rana as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WriteStuff

• User:DavidADunne/sandbox · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -DavidADunne (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi to both 220 of Borg and Qwertyus, Thank you for the welcome to Wikipedia. :) Regarding the deletion of page titles WriteStuff, I don not wish to contest the deletion of the page, but merely ask that it be 'held' for me. The body text is far from finished and when it is I feel it will certainly comply with Wikipedia rules. I was attempting to experiment with the page title - as the sandbox title reads DavidADunne/sandbox - just to get a better idea of how it will look visually. In doing so I created a page (thinking that it would not go 'live' until a 'submit your draft for review' option. So back to the sandbox for me, until I learn better the process involved. Apologies for any hassle or time wasted. Best, DaveDavidADunne (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• This page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. It was a little premature to come here. However that said, since it is in the userspace I declined the speedy. WP:CORP speedies are meant more for the mainspace than userspace copies. I do see that the tone of the article could be improved, as it comes across a little promotional at times. I'll try to edit it to remove the content, but I would recommend that you definitely look into getting help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies as far as tone, sourcing, and the like goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Storycatchers Theatre (2)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Storycatchers Theatre (2) · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here:

The original article was declined due to insufficient evidence of organizational significance, and the editor said that I did not properly substantiate our claims. Storycatchers Theatre was recently recognized by the White House with an award for excellence in out-of-school programming. I would like to work with Wikipedia to update the page and format it appropriately. -Storycatchers (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not done I would normally accept this request, except for two reasons. The first is that the article as a whole is exceedingly short, as it is only two paragraphs long. The second is that the article comes across as a little promotional and removing the problematic sentences would essentially decimate the article as a whole. You'd have to re-write the article anyway, so it's better to just start it anew. If the article wasn't so short I'd have restored it, but removing the problem info would leave little to nothing behind. The sentence "Storycatchers Theatre's stated mission is to prepare young people to make thoughtful life choices through the process of writing, producing and performing original musical theatre inspired by personal stories" is the one that pushed the decision, which was paired with your username being problematic since it gives off the impression that you are affiliated with the organization. I am going to request that you change your username to something that represents you more as a person. Even if you are affiliated with the group you can still edit/create the page, but you will want to be up front about this and be especially careful about WP:COI issues. I'm not going to block you though, as I believe you're here in WP:GOODFAITH. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeremy and Claire Weiss

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeremy and Claire Weiss · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This was requested by MonicaHeitz (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! 02:39, 15 May 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

University art museums and galleries

• University art museums and galleries · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Vhfs (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The editor complained that it was biased, and that it was unambiguous advertising, which is not true.

If it cannot be reinstated, I would, at least like access to have access to the text, as my students wrote it together, collectively, over a period of *months*.

It is an important and groundbreaking article, it was one half of a two part class project including the List of university art museums and galleries in New York State. Which you can look at here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_university_art_museums_and_galleries_in_New_York_State

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Victoria H.F. Scott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhfs (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 May 2014‎

p.s. He has not sent me the text of the article yet. And I would really like it back. Or at least give me a link where I can find it [[Vhfs (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)]].

I see no reason why the content should not be emailed to the editor. Indeed, I would go ahead and do that myself, but it seems better to allow another administrator to consider whether to restore the article, with email still available if not. If the administrator assessing this request wishes to see a more detailed account of my reasons for deletion than the deletion log provides, he or she may like to look at User talk:Vhfs/sandbox, where I put a significant amount of time and trouble trying to help the editor, who simply dismissed my attempt to help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks more like an essay than an article to me, not so promotional that it can't be fixed. I wouldn't object to userfying it for submission through AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. What is AFC? And what does userfying it mean? Making it more useable? Also, I would still like the original entry back. Could someone please let me know how I could see it? [[Vhfs (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)]]

Wikipedia:Userfying is where we restore the deleted article to your sandbox or (because your sandbox already has stuff in it) to a sub-page from your user page.

