Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 100

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Archive 95 ← Archive 98 Archive 99 Archive 100 Archive 101 Archive 102 → Archive 105

FC_ingenieros_y_arquitectos

I do think this article have it's space on Wikipedia, this company is actually holder of the "Premio a la Excelencia" which is the more notable recognition here in Guatemala. Although they are a quiet company, they do work for the biggest project (Oakland Mall, Miraflores...) and have own a reputation within the influencing people in Guatemala. -Jeromecaruso (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Before the Betrayer

article about a band that I am currently a member of with material that is not copyrighted. No violation has been reached due to the material being written by a member of the band and all pictures taken by friends of the band not professionals. -BTB518 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  Comment:Your content was not deleted because of a copyright violation. It was deleted because CSD:A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Per the rationalle, you will need to either request userfication or explain why the band does indicate importance/significance. Also, it might be a better idea for you to not write the article as you are in the band and therefore have a Conflict of Interest in writing about the band. Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't write articles about your own band. They almost always get speedy deleted, and then stay deleted. See WP:GARAGE Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Monmouth arkeologinen seura

I, Marianne Terese Olenius, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Marianne Terese Olenius (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  Question: I can email you the text, but before userfying it I have to ask, what do you want it for? It seems to be a translation into Finnish of Monmouth Archaeological Society, which is already on the Finnish Wikipedia at fi:Monmouthin arkeologinen seura, so it serves no purpose here on the English WP. By the way, as it is a translated page, you should have provided attribution to the authors of the English article by placing fi:Malline:Käännös (the Finnish equivalent of Template:Translated page) on the talk page of the Finnish article; I have done that for you. JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Somatics

Today, I received a call from a distressed colleague that the page for "Somatics" was deleted from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somatics&action=history.

Wikipedia used to have an excellent page on Somatics, listing many methods within the field, but that was removed recently.

I teach Somatics at a public University, and there are many, many universities offering courses in Somatics, so it is a real discipline. It is an emerging field, with journals, practitioners, academics and books on the topic.

There are numerous organizations under the umbrella Somatics (here is a link to the methods under Somatic Movement http://www.ismeta.org/orgs.html, many of which themselves have pages for their techniques in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Technique, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laban_movement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_studies, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilates (which is often taught at a somatic practice), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolfing,

So, in deleting the Somatics page from Wikipedia, readers looking for information on this discipline will turn to other sources (readily available on a web-search for both Somatics and Somatic Movement) yet at the same time, Wikipedia, in removing the page, leaves the implication that this internationally recognizes use of the word and all it refers to, isn't legitimate. -173.17.40.102 (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The article was soft deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somatics (2nd nomination). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done as a contested soft delete, the article has been restored upon request.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dion Charles

He is a Blackpool F.C. Player, And a Northern Ireland U20 International he featured in the summers milk cup!!!!If the page is not undeleted, I would like my source code for it back please, I'm his uncle. -DaPlayerX (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) DaPlayerX, if you are a relative of a subject, you probably have a conflict of interest and should avoid editing the article. If Charles truly is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, somebody else will probably write an article on him eventually.
Admins - the subject has a small amount of coverage in reliable sources here and here so I'd personally have preferred a PROD or AfD over an A7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  Not done - the notability standard for footballers at WP:NFOOTY requires that he should have actually played for Blackpool, and at present it seems he has not, yet. Ask again as soon as he has played, and the article will be restored. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Forza Supplements

reasoning -Miranda race (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC) This article has been deleted, without warning, by Smartse. I believe the article fulfils the proper criterion since it is "about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view". The article - which was originally reviewed and passed by Akusite - was fully referenced with articles from The Daily Mail, Norway Today, The Daily Star and a number of other major UK media outlets. In no way could it be construed as advertising, unless the rule differs for products from McVities and Kraft, on which I based the submission. The references also support the page's claim to notability, though UK editors would already know the subject because of the intense interest in the subject here.

Thank you.

The page was deleted because it appeared to be unambigious Advertising. Please explain how you intend to resolve this. That there are other companies that may have pages with a advertising bent, WP:OTHERSTUFF clearly indicates that this is not a valid argument with respect to deletion. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polari Magazine

I, 2ndstararts, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 2ndstararts (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: Why (just after the page was deleted) are you wanting the submission restored when you were notified 30 days ago that the submission was in danger of being deleted? What do you intend to do to improve the AfC submission to make it appropriate for promotion to mainspace? Hasteur (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion without warning/discussion or due process

reasoning -Miranda race (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The deletion of this page seems to be purely without merit. It was reviewed, soon after creation, and found to be notable/impartial and properly referenced. Again, with references from UK newspapers of record, the article was fully substantiated. Please restore.

