Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 141

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Latest comment: 10 years ago by R.srinivaas in topic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rathnam
Archive 135←Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142Archive 143→Archive 145

Digital Energy Technologies

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I, Ladiepre, request that Digital Energy Technologies be undeleted because the page is written from a viewer's point of view and opinion. There are sources from other sites such as "zoomin" that offer further information about what DET is and what it does. i followed all the rules and guidelines in the help page and please, l implore you, let me know what exactly it is and l will fix the article because it is informative and educative. Thank you --Ladiepre (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Not only was it deleted under WP:A7, but it was also deleted under WP:G13 as unambiguous promotion. As far as the sources go, they do not seem to be the type that would extend notability because they all seem to be WP:PRIMARY sources such as routine database listings. It is expected that companies will have themselves listed in various databases, so that cannot show notability. The article's overall tone was so promotional that it would require an entire re-write to pass our guidelines for neutrality. As far as it being WP:USEFUL, we cannot keep an article solely because it is useful. The article must pass our notability guidelines by way of coverage in independent and secondary sources. As far as what came across as promotional, a good example is the sentence "DET is goal and people oriented towards making website ownership and management an easy task to carry out." That's the sort of thing you read in press releases promoting the company and is considered to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

HOST1PLUS

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

l created this page to raise awareness about this web hosting page, there is nothing advertising it, if the links are controversial, then l will gladly remove them so that the article only provides useful information to users who are looking for free hosting websites}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladiepre (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2014‎

  •   Not done The page was deleted because it came across as unambiguous promotion. Phrases such as "Coming from different countries and nationalities, the HOST1PLUS team members share different experiences and ideas, this helps the brand to stay open minded and flexible to ideas and new places where they can provide their services" come across as advertising. It reads as if it came from a press release or is something that someone in the company's advertising department wrote. I'm not against the company having an article, but the company must pass notability guidelines by having coverage in places that are independent of the company and in-depth. You cannot use the company's official website, routine database listings, or press releases. Also be aware that if an article reads as if it was taken directly from a press release, that article will not be considered usable. We're not really here to "raise awareness" per se- the company must already be notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ray Carr

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I, 99.19.9.82, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 99.19.9.82 (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The concerns brought up at AfC MUST be dealt with before you re-submit this article. I almost didn't restore it because the tone here is so casual that it comes across as a little promotional. You also need to remove things that don't really pertain to the article, such as Carr's hobbies and marital status. Generally speaking, we only include those when the marital status and hobbies have received enough coverage to justify its inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dwight McGhee

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(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.) Wightgorilla (talk) 12:26, 29 June 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. the panda ₯’ 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Cobalt fluoride reactor at F2 Chemicals Ltd.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Permission (probably) obtained through ticket:2014062010009667. -Microchip08 (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  Done Microchip08 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Kamrul Ahsan

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Lixiaowang, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Lixiaowang (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  Done, already restored OVER A WEEK AGO. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Limited Runs

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I, Jamiwr, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jamiwr (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to continue editing the article based on the feedback. -Jamiwr (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done The article was fairly brief (three sentences) and was written in a way that made it come across as promotional-ish. There were no sources on the article to assert notability, so it'd be better to just start afresh. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Professional and Technical Consultants Association

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Eastmain, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Lisa Dalton (Lisa Loving)