AFC is shorthand for Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which you should use to submit articles where you might have a conflict of interest. In this way a neutral reviewer will evaluate your article, suggest changes, and ultimately approve it for publication on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Done Since there's been sort of a consensus here, I've moved it to Draft:University art museums and galleries. From there it can be worked on and a review via AfC can be requested. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Time For Change Foundation

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Time For Change Foundation · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, ProvenceAntiquities, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Will submit this page for draft -SaintClair (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not done I'd initially restored it, but I was worried about the promotional tone. The more I looked at it and thought about it, the more it bothered me and I deleted it. You would have needed to completely re-write this from scratch in order to remove all of the promotional tone. Part of the problem was that you do a lot of WP:PUFFERY type talking in here, such as listing each and every thing the place offers. Also, phrases such as "Women and children are supported and nurtured so that they may become healthy families. Women are taught life and parenting skills in order to help them become self-sufficient." are promotional in tone. The organization does do good work, but the writing here just really came across as more of a press release written by someone hired to write about the corporation than a neutral and encyclopedic entry. The more I looked at it, the more I realized that any editor worth their salt would have told you to decimate 80-90% of the article before they could even accept it into the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Surf Life Saving Lakes Entrance

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Surf Life Saving Lakes Entrance · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Taz4535, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Taz4535 (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not done and will not be done The tone of the article looked fairly promotional, like it was somethign written by the organization itself. Sure enough, a quick search showed that it was taken almost word for word from the official website. Please be aware that we cannot accept WP:COPYVIO. Even if the content is given up as fair use, it would still have to be re-written in order to fit our encyclopedic and NPOV policies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Reginald Waywell

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

references received from the Warrington Museum and Art Gallery

WAGMG : 1988.47 Oil painting entitled 'Lever Brothers (Crosfields) Tower' (1987) WAGMG : 1990.15 Watercolour entitled 'Quay Fold (Monks Hall)' (1988) WAGMG : 1990.21 Watercolour entitled 'Lever Bros. from Sankey Green' (1989) WAGMG : 1990.22 Watercolour entitled 'Priestley Street' (1989) WAGMG : 1990.23 Watercolour entitled 'A Road That Leads Nowhere' (1989) -Chris waywell (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. An artist's paintings are NOT usable references, in much the same way that we don't cite Lord of the Rings for J. R. R. Tolkien. Please read WP:Conflict of interest (as you very likely have one) and WP:Identifying reliable sources. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:49, 15 May 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. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done, see Jeremy's comment immediately above. Consider asking the deleting administrator Jimfbleak to reconsider.

Also, based on the similarity of your name with the subject's, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and then submit your article through Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead of directly to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chef Jeremiah

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

I, Chrisacip1419, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Chrisacip1419 (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done. That draft article is just a single sentence, and a main space article already existed prior to it. Please work on improving the main space article. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Chef Jeremiah

• Chef Jeremiah · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I didn't see the message to make minor edits, which I'm happy to do. Not very skilled on this platform. I can't actually tell if this "draft" submission being deleted means the public article will also be deleted. -Chrisacip1419 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done because there is nothing to do. The article is not deleted and is in no danger of being deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

SH-SYSTEMS

• SH-SYSTEMS · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Pixel97 (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone

This page should not be deleted and here is the reason why:

This was not an advertising page

This page is about my future company that I'm working on It is like any other information about existing companies but here the only difference is that I'm preparing wiki for my company I establishing soon. This is why this should not be deleted

Rafal

Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. Note that we are not here to advertise new or forthcoming businesses or products, and that we take a dim view of using Wikipedia for this purpose by editors attached to the subject. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It had been deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 as well as WP:CSD#G11 but Rafal had created a new page with the same name containing an appeal to keep the article. That has been deleted now also.

So, Not done and will not be done, especially for a company that doesn't yet exist. Articles deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 cannot be restored by request on this page. I have left a note on Rafal's talk page regarding how to proceed. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hsiao-Lan Wang

This was a closely contested deletion in 2011, and the woman continues to gain attention as a composer. In light of Wikipedia's current need of articles on prominent women, I'd like to propose the article be undeleted. Pkeets (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I would not say it was close at all as you were the only one in support of keeping it. I suggest that you create a draft article with the new claims of importance included and the independent references with substantial content on the topic. Then we will merge history later if it can stay. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Brennan Chadwick Emerson

