Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 200

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Amatulic in topic Luckie & Company
Archive 195←Archive 198Archive 199Archive 200Archive 201Archive 202→Archive 205

Callum James Greens

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article sources may be out of date. New sources and references can be given for information on the wikipedia article "Save page" button below -80.193.152.44 (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Voceditenore (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. Check out WP:Notability, WP:Notability (people) and WP:Notability (summary) for guidance on the sort of sources required. JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Garrett Huyler (athlete)

Latest comment: 9 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.) Gjh26 (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gerald Wickremesooriya

Latest comment: 9 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.) Kayzeecee (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Cold Creek County

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Userfy, as I think I created this redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Jax 0677, did you want the redirect restored or the article? The main reason I'm asking is that you created the redirect but a sockpuppet created the article. I'm going to ping Ponyo in this since she salted the article for a brief period of time. If she's cool with it, I don't mind sending you a copy of the article history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

List of 100 Crore Club Bollywood Movies

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article is true and correct as per www.bollywoodhungama.com & www.koimoi.com boxoffice collection -Skumarddd (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Chris Wagner

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore edit history for recreated article. -Dolovis (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James Pasierbowicz

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I, 74.131.72.229, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 74.131.72.229 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I missed the deadline. I wish to have this article undeleted so that I can provide reliable links and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.72.229 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done This seems to have been deleted out of process, but it is back anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Daisy Roulland-Dussoix

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

MerielGJones (talk) 08:22, 13 August 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) 09:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Eleonora Genieve de Gray

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, we didn't abandoned the page. we didn't reach to someone on wikipedia who can help us to add the links , we are not specializing on wikipedia editing codes - so it's not easy for us to do it. several people tried to add correctly the links to support information provided , we didn't succeed and didn't receive any support. Please restore this page. thanks -Pomconfi (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pomconfi:   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. See WP:Referencing for beginners for how to add reference links. If you still have problems, ask advice at the WP:Help desk or place {{helpme}} on your talk page with a specific question. JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Undefined

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Transcluded in a hundred of pages -IKhitron (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That template does not exist, and has not previously existed so cannot be undeleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I see. I believe I accidentally asked this on a wrong page, in place of m:Requests for deletion#Requests for undeletion. Sorry, IKhitron (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Even there, What links here doesn't seem to show your "hundred of pages" on which it is transcluded? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
To me too, now. Possibly, there was one template that transcluded it and it was transcluded in a hundred others, and it was fixed after my request. IKhitron (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Janos Spiegel Violin Maker

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It's copied from an another page -Daveviolinmaster (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That is actually a reason not to undelete. Copyright violations and cut/paste moves aren't restored here or anywhere else. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Daveviolinmaster: I declined the speedy deletion request as the content was not the same as the material you pasted from a website when you first created the article. I've moved it to Janos Spiegel. Please work on it, because in its present form it is a candidate for speedy deletion as not asserting basic importance. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

World Film Magic

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for undeleting this page, more references need to be added and missed working on it while the 7 day window was active -204.89.11.240 (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Vrac (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 us not more references which mention the company in passing, but some which discuss it directly and in depth - see WP:Notability (summary). JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:M Jonathan Lee

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Georgepoppleton, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Georgepoppleton (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Georgepoppleton:   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) 22:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nick Cousins

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Please restore edit history for this re-created article. -Dolovis (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

    • I don't think it's a good idea. There's stuff in there about allegations of criminal misconduct that were dismissed for lack of evidence. There was AfD consensus to delete that stuff, let it stay deleted. -- Y not? 01:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Article was deleted at the poorly discussed AfD because both of the participants argued that he didn't yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Subject is now an NHL player and is clearly notable. Mentions of the dismissed criminal allegations are well-known, referenced and verifiable. Such information will certainly be re-introduced into the article in any event, so it is not a reason to keep the edit history hidden. Attribution is required. Dolovis (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Just because a dismissed allegation was reported at the time, doesn't mean that it needs to be discussed in a person's bio in an encyclopedia. -- Y not? 13:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
          • The allegation is not the only content of the deleted article; and in any event, pursuant to WP:DUE, proper weight and reliable sources make such news worth a mention. That, however, is not the issue. Proper attribution is required for all articles, and now that the Nick Cousins article is deemed notable, all the edit history of that article should properly be restored. Dolovis (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Pat Mitchell Worley