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I would like this page to be restored to me by email or in my sandbox so that I may continue to work on it. I believe that Lisa Dalton is a notable person because she has been one of the most influential people in the United States regarding the continued development and proliferation of the Michael Chekhov Acting Technique through her work with Mala Powers and the National Michael Chekhov Association (NMCA). I think the page was deleted because I was trying to follow a format I saw on another living person's page, Marjo-Riikka Makela, but err'ed in the choices I made about what to include. I think I can pair down the section on Lisa's acting career, include more about her work in the Michael Chekhov Technique, and submit through the Special:Mypage to better achieve my goal of proper submission. Thank you for your consideration. -Josheard (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Josheard: Have you asked the deleting administrator GB fan? That should be your first step rather than posting on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Amatulic: Is it our policy to defer on userifying CSD'd articles until the deleting admin has a say? Not asking to be snide, but things could've changed in the past year. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Protonk: Well, A7 articles are ineligible for restoration by request on this page anyway. The boilerplate response template does advise the requester to contact the deleting administrator. I have always felt that template should be tweaked to include the possibility of userfication when the petitioner contacts the admin. Then I could have used that template for this case.
While there is no specific policy, it has been standard practice and common courtesy, for as long as I can remember, that the deleting admin should be the first person consulted regarding an article that was deleted for a potentially contentious reason (such as A7 or G11, and especially for AFD).
This is a borderline case to me; it could have been deleted for having almost no substantive content (the article was just one sentence) but it was deleted as A7 instead. Often I will investigate an A7 nomination before deleting the article myself, and I appreciate if I am given the chance to explain my rationale first before some other admin decides to restore or userfy it. In some cases I have had reason to decline userfication also. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not advocating restoring it to mainspace, which as you note is outside the scope of this forum. But I don't see executing an A7 as a marker of a special relationship to an article; someone tagged it, the admin agreed and it gets deleted. Nor do I think it represents a veto chit on restoring content insofar as the reason for deletion is obviated. In this case, it's an article which doesn't assert importance, turning it into a user draft eliminates the first consideration and potentially the second. It doesn't make acting on the request automatic and certainly an admin can defer to the deleting admin out of courtesy, but for cases where the material isn't per se proscribed in userpace, then I don't see the problem. I'm only pressing this issue because 1: the template notice ({{Db-notability-notice}}) does say to bring this exact type of request here (and IMO it's right to do so) and 2: the purpose of this page as I understand it is to provide a relatively bureaucracy free route for users to have material un-deleted when it is possible to do so. That includes not having to hunt down the deleting admin and craft a personalized argument on their page. The only reason to not do this would be if we felt the deleting admin had some position on the disposition of the content regardless of the namespace. Were that the case (e.g. copyvio, attack pages) they would've used the corresponding deletion reason. Further, even a non-admin could recreate the page and obviate the reason for deletion (either by starting a draft or updating the article to meet A:7) without asking permission from an admin, let alone the deleting admin. They shouldn't be constrained from doing so when they get to that point by following the instructions we give them to the letter. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Protonk:There is no need for undeletion because there is a draft at Draft:Lisa Dalton which you can continue working on. This was explained to you at the time the mainspace article was nominated for deletion. Rankersbo (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Rankersbo, I'm sorry but I'm afraid you've confused me for someone else. Protonk (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Protonk:Yes you're right, I got confused, sorry. Rankersbo (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Amatulic: Thank you for your message. I was trying to follow the protocol listed to retrieve the deleted page as listed in the last sentence of the last paragraph on this page. I've also messaged the administrator in case I misunderstood the procedure; I'll be sure to go straight to the admin in the future. Ever learning, --Josheard (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I would have restored it as a draft article but there is more information in Draft:Lisa Dalton than the deleted article had in it. GB fan 20:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dave Durand

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Rock23953, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. I would like to revise the page and resubmit it. Rock23953 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 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) 21:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Willems Workflow Scripting Language

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The page was deleted after a request for more Importance was uncontested for seven days. The technology described in the article has now been presented at two European conferences and can gain more references to indicate importance. Rather than recreate the page I believe this is the correct process to get it reinstated but if I am incorrect please let me know. Thanks for you help. -Robwalsh76 (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A proposed deletion, or PROD, isn't a "request for more Importance" [sic] but rather someone proposing that the article should be deleted if it's not improved upon within 7 days. Fortunately, this page is the right place to come to restore PRODded pages (it's treated as if you're contesting the PROD, which any user may do at any time). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Ironholds (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. What the article needs, if it is to be kept, is references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", to establish Wikipedia:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DOLLS

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 109.154.2.181, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.2.181 (talk) 08:32, 30 June 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) 21:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Sports Builders Association