• Brennan Chadwick Emerson · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I came to update this page after seeing a copy of the page on the fullwiki.org, but it's not on wikipedia anymore. Seems strange. -50.159.15.21 (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been on Wikipedia for over seven years. If restored today, it would be quickly deleted again due to lack of any assertion of notability and lacking sources. I could restore it to a user space for improvement and subsequent re-submission, but you need a registered account for that. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And that is why you check the date that a mirror forked its material from Wikipedia. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scientific Working Group - Digital Evidence

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scientific Working Group - Digital Evidence · ( logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Nadircs, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Nadircs (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Article was deleted due to G13. I wish to address the issues raised during the initial posting and resubmit it. -Nadircs (talk) 14:10, 15 May 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Bounds_Improv_Festival

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

The Out of Bounds festival in Austin has been going string for 14 year and is a very relevant apsect to the city's thriving comedy scene. Whomever deleted the entry does not now Austin, Tex., Comedy Festivals OR has some sort of sour agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.182.163 (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not done - this is not an appropriate topic for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia does not accept articles which consist of original research, or which lack any reliable sources of information. I'd restored it with the intention of working on it, but I can't find where there is any true coverage of the event. Please understand that long running does not always mean that the individual festival is notable. I have several festivals that run in my local area, some of which are extremely long running but do not meet notability guidelines. Also, please do not make personal attacks against other editors by saying that the deletion was part of a personal agenda against the festival. I can personally vouch for the editor who requested deletion via PROD (who is not the same as the person who performed the deletion), as they have been editing for quite a while and they're very good at what they do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zombie Chronicles: Cost of Humanity

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zombie Chronicles: Cost of Humanity · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, 62.203.200.158, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 62.203.200.158 (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not done The article was only comprised of a few short sentences, so there really wasn't anything to restore. You're free to start a new article at AfC, but offhand I can't find anything to show that this book would pass WP:NBOOK. It sounds awesome, but the coverage in reliable sources just aren't there. On a side note, if you are the book's author I'd like to recommend that you look into requesting reviews from some of the horror websites such as Shock Till You Drop, Fearnet, and the like. It's no guarantee they'll do it, but those are the types of places that would count as RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Stewater/Dartmouth's Dedicated Alumni

• User:Stewater/Dartmouth's Dedicated Alumni · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Stewater, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Stewater (talk) 14:43, 15 May 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. It was actually located in your userspace, so I've restored it there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Parthajeet Sarma

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

The page was originally deleted by User: Mojo Hand as it was poorly sourced, I had recreated the page with better sourcing and more notable citations so that it would be credible. It was deleted again yesterday by User: Huon as it was a recreation. I request you to kindly undelete the page. -Kartik.lalit1 (talk) 08:40, 15 May 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/Parthajeet Sarma, 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Since your userpage states that you are involved with PR, I would like you to read over WP:COI. You're being upfront about your job, which is excellent, but I do recommend that you read over COI to ensure that you are fully aware of our policies. This is mostly for your own sake, as COI editors do tend to have a bad reputation on Wikipedia and that you will be expected to follow WP policies more closely than anyone else. (Although everyone is expected to follow the rules, of course.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tokyogirl79, thank you for the speedy response. I have already mentioned the issue to User: Mojo Hand, however the article was recreated again with sufficient sources defeating the original reason for deletion. User: Huon deleted the recreated page via speedy deletion, which is why I placed a request here. If you could, please look into the matter again. Kartik.lalit1 (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again Not done. If you have read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, then as a PR person who clearly has a conflict of interest, you should know better than to try to recreate the article directly in user space. You should be using Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead. The deletion discussion mentioned both lack of sources and tone. You did add sources, but the text of the article is substantially identical to the previous version. Therefore, I will not restore it. Also, this page should not be used to circumvent established process. You need to follow proper procedure and appeal to the deleting administrator Huon, and if the administrator declines to restore it (you might ask for userfication instead, so you can submit it through WP:AFC), then your next step is Wikipedia:Deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of the additional sources, which either were unreliable or amounted to no more than passing mentions, when I deleted the article. The core of what I deleted was exactly the same as what was deleted via AfD; those passing mentions did not resolve the notability concerns nor the concerns about undue tone. Huon (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In that case, Kartik.lalit1, the next step to get it undeleted is WP:DRV, but keep in mind that this will not be a debate about whether the article should be kept or deleted, but rather about whether the deleting administrator's decision was proper. Your best approach, as I mentioned before, would be WP:AFC to submit an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that AfC would be the best bet here overall. I'll be honest in that it'd be a lot easier to go that route than it would be to go through DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian O'Neal (Musician / Humanitarian)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian O'Neal (Musician / Humanitarian) · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, 69.246.116.153, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 69.246.116.153 (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not done I looked at the article and it is incredibly promotional sounding. You would have to completely re-write the article in order to make it fit our standards of NPOV, so it would be better if you created an entirely new article in the AfC space. A rule of thumb is to never take something verbatim from another source. The problem is that even if someone gives up complete permissions to the work, the source text will almost always be far too promotional to remain on Wikipedia and is part of the reason why you should never use something that is considered to be "copyvio". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sifca