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, BrianONeal, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. -BrianONeal (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC) I'm confused and hope you can help. I authored this entry for person of significance but am not sure why it's not meeting criteria. SHould I be contacting the deleting administrator? I believe this deletion was in error. Thank you, Brian

@BrianONeal:   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request.
It was deleted because you input it more than a year ago, in an obviously incomplete state (no references, and statements like "Mitchell was educated at XXXXX where she graduated in XXXX"), and never submitted it for review or did anything more with it. Please complete it and, when it is ready, click the green "Submit" button to send it for review. Read WP:Your first article and WP:Biographies of living persons for advice, and note particularly the need for references to reliable sources (a) to verify what the article says, and (b) to establish WP:Notability, which requires evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Polystar

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Guy redmill, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Guy redmill (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Guy redmil:   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) 20:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Wade_Biery

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 2605:E000:2EC8:400:583F:C329:4E20:A4B5, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 2605:E000:2EC8:400:583F:C329:4E20:A4B5 (talk) 16:05, 14 August 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) 20:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Seithikurippu Ratnas Pandi-Perumal

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -99.231.134.234 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 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, user Randykitty (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Corbin McPherson

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Request that edit history be restored for this recreated article. -Dolovis (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Matt Murray (ice hockey)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Request edit history to be restored for this recreated article. -Dolovis (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Bitetto

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Request to restore edit history for this recreated article. -Dolovis (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

infodynamics

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The reason why the page "infodynamics" should not be deleted is because it is a term and science that is currently being used by more and more people. For example, there is a department of infodynamics at Rice University, there have been a number of recent scholarly publication using the term infodynamics, it is not a new term and has been in use for over 20 years now (Salthe, 1993), and it is a theory that is currently being taught to students in private classes in the USA. There is also a company named Infodynamics LLC. This indicates that such a term is currently in use and gaining momentum by more and more of the general public, not only scholars. Authors such as Dr. Ray Mansuri and Dr. Stanley Salthe also intend on further developing and popularizing such a term and concept with in the next few years. Within the next few years, one can expect the term to be used more frequently. It would be a shame if it was not included in the archives of such a site. Thank you for your consideration. This term and concept are not going to go away. If you learned what the concept is about, you may appreciate its relevance to today's and the future's technological and sociological progression. Finally, I would like to argue that such a term/concept should not be deleted solely on the merit that it was deleted before several years ago (2012). This indicates that the people behind the term/concept are passionate about its survival and proliferation for the betterment of science and society. I also have ran across countless articles that are of value, but may not have the future relevance and importance that this term/concept carries. It deserves more recognition and it will get it, whether its with wiki's help or without, hopefully, it is with wiki's help. Many great concepts were initially rejected, only to regretfully realize this error. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysonik (talk • contribs) 11:13, 14 August 2015 (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/Infodynamics, 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 JohnCD (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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Raysonik:. I will reply to you on your talk page tomorrow. In the meantime, read WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Lodro Rinzler

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, our article was deleted for copyright from his personal site (lodrorinzler.com), but I am his assistant and he asked me to create a wiki page for him almost verbatim from his personal account. You are welcome to contact Lodro directly (Email Redacted) about this. I promise he wants the wiki page to be a copy of his personal webpage bio. Please let me know if there's a way we can get the wiki page back up. Thanks so much! Sarah Gokhale -- <phone and email redacted> -Segokhale (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Segokhale:   Not done. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place like Facebook or LinkedIn for people to write about themselves or post copies of their personal websites. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Segokhale: (edit conflict) Going a little further in depth:
  • Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and will generally not use copyrighted material even if permission is granted. Wikipedia text is available to all via a Creative Commons license, and material taken from other websites should not be included herein unless it is also governed a Creative Commons or compatible license.
  • Even leaving copyright issues aside, the primary text of any article should be referenced from reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Material from sources connected to the subject tends to be biased and usually contains promotional language. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web host.
Based on a quick search for sources, Mr. Rinzler is probably notable enough to merit an article here. But it would be better if someone other than his own assistant wrote the article. --Finngall talk 22:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Example

Latest comment: 9 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.) 72.23.173.148 (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Sales Management Association

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Cowboyontherange (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC) The Sales Management Association page was written in a style similar to other association or foundation pages such as Kauffman Foundation, Marketing Science Institute, and so its inline with other approved pages. Please do not let a bias against the word 'sales' in the association name influence your opinion of the section. The association serves the needs of a large number of managers in the sales profession globally, and seems worth recognizing as is other management associations (AMA, ARF, AAAA, etc).