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I, Mhsprecher, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Mhsprecher (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You said that last November, then did nothing (and in fact you've haven't done anything with the article since June 2012). What's different this time? I'd remind you that "userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles". BencherliteTalk 19:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I, Mhsprecher, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. This page is now being edited by a new team and will be resubmitted. Mhsprecher (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "being edited by a new team"? We do not permit shared accounts. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate requests combined. BencherliteTalk 22:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Dukes at Komedia

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This relatively new cinema is already an important cultural hub in Brighton and has been singled out as such by newspapers such as The Guardian. It was proposed as a candidate for speedy deletion and removed shortly after, without much time to contest the decision. I'd hope you reconsider, or else consider placing the previous article as a sub-heading within the existing Komedia page. -KingMurdoch (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Fabric_(Python_library)

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Fabric must have a Wikipedia article. It is used on millions of hosts as of 2014. -Max Haase (talk) 10:45, 1 July 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/Fabric (Python library), 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. the panda ₯’ 10:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to start over. As noted, the entire contents are in the post above.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orlic

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

205.217.14.65 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 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.. If it is to be accepted, this needs references to confirm what it says. Please check out Wikipedia:Verifiability: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Garden Ridge logo.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

former logo inappropriately removed from article, when it should have just been moved out of infobox into history section of article -radiojon (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  Done, image restored. The article to which Garden Ridge redirects already linked to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Altenor

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(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.) Musicinspire (talk) 00:37, 2 July 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Real Time Work Log

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

i'm not sure why the page was deleted. this is a an existing working product that I thought to link from Comparison_of_time_tracking_software page. My application and the page didn't have any promotions but merely information. what did I do wrong or how should I fix this? please advise. Thanks, David -Dazonet (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done The first issue for you is using a company name for your user. You must only use a name that is for a person not a company (DaZo Networks). Second if you are David Zohar or a company representative, then there is a bit of a COI and it is best to let someone else write about it. Lastly the page was promotional containing language such as "easily""quickly and efficiently" "and much more" "you" "Save Time & Money" and many statements saying the benefits of the product. It would need a complete rewrite to exclude the promotional language. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Dubai City Church

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.thedubaicitychurch.org/news-events/in-the-media.php#1 -Gavingreatbatch (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Mention of the church in the media is listed here

  • The page had multiple issues with it. Not only did it lack coverage in independent and reliable sources, but the page was also written in a non-neutral, promotional manner. It would require almost an entire re-write to read as non-promotional. As far as the source goes, that is a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used to show notability. Nobody is questioning that the church exists, but we do need coverage in independent, reliable sources to prove notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eric Fisher

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I, Fisherarch, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Fisherarch (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  Declined, until you change your username, which violates Wikipedia:Username policy. Your username must represent only you as an individual, not your company fisherarch.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
You will also need to clearly read WP:COI and understand that you agreed not to write about topics you have direct involvement in the panda ₯’ 14:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Gym Store

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would just like the information for reference, I was not anticipating a total deletion. It was marked for speedy deletion for advertising. I don't mind if it's just the raw html as I spent a long time trying to get the formatting right. -Howester (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If you enable email on your Wikipedia user preferences I can send it to you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey on the average German

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Unfinished Article of a survey closely connected to an educational institute. We understand that Wikipedia is not a place where random information can be stored, but in this case we would like to credit our research with secondary sources and further display our results here. We see it as an important part for contrasting stereotypes and actual circumstances. -79.217.24.202 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 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. We also do not accept original research. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  Not done and will not be done. WP:CSD#G11 might have been a better rationale for deletion, but in any case, that was a pure original research article written in a promotional tone, and has no place on an encyclopedia. Furthermore, if you are Winterschule, you agreed when you created the account that you would refrain from editing on subjects where you have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI for further guidance, and you are welcome to resubmit the article through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Keir Worthy

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was out of the country and have returned. I now would like to continue working on the page -Hitewil1 (talk) 18:55, 2 July 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sil Brook

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Jabigpine (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC) It was deleted because "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Which means the person is not of importance? Someone working in documentaries for 20 years now working on the first major feature film is not important?? You don't have that many documentaries, which you should have them all, they are important too. Please undelete the page Wikipedia should not just be for the rich and famous.

