Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 171

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Fuhghettaboutit in topic Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Captain John Carnes of the Falcon (a slaver)
Archive 165←Archive 169Archive 170Archive 171Archive 172Archive 173→Archive 175

Draft:Ricco M. de Blank

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 203.198.18.163, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 203.198.18.163 (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Fire Fire Desire

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's a Trailer of the movie on youtube now. watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIJbA2R4uBw / The film is also online at imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4302556/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 and soon will be online in the Swiss database at www.swissfilms.ch other references as the official website and the website of the production company are already listed at the article "Fire Fire Desire" that was deleted "Save page" button below -Curriculum09 (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Curriculum09:   Not done, yet. It was deleted as a non-notable film. It hasn't even been released yet! Wikipedia is not a platform for publicizing films that might be notable someday.
Having a trailer on YouTube and an entry in IMDB doesn't make it notable, and neither does being present "soon" in a database somewhere. If it doesn't have significant actual coverage (not trivial mentions or directory listings) by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the film, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If I restored it, it would be deleted again on WP:TOOSOON grounds. What do you plan to do with the article? Restoring to draft space might be best. Let me know. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Susan Anderson

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Article was considered abandoned, while I was buried in several life crises; I didn't get back to it before the deadline. But now I'm back to it. -Livingmegler (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Livingmegler:   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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Light Beacon

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I, Joeleckert, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Joeleckert (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  Note: This page has been deleted multiple times as an abandoned draft article. As Articles for creation, the Draft space, and user subpages are not to be used to indefinitely host material inappropriate for the encyclopedia, what exactly would you do to help make the draft get accepted as an article? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  Not done Given the multiple prior requests for undeletion, with no significant change made after them to address the decline bases, I second that you would need to explain in some detail and specificity what you intended to do to make this article compliant. However, this article was quite promotional in tone, which militates against undeletion anyway. More importantly, it appears the article infringed on the copyright of content at CD Universe. It is possible it's a backwards copyvio and I can't check through the Wayback Machine as that site doesn't allow it web crawling, but it's worrying. Given all this combined, I don't think undeletion is warranted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Miss Polaris

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This is newest addition of international beauty pageants. New article for beauty pageants. -rpamers (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  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. A7s will not be restored here. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's since been deleted. The thing is with this is that it looks like the pageant has yet to actually be held, which makes it very unlikely that this will have the necessary coverage in reliable sources to pass notability guidelines. I'd personally recommend holding off on re-creating the article until the pageant has been held and it's received coverage in reliable sources like newspapers and the like. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Draper

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 3jamied, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 3jamied (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tedd Browne

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, ESchultzDC, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. ESchultzDC (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC) this was a time deletion. I just need to recover and publish the article -ESchultzDC (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeremy Weller

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 82.132.230.102, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 82.132.230.102 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  •   Not done The page was pretty muddled and it's also somewhat promotional in how it was written, to the point where it really comes across like it is a likely copyright violation. (Meaning that someone either cut and pasted material directly into the article or so closely paraphrased the original content that it'd still be copyvio.) I can't really tell who or what the article is really supposed to be about, so I'd personally recommend that you just re-write the entire thing from scratch. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Renoir Bathers Pastel paper study

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Renoir Bathers Pastel paper study · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Please restore the Renoir Bathers pastel paper study as all the information has been verified by the most prominent paper specialist in the world. I have stated all sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J. Schneider (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  Note: Surely you jest! No page's ever existed under that title! Are you sure that the page's title is correct, including the namespace prefixes (User:, Wikipedia talk:, etc.)? No reasonable permutations of the title I tested in your userspace, draftspace, AfCspace, or mainspace produced a deletion log. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Not done They're referring to Renoir Bathers paper report. It looks like it was created by User:Michael James Schneider last month and was deleted because it was completely empty. Of course they might also be referring to File:Paper as evidence.pdf, which was deleted at Commons for a lack of permissions. Either way restoration will not be done on this forum since there was nothing to restore for the Wikipedia article and we cannot restore Commons deletions here (and they'd still need to file a ticket at WP:ORTS to show permissions even then). However at the same time I'm kind of getting WP:OR vibes from this, as this is likely the same thing that is discussed here so I'd recommend that Michael J. Schneider approach this with extreme caution. Just because one specialist has covered this does not mean that a subject is notable. Also, I'll have to block this account as a technical sockpuppet since you're really only supposed to have one account for editing on Wikipedia. There are some exceptions, but this does not appear to be one of those exceptions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Safecharge 1/sandbox