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

I work for Sifca communication and am trying to make our Wikipedia page in English -Apple50Apple (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Article was deleted as advertisement and you have a conflict of interest. Use Articles for Creation instead, after making sure you review the notability guidelines for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ikechukwu Aloysius Orjinta

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

I, MystiqueOBNOY, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. MystiqueOBNOY (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done There is nothing to restore there, other than a comment attempting to communicate with the AFC reviewers. You're better off starting from scratch. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Superx++

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

i recall other articles on this topic including a full article in Dr Dobbs Journal and xml.com . while the language did not take off at the time the language does contain several unique concepts programming language concepts. -58.6.129.190 (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, as an expired WP:PROD I have restored it in the hope that you will expand the article to describe these "several unique concepts". Currently the article is a stub that doesn't say much at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

New media guru

• New media guru · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Hi there, I have just started this pages and adding more info to it. So give me some time to add more information to this page. -Vishal1247 (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Vishal1247/New media guru.

Please use the button at the top of the draft article to submit it to WP:AFC for review, rather than move it to main article space yourself. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Groupiful

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

Article was nominated for speedy deletion by user:And_Adoil_Descended because it is "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company...". and then deleted by user:Sphilbrick. However, the criteria for speedy deletion (G11) states that notability and neutrality are key factors in NOT constituting unambiguous advertising or promotion. The notability test relies on verifiability. The information in the Groupiful wikipedia article was derived from three reliable third-party sources. In addition, the Groupiful article was written from a neutral perspective without any value-laden or subject comments. Therefore, it was inappropriately nominated for speedy deletion and inappropriately deleted. -Jonstrykes (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It looked unambiguously promotional to me, with phrases like "work that really matters" and sections with unnecessary details about features that read more like a product brochure than an encyclopedia article. It seems obvious, from my point of view as an uninvolved reader, that it was written by someone with a connection to the subject.

Did you ask the deleting administrator Sphilbrick to reconsider the deletion, and possibly userfy the article so that you can improve it further? That should be your first step, rather than posting a request here. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jonstrykes it needs a lot of work, but if you want it userfied, or moved to the Draft space, I'll be happy to do so. Just ask.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I will ask the deleting administrator to reconsider. User:Sphilbrick can you Userfy please. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonstrykes (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Jonstrykes/Groupiful--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

FixStream Network Inc

• FixStream Network Inc · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

That is not promotional material,

This page contains factual information regarding a small start up company called FixStream that is creating new presence in the Datacenter visualization and assurance space. Please do not delete this content.

or let me know what changes i should me made in the page content so that it will be publishable.