  Not done. Articles deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 are ineligible for restoration by request here. Talk to the deleting administrator, GB fan.
You don't seem to understand what "significance" (that is, notability) means, in the context of an encyclopedia.
Working on documentaries for 20 years doesn't make a person notable unless those documentaries received significant coverage.
Working on the first major film feature, not even yet released, doesn't make a person notable. I know people who have been working on their "first major film feature" for years now.
All that matters is, does the person have significant coverage in multiple sources that are reliable and independent of the subject?
See Wikipedia:Golden rule for general guidance about what makes an article something that should be kept. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crazy For Summer (Tavin Clavin song)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 74.193.219.47, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 74.193.219.47 (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done Remember you need references to prove that the work meets WP:NALBUM, or it will not be accepted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Humane Society International (Australia)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, EvanQ9, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. EvanQ9 (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done It's fairly promotional in tone and it seems like a lot of it is so closely paraphrased from places on the group's official website (like this page) that it would violate WP:COPYVIO. I'm not against the idea of you making a new entry, but the previous version had a lot of issues going on and you'd pretty much have to re-write it entirely even if we restored it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The Four Quarters Magazine

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are two evidence of notability now, which was not available then, on grounds of which the page was deleted -Goirick (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Erica Meier

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page was deleted, and there was no explanation as to why it was deleted. We would like to get the page up and running, as it is important to our organization. I'd love to be able to see the content and change it to be within the standards for Wikipedia. -Nfurlan (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done. The explanation is in the deletion log. It was deleted almost 8 years ago, in 2006, in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. It was recreated with no content and deleted a couple times more after that. Articles deleted as A7 are ineligible for restoration by request.
Who is "our organization" and why are you not disclosing your conflict of interest on your user page, as you agreed to do when you created an account? Feel free to submit a new article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and keep in mind Wikipedia:Golden rule to get the article accepted. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iridium Suite

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Susanmorrison, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Susanmorrison (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done That was way too buzzword-y, promotional and brochure-like, not to mention completely unsourced. You're better off starting off from scratch after you make sure the subject meets the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mike Smith (winemaker)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(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.) Pobega (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done Your submission reads like a brochure put out by the subject's website in order to promote him. See WP:BIO and resubmit something a lot more neutral if you think he meets the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

model of report

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

sir! this can be the sopurce of knowledge about the place Miriki(located) in India and the way of writing schools reports for the students.......sir! please its only the model of school picnic or excursion report. -Little Reban (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done Everything must be written according to our style guidelines. We cannot keep articles that read like personal essays and while Wikipedia can and should be used to help further education in general, we're not a how to guide. As far as locations go, not all locations are automatically notable. We could have an article on the town, but it'd have to pass WP:GEOLAND. I'm not finding a lot about this location, which makes me believe that it is likely a smaller location that is not legally recognized and doesn't have a lot written about it. We absolutely must have coverage in reliable sources to show that the location would pass notability guidelines. But again, even if the location passes WP:GEOLAND, the layout of the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. A better location would be Wikia, for things like this. We're not a place for you to post your school assignment, sorry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ICARE Live Media Private Limited

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Ash2378, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ash2378 (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done The article was written in a very promotional tone and you'd have to completely re-write it in order for it to pass our neutrality guidelines. You can create a new AfC, but you'd have to write it to be non-promotional. You'd also have to provide reliable sources (WP:RS) in places that is independent of the company itself and in places that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SyndicateRoom

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Thbritton, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Thbritton (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm fairly concerned that the article was declined twice for reading like an advertisement. It's not the most promotional thing I've read, but there are so many buzzwords in the article that I can definitely see where they were coming from. They're so mixed in with the article that you'd pretty much have to re-write it from scratch to fully clean it to meet Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I've usually found that it's better to just start from scratch than to try to clean a problem article up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Melvyn B. Nathanson