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 212.25.122.125, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 212.25.122.125 (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  •   Not done The article contained copyright violations from this website. We cannot accept copyright violations on Wikipedia and material must either be in your own words or you must file a ticket at WP:ORTS giving Wikipedia permission to use the text. However even then the article still had issues since it contained many phrases that would be considered promotional per Wikipedia's guidelines. That's kind of the issue with taking things verbatim from an official website, as the official website is written to draw in a customer and sell things to them. That's expected and recommended for an official website, but not for Wikipedia since the article would have to be written in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. That's why copyrighted material is so discouraged- in most cases even if permissions are granted the material would still need to be re-written. I'd recommend that you start from scratch and write the article in your own words. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Poorya Nazari

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Contesting speedy -Valoem talk contrib 07:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Talk page as well please. Valoem talk contrib 07:38, 14 January 2015 (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. If the main page doesn't get undeleted, nor will the talk page. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 07:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Please disregard comment above. Editor did not research the subject in question I would like to clarify I am requesting userfication so I can determine the condition of the article. I will added additional sources. Valoem talk contrib 09:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -EmmaJoanne (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I am requesting this be put back. This is because while the person who deleted it said that there is no reason for it to be included in wiki, IMHO this is untrue since the original article was listed under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_requested_articles (indicating that Wiki itself is REQUESTING this article). Thus if Wiki is making the request I was under the impression that it would be Wiki-notable.

Best EmmaJoanne

  • @EmmaJoanne: I do have to let you know that having it listed as a request does not automatically mean that the person passes notability guidelines as a whole. It just means that (in this instance) there are multiple red links for someone by that name. Sometimes people will red link to something (ie, a referee), yet the topic will not pass notability guidelines. In other words, the number of red links doesn't necessarily equate to notability and should be taken to mean that it's likely that the requested topic would be notable. It can be a good argument towards there being coverage, but it's not a guarantee. Offhand I'd probably have requested that it go to AfD instead of speedy deletion if I'd been the admin that came across it, but I can see where the notability issues came from and why it was A7'd. Of the sources on the page, only this one appeared to be a non-primary source as the others were from places associated with Anderson. It also had some issues with tone, as it kind of came across like it was an article for a newspaper as opposed to a Wikipedia entry. Some of the sentences were written in such a casual manner that it sort of came across a bit promotional. (IE, sentences like this one: "Because of how much he enjoys both his professions he tries to combine them and thus leads courses for school students to encourage them to "pick up a whistle," which has been going well.") I hope this doesn't come across as too negative, just that these are some of the biggest issues I saw with the article and was likely what led to it being deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You could probably get it placed in your userspace or draftspace to work on, though- you should ask the deleting admin Anthony Appleyard if he'll do it for you. He's usually pretty willing to work with people on stuff like this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sophie Linfield

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Raf Santana, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Raf Santana (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Raf Santana:   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick Morris

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 23.241.48.60, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 23.241.48.60 (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2015 (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) 20:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kriya Yoga Guru Yogacharya Tapan Bose

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@LAKULISH:   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. (Thanks, Ritchie333!) JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the article titled the court of the lion:a novel of the T'ang dynasty represents a worthy book and that the article could be repaired summarily

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I believe that this is worthy novel that received international attention and that it could be repaired to meet the wikipedia neutral guidelines policy. There is enough good material in the article to be completely revamped, reviews removed appropriately and the article given the proper tone and sourcing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.172.248 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion G11. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. As I told you yesterday on #wikipedia-en-help, you're wasting your time here asking for this to be restored. You're best off rewriting this from scratch. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Keller

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Prod is for lack of citation yet this is only needed for biography of actual persons. Chris Keller is a character on the show Oz. Other characters are accepted without citations. -69.116.103.17 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Batch Premium Gin