Thanks. -Gajananimr (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Of the speedy deletions this article has, the most recent deletion is a A7. Articles meeting this criterion are generally not undeleted either because they require a complete rewrite or they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. I suggest you read this. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done and see the note on your talk page regarding how to proceed. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Harlinton church.jpg

• File:Harlinton church.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Semingly deleted as an orphan, but there's no evidence of it having been proposed for commons and rejected. Requesting an undeletion to allow for Commons candiacy evaluation. -Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Without seeing this image, I don't know what license tag to suggest, but given the uploader is User:Rodolph, whose a proflic contributor of some rare archive material, I would assume that they knew what they were doing at the time. The message on the deleted file doesn't seem to say it was deleted due to a CSD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. The uploader is the creator of that photo and licensed it GDFL and CC-by-SA. It was deleted only because it was orphaned. It would be deleted again for that reason if restored, so for now I tagged it with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.jpg

• File:RodolphFaneDeSalisbyGSWatson.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

According to the original uploader see their talk page, this item might have actually been PD in the UK. Given that the uploader has access to notes about the original, I trust their calls. -Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Should be PD-UK on undeletion.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Done and tagged with {{PD-UK}}. If it's orphaned, though, it may be deleted again. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Jane Aynscombe holding a peach, England, c1707.jpg,

• File:Jane Aynscombe holding a peach, England, c1707.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

1707 art should be transfered to Commons, not deleted merely because it was orphaned.

Should be {{Pd-art}} on undeltion, I don't think it goes against common sense to assume a 1707 work is out of copyright.

Would it be wise to consider reviewing all deletions of media originally uploaded by this uploader? -Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm. The article was deleted for being orphaned in spite of the 'keep' arguments at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 21#File:Jane Aynscombe holding a peach, England, c1707.jpg. It was tagged PD-old.

Done. Replaced tag with PD-art, removed invalid category, and tagged with Copy to Wikimedia Commons. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Andrew_wilson

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Andrew_wilson · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This was requested by 86.143.200.125 (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! 21:53, 16 May 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Boban Vasov

• Boban Vasov · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Please restore this articles history prior to deletion as the person now passes WP:NFOOTBALL -JMHamo (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

tommy kaye

• Tommy Kaye · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

114.30.108.45 (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done. There's nothing there. It was just a redirect to Thomas Jefferson Kaye. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

chipster sandbean

• Chipster sandbean · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Chipster Sandbean is a fictional character, which is stated in the text regularly, it is not attempting to be factual, yet some of the references in the text are factual. The character does exist, in the terms set out in the page. There is no misleading or false information. Jedi's don't exists, but they have a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi -QuadroJ (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done. Jedi has adequate coverage in reliable sources to establish notability sufficient for inclusion. The requested article does not, and has no references. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Thrillers

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

I, Abonnema315, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.

please undelete at least long enough so i can save what i wrote onto my personal computer. this way i can take the time i need to gather credible information to create a accurate page.

I intend on providing more credible and provable information that will lead to an approval for this page. This has fallen off my radar in the last year, but lately have been asked about the creation of this page again and would like to resume working on getting it created. Please approve at least long enough so I can save my work to my personal computer and work on there until I have all the correct information to submit to Wikipedia. I appreciate your help on this.

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The opening sentence is "The THRILLERS are a recreational league kickball team out of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. They play for nothing more than the enjoyment of outdoor activity with friends during the week." I'm not seeing the potential for an article here or why this was restored? Is it useful to have Wikipedians spend any more time on this subject? I would salt unless very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources is forthcoming.

No objection to giving the subject's author 24 hours to copy their work (as per their request to have it). Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for undeletion for page ATP architects engineers

• ATP architects engineers · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

ATP architects engineers has over 520 employees and is one of the top3 leading architectural office in europe and the biggest architecture office in austria. The page was deleted for Unambiguous advetising or promotion, but the content has only information in a neutral point of view. The page exists also in the German wikipedia and the company is worldwide known in the architecture scene. Therefore I kindly ask to undelete the page ATP architects engineers. Thank you. -Sportfriend france (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done. You have got to be kidding.

What exists on the German or any other Wikipedia is irrelevant to the English Wikipedia. We have stricter rules about what is permissible.

The entire article read like a company brochure, complete with unnecessary details about board members, unsubstantiated claims about company philosophy, mention of every minor recognition and relationship, etc. It is obvious that the article was written by someone who failed to read or understand Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

I can userfy the article for further improvement if desired, provided it is submitted through WP:AFC for review, not to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Would be great if you could submit it through WP:AFC for review, as you are right changes needs to be done, but the company seems to me important. Thanks.--Sportfriend france (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I won't submit it to AFC. That has to be done by someone who is interested in making significant changes to the article. If you volunteer, I can userfy it to your user space, although the original author of the article Svenonit may be interested too. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm interested to help in working on the requested changes, although I would love to have help. --Svenonit (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Never done this before, but I can help if you userfy it to my user space: Is it possible to work with Svenonit on the article? After the significant changes have been done, could a mentor have a look an these changes? Would be a good learning...