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, OBryant, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. O'Bryant (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MRIdb

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I, 193.60.222.2, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 193.60.222.2 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to work on this page and resubmit it. There as new references that address the criticism that it was un-encyclopaedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doregan (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

ticsom

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

not contain any advertising materials here and then click the "Save page" button below -Mo3tasem88 (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done Neither did it claim any importance, so I have deleted it again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grass it up

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Wymiller, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Wymiller (talk) 16:06, 4 July 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.
You're going to have to show that the band meets at least one of the inclusion criteria described in WP:BAND before this article can be accepted. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Jana Kantorová-Báliková

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Page was deleted because lack of reliable sources. I have to protest against deletion, because this was an original encyclopedic content. Information were provided by artist herself. -Jaroslav.balik (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jaroslav.balik: A biography of a living person must cite reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or the article will be deleted. See WP:Golden rule for further guidance. As an unsourced biography of a living person, it was not acceptable for main article space.
I have restored it to User:Jaroslav.balik/Jana Kantorová-Báliková for you to work on.
Because you appear to have an association with this person, please read WP:Conflict of interest and submit the article through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. There is already a submission button in the box at the top. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Linda Pinizzotto

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I researched the article extensively and all links and information provided were accurate and active. The references are from notable sources. I also included a provincial government endorsement identifying my content. A speedy deletion recommendation does not show well for Wikipedia. Had more clarity or suggestions been provided would be more honorable. Our Condo Board receives tremendous assistance from this non profit Association, without the founder it would not exist. I request that this article be undeleted. I welcome comment. -Nannalyn (talk) 16:52, 4 July 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 DGG (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Netnografía

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Juan Venegas, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Juan Venegas (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done. This is the English-language Wikipedia, but your submission was in Spanish. Also, there are already articles Netnography here, and es:Netnografía on the Spanish Wikipedia; you are welcome to help improve those. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -WikiHelper2134 (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is up for deletion and I am protesting this decision. It is claimed that this company does not receive enough attention for it to "count".

Phenoix Nuclear Labs has been around for 9 years, it was founded by Dr. Greg Piefer, who has been a pioneer in IEC and Fusion for over 15 years. The company gets press in the wisconsin area for it's technology and VC fundraising. It has grown to 30 employees since its founding in 2005, and the technology they have developed is really cutting edge stuff. Their patents discuss gas-based IEC devices. These machines do nuclear fusion reactions which produce neutrons. PNL has developed some of the worlds best commercial neutron sources - 10^14 Neutrons per second is no joke. This technology puts them in a unique position to develop radioactive isotopes for medical use. These isotopes (like MOLY-99 or Mo-99) are very rare, and very expensive. They have been made in giant machines (such as particle accelerators), PNL has scaled down the size of these machines considerably. The company has a credible, extensive list of partners and staff: the US Army, the NNSA, TechSource and (a few years ago) Los Alamos National Labs. As a kicker, they have a NASA astronaut on their board of board of directors. This is one of the best examples of a commercial application of inertial electrostatic confinement fusion devices. WikiHelper2134 (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done. Please read the green box at the head of this page. Deletion is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Nuclear Labs, not here. You have commented there, and may continue to take part in the discussion; see WP:DISCUSSAFD for advice. JohnCD (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lookout Emergency Aid Society

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I wish to complete the page and submit it -207.216.136.161 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done for copyright reasons - on inspection, this is pretty well a straight copy from the organization's website. Wikipedia cannot host copyright material, even temporarily, unless the actual copyright holder makes a formal copyright release. That is unlikely to be worth arranging, because Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world their own story. You would do better to write about the organization in your own words. See User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard and WP:Your first article for advice. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Kozo Kanatani

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -2A02:1810:3880:9800:80C2:4621:56AA:2C51 (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Goddessy Organics