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is a bonafide product with placement in Majestic Wine shops in and around Winchester, also in bars, pubs and also to debut in London next month. It is entered into two world class gin festivals / competitions and is demonstrative of the returning Cottage Industries of the gin industry. -Lucian Sma (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lucian Sma:   Not done The article has been nominated for deletion by consensus. You should be improving it to evidence that the subject meets the inclusion guidelines, and then make that point in the deletion discussion. This board is for restoration of material deleted by other means. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hugh Vincent (poker player)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please userfy page plus talk page -Valoem talk contrib 10:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Valoem:   Not done - nothing to restore. The deleted article contained one byte, the single character "a", and the talk page was empty. JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Warnock's dilemma

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. :) This page is deleted five days ago through PROD. If the issue is notability alone, we can merge it into WP:SILENCE for our own internal use. Best regards, -Codename Lisa (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Boleyn (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. Suggest you talk to Boleyn about what to do with it. JohnCD (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Cumulative frequency analysis

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Google search for this common tool of mathematics yields 2.9M results, the page was informative and instructive when I last reviewed and reason given was "Non Existing Subject" which I cannot understand -90.201.114.222 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Nijdam (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. JohnCD (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Tube Bar Collector's Edition

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Tyros1972, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tyros1972 Talk 09:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tyros1972:   Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user SpyMagician (talk), who proposed it, and it may be nominated at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. JohnCD (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Jon & Kate Plus Eight logo.svg

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

AFAIR this is a text-only logo (as can be seen on Google Images and comparable to the current File:Kate plus 8 logo.svg which is on Commons), so should have been PD, and not a fair-use image. I request that, if my recollection is correct, the image be restored, marked as Public Domain, and transferred to Commons, for use on the history of the show. -65.94.40.137 (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  Done, and I have reset the timer on the di-no-fair-use tag. Suggest you add it to the Jon & Kate Plus 8 article, where it would be at least as appropriate as the existing Kate-only logo; then it would be safe while you organize a transfer to Commons. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

File:St Gregory's School Main building SGHS.jpg

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS e-mail received from author, Ticket no: 2014121310004191 , thanks -Ibrahim.ID »» 02:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Done, restored.

@Ibrahim.ID: Please reply to the uploader and clean up the image page with the proper templates. I just tagged it with the OTRS and licensing templates. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks @Amatulic:--Ibrahim.ID »» 05:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amanda Doskocil

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 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.) Micsaintjohn (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Drunk, Dirty and Disgraceful

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Was not here when the article was deleted, I believe it is notable -Tyros1972 Talk 07:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Tube Bar Red's Bootleg Tape (Remastered)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Tyros1972, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tyros1972 Talk 07:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Tube Bar Prank Calls 35th Anniversary Complete Collection

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Tyros1972, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tyros1972 Talk 07:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tube Bar (album))

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I, Tyros1972, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tyros1972 Talk 09:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tyros1972:   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/Tube Bar (album), 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 Spartaz (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't around when they deleted all of the Tube Bar albums I worked so hard to create. I believe they are all notable and would like a chance to explain why by adding more sources. Personally I have nothing to gain, the reasons for deletion were selling MP3 and such that is outright false (I am not the owner). I am having a hard time finding the deleted links so as pages are being restored I am requesting them back. They may not be notable, but I would like to try to save them. I was away during that time and busy w/ life so didn't have time to do it. Is there anyway to get this back? Thank you very much for your help. Tyros1972 Talk 07:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tokyogirl79 I left him a message concerning that. Tyros1972 Talk 12:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Tube Bar Albums

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Tyros1972, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tyros1972 Talk 13:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Not done That is not an AFC submission, it's a template deleted at WP:TFD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Real Time Action Technology

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have re-written my article based on feedback and requested that it be reactivated, but every time it's reinstated, it's deleted again before I have the opportunity to edit it. I would appreciate the article being reactivated for 48 hours so that I have an opportunity to replace the current text with what I have already prepared. -B2Btechguy (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Not done The correct process for this is to create a draft in your userspace (or the draft namespace) and then submit a deletion review here. As per the notice at the top of this page, AFDs are not restored here. AFD deletions are binding and require consensus before recreation. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