Hello Amatulic, could you please give short info where i can work on the ATP-Page? Best regards, --Svenonit (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Svenonit and Sportfriend france, I have userfied the article to User:Svenonit/ATP architects engineers. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Franceyez Jackson

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

(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.) 2601:9:7380:406:216:CBFF:FE01:3223 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:^| ↑↑↑ paste the page name into the

                      blank space above the arrows
                      then click "Save page" below

}Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Franceyez Jackson

• Not done The article has issues with tone and promotion, but the biggest issue is that this is copyvio from this site's profile section. Please be aware that we cannot accept copyvio and that even if they give up all rights to the content, the entire article would still have to be completely re-written in order to fit our requirements for WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Encyclopedic. I really think it'd be better if you re-wrote it from scratch in your own words. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Order of the Crown (Vanderbilt)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Order of the Crown (Vanderbilt) · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Magnesium9, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Magnesium9 (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not done and will not be done I did a little searching and I can't find anything to really show that this organization passes notability guidelines. I can't even really find any truly good sources to show that this organization even really exists. I also will not restore this as another version was previously deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of the Crown (Vanderbilt)) and to be honest, I think that the chances of finding enough sources to pass notability guidelines are slim. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sunset Studios

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

The recent entry regarding Sunset Studios a motion picture company based in Orlando FL was deleted within in a few hours of creation before further information about the company's films, popular culture references, and affiliations could be completed. Verifiable "ref" tags were present on the page including the companies main site and IMDb. Can you please explain your decision to delete this item before the page could be completed. -GuyFilmmaker (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I responded to this same message on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 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 we need secondary sources to establish notability, and we do not accept wikis (including IMDb) as sources. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Francis Tiafoe

• Francis Tiafoe · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Francis Tiafoe is the subject of an 'above the fold' feature on the front page of today's Washington Post. The soft deletion was a year and a half ago. He may now meet WP:NTENNIS, but I am not sure. -Abductive (reasoning) 16:15, 18 May 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/Francis Tiafoe, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Mark Arsten (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Vadim Blaustein

• Vadim Blaustein · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I have uncovered new sources on this topic and discovered that it had been previously deleted, along with another attempt called Blaustein Vadim. Please undelete and userfy both articles to myself so that the prior text can be reviewed for anything that can be saved or can suggest additional reliable sources. User edit counts indicate there should be about 20 revisions. -Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blaustein Vadim · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Same as above. -Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Done I've restored both to User:Frieda Beamy/Vadim Blaustein and User:Frieda Beamy/Blaustein Vadim. Offhand I'll say that you'll likely find more helpful content in the first one than the second one. The second one is written in a wildly promotional manner but perhaps you can pull something useful from it as a whole. I wouldn't normally restore the second one, but then you're looking for sources and not really for the article per se. If you do use one, I'd go with the first one since that'd be the easiest to clean and source from other avenues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henrik Wenøe

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

I, Jesperbp, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jesperbp (talk) 21:30, 18 May 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• I almost didn't restore it since the content here is still pretty promotional in spots but I do see where you've tried to work on this. Offhand I recommend getting someone from one of the applicable WikiProjects to help with issues of tone and sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kenneth Kesselus

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

I, 76.104.181.31, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 76.104.181.31 (talk) 00:58, 19 May 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Offhand, I do want to say that you'll want to avoid putting merchant links in the external links section or using them as sources. That's seen as fairly inappropriate since the merchants' first and mostly sole purpose for existing is to sell us something. Anything else they do is mostly something they do on the side and is usually done to encourage people to buy stuff. What you want are sources like this one of one of his books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

• Involuntary celibacy · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd | afd2 | afd3 | afd4 ) · [revisions]