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Goddessy Organics is a skincare line that was written about and sourced with over 30 links, most of which were third party sources and reliable, such as Conde Nast, Style Blazer, etc. If some of the links made it seem improper, then please re-add the article and revise it, rather than deleting. I had asked for help with the article prior but did not receive a reply. Only an abrupt deletion which I am just now aware of. Please undelete the article and either improve it or allow me time to, as the company indeed exists and is relevant, with the owner also having an article here also. Thanks. Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC) -Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

releasemyad

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Have updated with relecant links and references with proper sources and then click the "Save page" button below -Slunia (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kamrul Ahsan

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Lixiaowang, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Lixiaowang (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Already restored over 3 months ago. What are you trying to accomplish by making these repeated requests? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Purling London

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Purling London was under speedy deletion for unambiguous promotion of a company. I am still trying to figure out how the article was promoting, I tried to write neutrally and am happy to try again. I am simply just attempting to create a wiki article for this company, there was no promotion intended. if I could have some guidance as to where in the article the promotion may be occurring I can try to edit it. Thank you. -MTInternship (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done. Actually it seems there was promotion intended, in the sense of using Wikipedia as a publicity medium, which is not allowed. The product descriptions made it read like a corporate brochure rather than an article having relevance to an encyclopedia. If you are in any way associated with this company, you need to disclose your WP:Conflict of interest on your user page, and submit the article through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/releaseMyAd

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I, Slunia, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Slunia (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done There is already a "live" article with this name on Wikipedia, so a draft is no longer required at this time the panda ₯’ 12:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, @DangerousPanda: — The AFC submission had been declined, and the main space submission that was just created is substantially the same. It's pretty bad form for a user to go ahead and create a main space article after it was declined in AFC. AFC is where this belongs for now. I recommend restoring it and deleting the main space article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Normal process would be to move the article back into draft. You're right, AFC is where it belongs (actually, "nowhere on Wikipedia" is where it really belongs) the panda ₯’ 14:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/San Pedro Art Association

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

(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.) docoed (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/San Pedro Art Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docoed (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done Make sure to take a look at the comments on the draft for areas to improve it. I think that were the article shorter and less promotional it would be accepted much more readily. Protonk (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dj hop deezy page

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, HopDeezy, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. DjHopDeezy 20:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. Before you continue, please see WP:Conflict of interest. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:25, 5 July 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.. If this is to be accepted, it needs references to reliable sources, to verify what it says and to establish Wikipedia:Notability to the standard of WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deane Winthrop

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Jm3106jr, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jm3106jr (talk) 01:13, 6 July 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 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: you need to provide references to reliable sources for two reasons: to verify what the article says, and to establish thet Deane Winthrop is notable (in the Wikipedia sense) in his own right - see Wikipedia is not a directory #2 Genealogical entries. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kozo Kanatani

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 2A02:1810:3880:9800:80C2:4621:56AA:2C51, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 2A02:1810:3880:9800:80C2:4621:56AA:2C51 (talk) 08:14, 6 July 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) 16:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Spider Project Professional screenshot.png.

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. The File:Spider Project Professional screenshot.png has been deleted, because the article, which was using it has been deleted. The article is now restored: Spider_Project_(software). Please undelete the aforementioned file now. This has already been pre-discussed on User_talk:Ev2geny#Orphaned non-free image File:Spider Project Professional screenshot.png Ev2geny (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done It has been restored as a no longer orphaned image. You're welcome to reach out directly to me as the deleting admin in the future if you need something restored like this. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Crystal Clarke

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If there is anything potentially useful I would like it restored to history, so I can see if it's something that can be added to the current version, with appropriate sources. Without seeing it, I can't say for sure if anything in the history might be useful. I made a new article, based on her receiving a leading role in a major film, and understand the reason for the deletion was there was no claim before. -Rob (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done - nothing useful there, previous article was a childish autobio, not the same person. JohnCD (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rathnam

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Self promotion , article only gives you tube video links, Google search or other searches does not give any notable information, as a person living in the same country and state , this person is not worth mentioning in wikipedia -R.srinivaas (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_141&oldid=1136434706"