ShqiperiaCom Shpk

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I find the speedy deletion of this article unfair. A lot of time and energy was spend in creating it and it provided some valuable information. I am willing to discuss and improve the article further and will welcome advice by older editors, but I find the speedy deletion arbitrary and far from Wikipedia and knowledge management values. Thank you for the evaluation of this request Al-punk (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC) -Al-punk (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2015 (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. If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Vienna In Love (band)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, VIL12345678, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. VIL12345678 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@VIL12345678:   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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Leo Stolz

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hermann trophy winner, all winners have a wiki page the "Save page" button below -Elopez76 (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Hermann trophy winner

  •   Not done This isn't really the right page for this. It's up for a speedy deletion as a re-creation of an article deleted at AfD, so the best place to contest this would be on the article's talk page (which you have already done). If it is deleted then you'll have to bring it up with the admin that closed the AfD (User:Joe Decker) and if he declines to restore it then you will have to go through deletion review. Just on a glance it looks like the AfD determined that the Hermann Trophy wasn't a large enough award to really give absolute notability (meaning that they'd keep on that basis alone), so you will have to assert notability through more than just the trophy win. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Fat B Dat G

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Eleyejah, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Eleyejah (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Leo Stolz (2nd request)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hy is Leo Stolz deleted he won the national Hermann trophy and all Herman winners have a wiki page, please put back. No explanation as to why deleted, a lot of sources in article, please explain.• Elopez76 (talk) -Elopez76 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  Not done You received an explanation above. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician)

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The reason cited for the deletion was, "Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable political candidate." The article may have previously been given the noncontroversial delete prod, and had it removed. Since this is a one time process, the more recent prod would be improper. In the event that this deletion was proper, this user would like to view the edit history and article content since it may still be appropriate to merge some of the content into a larger article, such as the "Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006." -Libertyguy (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Libertyguy:   Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I only show a single PROD deletion on the article. There is no restriction on the number of times an article may be deleted via PROD, the restriction is that a PROD may not be re-applied once it has been contested. However, deletion sorta resets the clock on that. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Thank You - Can you clarify what you mean by, "However, deletion sorta resets the clock on that."--Libertyguy (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
If an article is PRODed and de-PRODed then PROD cannot be applied again to it. That's spelled out in the policy. However, let's assume that the PROD is never contested, the article is deleted, then recreated or undeleted through here. There is no injunction against PRODing it again, since it's a "new" instance of the article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog:Thank you for your quick answer. I found a discussion from 2006 where the outcome of the discussion (Here: Talk:Michigan_gubernatorial_election,_2006#Douglas_Campbell) was Not to merge. Would that make the recent PROD out of order? If not, would this prevent a future merge?--Libertyguy (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Libertyguy: I wouldn't say the PROD was out of order, the merge discussion (either way) doesn't affect whether an article is appropriate or not. Realistically only an AFD does that. And I mean, it's been nine years... surely some stuff has changed since then? Maybe the guy merits a full article now. That's for you to decide. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Avoiding scrutiny and consensus. -Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

User Tetra quark has placed an archievetop on section "Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?", to seemingly openly avoid scrutiny of his AWB changes in which there has been no agreed consensus. Furthermore, the User is falsely claiming "This is turning into personal attacks." to somehow justify the deletion. Any reverting the insertion of this item again would likely violate the 3 edit rule, which I want to avoid..

Note: There currently a further Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard on the possible misuse of AWB, which Tetra quark is aware, but this is not related to this archievetop issue.

(If I've done something wrong here, my sincere apologies, but I could seem to find the solution to solve this problem. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry. I've clearly made a mistake. (I've never had to do this before.) However, regarding the reversion, the use of archievetop,was by Tetra quark to limit conversation on something that was presumably in discussion. Q. Should I have broken the three edit run, OR attempted some other action that I am unaware of? The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard has stumbled to some kind of consensus, but this wasn't the case when this was posted. This is a clear violation here, as the Editor was deliberately justifying a false premise to take such provocative action. Surely, using archievetop this way is detrimental to basic editing and debate? Having "the close is already reverted", implies Tetra quark is likely at fault, and should be warned. It is hardly in the spirit of editing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually. Q. What should have been my course action in this instance? Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It is best not to get into a revert war over this sort of thing. Instead you should have just opened up a new section on that same talk page to raise the issue. I would have reverted the discussion close myself if I came across it. This is because someone with a conflict of interest in a controversial discussion should not close it themselves. Keep calm and no need to raise the debate to higher more heated level. It is best if it can be sorted out all in one discussion board rather than raised in many places. This board is for requesting undelete of things that are deleted by an administrator. Not for general revert requests. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I won't address your sentences before "actually", that can be for the dispute resolution board. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tao Stein