  Not done Hi Cowboyontherange. This was a blatant marketing brochure. It also appears to have been a copyright violation of pages like this. In any event, each page falls on its own merits. Pointing out other similar pages is usually flawed because Wikipedia at any given times has many thousands of other articles with policy and guideline violating content that just haven't been addressed yet. See WP:WAX. Indeed, I've just looked at Marketing Science Institute, and what a blatant piece of advertising it is. Anyway, we do not overturn articles deleted under CSD A7 and CSD G11 here. This page is only for uncontroversial restorations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit Please indicate the specific text you believe is a copyright infringement. This can be easily addressed. Also, if you find some parts of the submission to be promotional please state which text. In my opinion it was a fact based description of a management association. So it would be enlightening to know specifics. There are many organizations listed on Wikipedia and there is a benefit to having them listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowboyontherange (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC) cowboyontherange

We aren't a business listing, we're an encyclopædia. As pointed out by Fuhghettaboutit, all articles must stand or fall on their own merits. You cannot use the existence of other articles to justify your own. Am I correct in assuming you work for the association? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cowboyontherange: As to your follow-up request: The paragraph headed Overview contained the text:
"...promotes professional development, peer networking, best practice research, and thought leadership for professionals who support, manage, coach..."
And the external page I linked says:
"...promotes professional development with best practices research, peer networking, and thought leadership among professionals who support, manage, coach"
Note that slight surface modification, switching a few words or phrases as above does not avoid copyright infringement. Furthermore, if you are the owner of the text, you still couldn't use it here unless you released it to the world, irrevocably and forever, under a free copyright license or into the public domain. But that's academic because this marketing speak would never be acceptable anyway. That answers your second question as well. If you can't see that this text is patent ad-speak then I can only suggest you step away from the marketing world for a while to get some perspective back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for pointing out that passage. Please note that when a short phrase bears similarity to a phrase in another work, its usually not enough to win a copyright claim, especially when these are particularly common and descriptive phrases. Copyright infringement is concerned more with substantial copying, and not wen when a small amount is similar (de minimis). So there is no issue, I can easily change that sentence. I am happy to modify the article to make it seem more to your liking. Cowboyontherange

  Not done The proposed text is still promotional. Sounds like it will be best to wait for an independent person to write on this topic, if at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandaleshwar Singh

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want to that this article should be on Wikipedia. -Paras420 (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Oto (Valle de Broto)

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

requested at WP:AFC/R, created, but then deleted apparently due to a misunderstanding as to its purpose - should redirect to Broto#Valle de Broto - likewise Buesa + Sarvise + Asin de Broto + Bergua + Ayerbe de Broto + Yosa + Escartin + Fragen + Viu de Linás + Viu de Linas + Linás de Broto + Linas de Broto -119.76.65.14 (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Question: are you User:Glacialfrost? If so, then you can just sign in to an account and re-create these redirects. From what I could see, these were all redirects created by Glacialfrost and you turned this into a request for deletion (WP:G7) per the statement "I confirmed a redirect request but realised that I needed to be an official reviewer to do so." If you want them back, you can just re-create them. There's no reason that you have to get permission through here to have them restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I was previously User:81.141.42.14, the wp:afc/r requester. 119.76.65.14 (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Not done It looks like the request is still open here, so I'm going to decline this on procedural purposes. I don't want to get in the way of the already open request at WP:AfC/R and since the person who has created the redirects initially asked for them to be deleted, I'm going to leave these deleted for the time being. Don't worry - odds are likely that these will be made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:ArangoDB

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I, Tsm32, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tsm32 (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Need to update and resubmit for inclusion in Wikipedia -Tsm32 (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  Not done. This appears to a copyright violation of pages like this one, though I acknowledge that given the passage of time since the draft was started, it is possible this is backwards copying (the Wayback Machine was not useful here). Nevertheless, the content reads very much like material that would have been written for its website than for Wikipedia. I take it you are an employee or owner of this site. If that is the case, please understand that you cannot post non-free copyrighted text to Wikipedia like this, even if you own the copyright. To use non-free copyrighted material in this manner, the owner needs to give up its copyright permanently and irrevocably under a compatible free copyright license (or into the public domain). Anyway, you've been working on this draft for almost four years, it's been declined four times, and it still reads as a promotion piece, without adequate sourcing to show notability.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guernsey Society