There was never a consensus to delete this article. Instead, the decision was to merge it into celibacy, but the celibacy editors disagreed and removed all of the new content. The merger was a stupid idea, analagous to merging homelessness into nomad. Apparently the poor decision was the result of weak and cowardly administration. -2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:E5DA:8F55:D7C2:9B06 (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there was no consensus to keep the article either, so it should not be returned as a standalone article. It is a bit of a tricky situation, when a deletion discussion finds consensus to merge to another article, but those present at that article's talk page decide...again, by consensus...that the specific text merged is too fringe to warrant inclusion. You'll just have to be satisfied that the term exists as a redirect to celibacy broadly and leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, there was no such consensus to merge the articles. That was a unilateral admin decision. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:E5DA:8F55:D7C2:9B06 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have to ask... are you User:MalleusMaleficarum1486? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  No, I came along after the deletion discussion was over, unfortunately. I would have given a much stronger defense of the article than that user. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:E5DA:8F55:D7C2:9B06 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• The closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) felt otherwise. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  No, the closing admin stated that "there's absolutely no way to close this that will make everyone pleased with the outcome" and then made the decision that the "best possible course of action here (per the discussion) is to merge this", and further stated that "the concept of a merge requires the newly merged article be changed." But it wasn't. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:E5DA:8F55:D7C2:9B06 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• The material was present in the target article for a time, until a consensus of editors there decided that it was inappropriate. It is an unusual situation where there isn't support for a standalone article yet no one wants to see the material present in any other article. But at the end of the day we function by consensus. AfD results cannot mandate that this or that article text remain in an article for all-time. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  I call your "unusual situation" a fundamental structural weakness in Wikipedia's editorial process. The disposition of this material has not proceeded according to a consensus about the material itself. There was an admin decision as a result of a lack of consensus. And then there was a consensus about other material, i.e. that it should not include this material. But it seems to me that in the absence of a consensus about a change, the status quo should be maintained. What happened instead was that the decision was thrown over the wall to a set of decisionmakers who made a "consensus" decision without knowing or caring about the material itself. This is lazy at best, dishonest at worst, and not in the best interests of Wikipedia. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:E5DA:8F55:D7C2:9B06 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:E5DA:8F55:D7C2:9B06 (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• What part of "The result was merge..." do you find confusing? That was the consensus decision. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The part where anyone besides you has called that a consensus decision. Even if it had been a consensus decision, then the fact that it was blocked by an opposing consensus should have triggered further discussion, not simply a "default to delete" response. 20:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:E5DA:8F55:D7C2:9B06 (talk)

Philosophically, consensus is not the same thing as compromise. Maybe 3 out of 10+ contributors were in favor of the so-called "consensus" decision. If a deletion discussion doesn't reach a consensus, then a compromise may be possible. But it is not appropriate for the closing admin to simply choose his own idea of a compromise and call that a consensus. If merging is a possible compromise, then he should initiate a proper discussion of that possible compromise, bringing in people from both affected articles to discuss it. If all compromises are rejected, then there is no consensus, and WP:No consensus applies, and the article is kept, not deleted. To illustrate the point, think of the story of the Judgment of Solomon. He listened to both parties' arguments, and proposed as a compromise that the baby be cut in half. But was that a consensus? No. Only when the real mother relented and offered to give up the baby rather than have it killed, was there a consensus. That's whwere the analogy ends; Israel was not governed by consensus, so Solomon exercised his judgement. 12.207.40.2 (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC) (same guy, different IP address)

• On a side note, this is actually something that would probably be better discussed at deletion review since this did technically run through an AfD and as such, any official debates about the closing would be better off performed there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  I think that's actually a rather central note, and something I was going to propose after doing some reading this afternoon about the Byzantine workings of Wikipedia, but hadn't had time yet because I've been at work. :) I will first bring the topic up on the talk page of the closing admin. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:E5DA:8F55:D7C2:9B06 (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'll close this off then, since it's technically considered the wrong venue. Discussion can still carry on but I'll put the official consensus so anyone coming in will know that it won't be restored/un-redirected through here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 19 May 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/Involuntary celibacy (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 Coffee (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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carson Kreitzer

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

I, Naturalreadhead, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Naturalreadhead (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Intention to revise in a timely fashion according to Wikipedia Editor's suggested edits. -Naturalreadhead (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Carson Krietzer

• 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)