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Jessieljn, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jessieljn (talk) 03:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Jupiter Zeus

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Fudnoms, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Fudnoms (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Lordville-Equinunk Bridge

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Was there anything substantial here? The deletion summary is unhelpful. -NE2 01:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Claudio Encarnación Montero

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 186.6.27.52, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 186.6.27.52 (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashley the Gorgeous

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Who are you to decide who is "important" and unimportant? Everything I created under the page about Ashley is factual and the fact that I am creating a Wiki Page at one in the morning means she is important to me. Perhaps your terms of service need some maintenance and tweak it to reflect equality. I apologize that she isn't Joan of Arc or Aphrodite, she is Ashley. You shouldn't delete the page just because she hasn't accomplished anything significant on the Global scale, sometimes it is okay to focus on the smaller scales too. -MattyAbrahamsen (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@MattyAbrahamsen:   Not done and will not be done. This is project to build a serious encyclopedia, and that means it is selective about subjects. It is not a social-networking site for people to write about themselves and their friends. Try Facebook. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
<snip> (e/c) Hi Matty, sorry but that was an utterly inappropriate page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compendium of knowledge. You mistake where you are for some social networking/anything goes forum where indiscriminate musings on random topics can stay. It was actually deleted as a test page under (section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion), rather than under the two bases it was nominated for deletion under: Failure to assert importance or significance (A7) and blatant promotion (G11), although I would have deleted it under both.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Phenom Placement Consultant

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

1.) No Promotional Material 2.) Client Name/ Turnover of Company not disclosed 3.) All facts are supported by reference links 4.)Purpose of creating page is to keep updated the categories such as 1.) Companies in India 2.) Employment agencies in India -Ashishca07 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: I am involved so leave it for others. Some related discussion at my talk page here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about companies. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Walid Abdallah

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 86.6.46.228, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 86.6.46.228 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" Check out WP:Your first article (note the need for references) and WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thasnai Sethaseree

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Thasnai (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thasnai:   Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves - please read WP:Autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Vasile Baghiu

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Vasiba, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Vasiba (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Vasiba:   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) 18:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User:Scalhotrod/Danica Dillon

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I, Scalhotrod, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod:   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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Moved to Draft:Danica Dillon per AFC guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Just for reference, I'm basically waiting for this person to win a major award which would automatically qualify her Notability. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Scalhotrod: You're welcome. Would it be OK for me to delete the original location? It's totally in the wrong place. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oghenetega B. Fadiniyi

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Capotega (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Capotega:   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. If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Anna Thomson

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anna Thomson; This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 12:08, 22 October 2014 Euryalus deleted page Anna Thomson (Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable minor performer; fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.177.134 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 January 2015‎

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Wikipedical (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Greater Hull

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Before writing my article, i looked long and hard to see if there was anything on the Kingston upon Hull built up area, which there was nothing, not even on the Hull page, nor nothing on the proposed city boundry move. "Save page" button below -Joshuawhite750 (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

S. R. Chishti

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

it is pure information about the musician -23:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)117.201.68.19 (talk)

  Not done, article is not deleted. "Information" isn't equivalent to notability. I have removed the speedy delete tag from it, but notability really needs to be more firmly established according to WP:MUSICBIO, else the article will not survive a deletion discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Quigley

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I, 31.51.195.205, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 31.51.195.205 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  Not done, article was deleted per WP:CSD#G3 (blatant hoax).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
(e/c)   Done. Hello. Please be careful entering the full title, which is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chris Quigley, and not Chris Quigley. That page was deleted as a hoax in 2010 and time was wasted confirming it was a hoax before checking whether you might have meant something more recent, and then tracking that down. The page has some apparent close paraphrasing problems with the content at this site. You need to fix that. I am restoring it but please understand that you need to 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Captain John Carnes of the Falcon (a slaver)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Claudeaikenhead, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Claudeaikenhead (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2015 (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.. @Claudeaikenhead:--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_171&oldid=1083424600"