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Sgfoote, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. footie (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  Not done. This infringed on the copyrighted content at the society's website, and from here (a wiki, but not bearing any free copyright license; the first revisions there pre-date the same content being added here). If you released the content at the wiki by, for example, posting a notice at the bottom like:
The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
Then I would not decline to undelete based on the material from the society's website. Normally, we would not undelete any content that still contained a copyright violation, but here the amount from that website is not large and probably would have qualified as fair use had it been properly attributed (through quotation marks, in-text attribution and an inline citation), so that can be done upon undeletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Harry Chapin Foundation

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Deleted in 2008 due to expired prod. Before potentially recreating it on my own I'd like to see the original to potentially update/save instead. Requesting article be userfied or put into my draft for review and history save. -☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Scott Hanselman

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Scott Hanselman is a very influential developer, speaker and technical evangelist for Microsoft. I don't understand how his page was deleted for having done nothing of note. -50.132.56.91 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Brendan Ranford

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Request to restore edit history for this recreated article. -Dolovis (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Damon Severson

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Request to restore edit history for recreated article. -Dolovis (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dalton Smith

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Request to restore edit history for this recreated article. -Dolovis (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Grant Tkachuk

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Request to restore edit history. -Dolovis (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  Done--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:LICHEN Arts & Letters Preview

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I, CoraHmd, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. CoraHmd (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  Not done. This was a copyright violation, infringing on the content from the journal's web site and so it cannot be undeleted unless that material was released under a free copyright license compatible with Wikipedias', or into the public domain.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} This page was deleted under CSD G13. 71.3.138.36 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Two things. We don't delete copyright violations, and you have to have the technical ability to perform an undeletion, in order to grant a request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Willow Springs (magazine)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Dangruz, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Dangruz (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dangruz:   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) 21:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brenda Kerr

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Rugbyleagueorg, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Rugbyleagueorg (talk) 20:34, 16 August 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) 12:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frenchie (rapper)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, OfficialRecurrence, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. OfficialRecurrence (talk) 10:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Fleece pants

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This redirect was deleted out of process. -Dolovis (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Elastic Theatre

Latest comment: 9 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.) Baroquebox (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Baroquebox:   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) 15:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Sulzbach

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This page should be restored because it is about a notable person. The reason that was given for deletion was Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The article did have some good information. -Cubical (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  Note: The page was deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7, indicating an article that did not explain or prove why the subject was notable. A7 deletions are not overturned here; try contacting the deleting administrator (DGG (talk · contribs)) instead. "Having good information" doesn't necessarily mean the article actually discussed it in the context of Mr. Sulzbach. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Cubical -- this is a "Youtube ranter"; there were no third party sources of any sort. There will be no chance of an article without them. When you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements--but not until you have them use--then use WP: Articles for Creation. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is an actual U.S. legal entity, donations to which are tax-exempt under IRS rules. While the purpose of the legal entity might be for satire, it addresses a real issue in many parts of U.S. - people gullible to religious fraud. It's also significant due to: (a) The amount of news coverage it has received; (b) Number of views on YouTube; (c) It is a service, which is an exemption to A7. The speedy deletion was inappropriate, and should have been discussed further. -70.42.157.30 (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  Note: The page was deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7, indicating an article that did not explain or prove why the subject was notable. A7 deletions are not overturned here; try contacting the deleting administrator (Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs)) instead. Organisations such as what you appear to be describing do indeed fall under A7, and YouTube hits are meaningless (i.e. popularity isn't notability). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  Not done It is an organisation so A7 can apply. No claim of importance was there. If there really are independent substantial and reliable sources then you can start a draft at Draft:Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Black Diamond Effect Inc.

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

More information is available. "Save page" button below -70.49.241.41 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Our Father

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 92.26.218.45, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 92.26.218.45 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Aria Pullman

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I, 45.48.175.134, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 45.48.175.134 (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to make the necessary edits to this page for proper publishing on the Wikipedia platform. -45.48.175.134 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  •   Not done This was incredibly promotional in tone, enough to where I'm fairly certain that this was pulled from a press release or other source, meaning that it's extremely likely to be WP:COPYVIO. If you have an account with an e-mail I'm willing to mail it to you, but I don't feel comfortable restoring this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Report Bee

Latest comment: 9 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.) Kratos.arvind (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gunna Schmidt

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I, Esma789, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Esma789 (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I lost the Article, and I would like to restore the text, to see if it can be improved. Thank you.Esma789 (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Esma789

  •   Not done Esma789, the article contained WP:COPYVIO from Schmidt's blog. Wikipedia cannot host material taken from elsewhere and the material must be written in your own words, partially to avoid legal issues but also because the way the text was written didn't fit in with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I can e-mail you a copy of the article, though, since there was other content on there that you could otherwise use. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

transient identification

Latest comment: 9 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.) Wireless friend (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/I Am a Girl!

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Sanna Scholtens, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sanna Scholtens (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Checkmarx

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am here to request the undeletion of the article Checkmarx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmarx). It was previously deleted numerous times and then blocked from recreation. It was deleted in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013. You can refer to the previous link for the deletion discussions associated with the content.

First, I am not receiving compensation to write this article. I read the guidelines on conflict of interest and want to make sure that is clear. I do have a connection with the company which is another reason I am here. I have created a draft in my sandbox that I would like reviewed and if appropriate, have the article unblocked and restored to the version I created. I believe it is non-promotional in tone and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines.

The reason I feel it warrants undeletion is because the last deletion was in 2013. Prior to that time, the company had little press that showed it to be notable. Unfortunately, it appears that people tried to create and cram the article into Wikipedia anyway. I cannot apologize for that as I was not associated with those creations. However, I would like to show you a few things that have made the company notable since its last deletion in 2013.

Since 2013, the company has received a ton of press coverage in reliable sources, both in Hebrew and in English. They can be found through a quick Google search on Google News - https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22checkmarx%22&tbm=nws

The article in my sandbox can be edited to how you feel appropriate. I feel it is non promotional, but ask that you review and edit it if you feel it is not. I am just hoping for two things here. The first is that the draft be reviewed for its content and adjusted as you see fit for Wikipedia standards. The second is that it be undeleted and the draft in my sandbox be used as the article.

Thank you for your consideration. -Weirdedsultry (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. I will make the request with that editor. --Weirdedsultry (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:TheSocialPeople

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Vrlthaker, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Vrlthaker (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC) to be retrived for completeting the article -Vrlthaker (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Franz Pagot

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Page was deleted before enough time was given to produce more references (cause for deletion not clear), more time needed please, more material has been found. Furthermore no time was given to respond to unfunded and inaccurate delete requests -95.232.26.180 (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • This AfD lasted for about 4 weeks, during which time most of the "keep" arguments came from new editors and mostly centered around the assertion that he was notable because he existed, because he worked with them, and so on - arguments that do not fit within Wikipedia's policy (see WP:ATA). None of them actually brought up any sources that would be usable and they had a lot of time to find sources that would meet Wikipedia's RS standards. I also have to say that the people who argued for deletion are good editors that followed AfD protocol and from just a glance, their arguments do not appear to have been inaccurate. I'd say that it's fairly unlikely that Randykitty will restore it and it's also unlikely that DRV would go against this. Basically, plenty of time was given to find sources and the people who argued for deletion seem to have based their arguments within policy and performed a good faith search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Chess_Engine_Communication_Protocol

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I disagree that the article is not notable. -89.101.206.54 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tanvi Bhatt

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Update and Make the Wikipedia page live for Tanvi Bhatt -Mannanasar (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Amanda Cerny

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Amanda Cerny is an international model, actress, and comedic vine star with 3.6 million followers and more than 1 billion loops. There are a number of famous viners on Wikipedia (Zach King, Brittany Furlan, Cameron Dallas, etc.) so I don't know why Amanda Cerny's page would've been deleted by wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 360assist (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There was one deletion in 2013 because the page was created by a blocked/banned user. The other deletions have been cleanup deletions. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Finance House P.J.S.C

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So i can extract the article written and understand where i went wrong all i require is one day to extract the data — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariamMobarak4 (talk • contribs)

  Note: The page was deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7, indicating an article that did not explain or prove why the subject was notable. A7 deletions are not overturned here; try contacting the deleting administrator (Rjd0060 (talk · contribs)) instead. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Luckie & Company

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Our company listing has been updated and added to over time and is still doing business today. No reason to delete it -208.72.129.114 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There was a reason to delete it. It failed to meet the notability standards described in WP:CORP. If you like, it can be restored for the purpose of evaluating it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Otherwise I am not comfortable restoring the article at the request of someone with a clear conflict of interest. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. prods can be challenged by anyone at all. But also any are welcome to start an AFD for this. Graeme Bartlett (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_200&oldid=1142568625"