--Miranda race (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Already answered above. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Baby-one-more-time-international-cover.jpg

The administrator, who is retired, violated the past consensus, Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_4#File:Baby-one-more-time-international-cover.jpg by deleting the image, citing violation of fair use as a reason. I'm afraid that reasoning no longer holds water. Also, File:... Baby One More Time (International).png must be replaced with this deleted JPG, which should be undeleted in no time. -George Ho (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Tom Condos

Article about a future condo skyscraper in Montreal, misjudged as advertisement. There were two newspaper article references from two different local newspapers to support my article. There seems to have been deletion without anyone even checking my references. -Mtlfiredude (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  Not done There wqs nothing to indicate that this (as yet unbuilt) building is or will be notable. Instead, we get the names of the companies selling condos, and a "how many are sold" item. Thus, it was deleted as an advertisement intended to sell the remaining condos. See also WP:CRYSTAL. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eden primary

Foldgate (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the request Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2013 (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) 21:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

john w james

reasoning -Waistdeep124 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. At all. This is a relative that has passed away may years ago. He is a prominent artist, and has a contribution to society. What is your basis for deletion?>???????

John

Do you mean John Wells James? There's an actual article there now, instead of the advertisement you once created, full of peacock words and florid phrases. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Ian Darling

I, Mobyjaws56, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Mobyjaws56 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: Why (just after the page was deleted) are you wanting the submission restored when you were notified 30 days ago that the submission was in danger of being deleted? What do you intend to do to improve the AfC submission to make it appropriate for promotion to mainspace? Hasteur (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

seibukan karate academy jlt

It is an wiki of academy and i was developing it please restore it.Thanking you Sidisfamous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidisfamous (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 August 2013‎

Egypt Hackers

Frist there is many pages in wiki for hackers and hackers groups and no page acess egypt hack the best team in middle east why no one respect this please this page important for egypt and egypt police don't delete it this page help internet police in egypt to arrest this hackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivapepa (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 September 2013

  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. See WP:Your first article for what an article needs, particularly the need for references for verification and to show notability. JohnCD (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

OAGIS

Originally deleted as commercial content, there was clearly some valid content and apparently it is commercially notable in its industry. -prat (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  Not done - this was a classic "Let's use Wikipedia to tell the world about us" promotional article ("These exciting projects ensure that OAGIS will continue to grow and improve and we invite you to come join the projects... "), largely copied from the organization's website (which means that restoration would have copyright issues) and sourced only to that website and to an article by its Chief Architect. By all means create an independent, neutral article if you can find significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, will do. I came to look up OAGIS on Wikipedia from an academic journal article. prat (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Matty Amendola (musician)

I'm not sure why this page was speedily deleted, as I had done a lot of work on it after I had tagged it for COI and put some effort in to repair the article. Was there some issue with the style or sources? -Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The article was created by User:Wam'tchire, a sock puppet of banned user User:Morning277. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh... okay well then I'll try to find those sources again and resubmit it or something; then again I'd only put in an hour or so on the article so it's no biggie. Thanks for letting me know :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kirsikkapuisto

I, Vahvistus, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. I will have another go at finding the references needed. Vahvistus (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2013 (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) 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/smart wiki

I, 49.14.205.149, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 49.14.205.149 (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2013 (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. Please read WP:Your first article for advice on how to write an acceptable article. JohnCD (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

CJC-1293

While I agree that this article is not the most prominent chemical on the market, deleting the only easily searchable reference to it doesn't seem to be the answer to me, as compound is still on the market. Harm Reduction dictates that information should be available somewhere, so if not here on Wikipedia, I beseech that you allow me to view the contents of the article (and talk page) once again that I might upload them elsewhere. -Enix150 (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user Smartse (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. Just being on the market is not enough to have an article, unless it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hemu

I, Hemubhati, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Hemubhati (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

  •   DoneBased on your request and it history in a sandbox, I have put this at User:Hemubhati. You cannot have this as an article, but since it is about yourself you can have this as your own user page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sports coach UK

I, 80.193.85.150, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 80.193.85.150 (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Please undelete this draft, so I can edit it according to advice from your editor. Thanks. John Driscoll

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This reads as the organization using Wikipedia to tell the world about itself: "vision of excellent coaching, every time for everyone..." etc; but Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. If it is to be accepted it needs to be written in neutral terms, citing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to show that the organization is notable. JohnCD (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Soifer

person relevant, -Jackinovaaantes (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This article was originally indicated for deletion because of poor references, now is well documented in several reliable sources

  •   Not done The article above is not from the English Wikipedia. All Wikipedia projects have different deletion criteria and undeletion processes. Admins on the English Wikipedia do not have access to deleted articles on other languages ES&L 12:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Behrens

I, Bekittrell, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Bekittrell (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2013 (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) 19:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Restoration

i want to learn more about it -99.34.112.34 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

  Question: what is the title of the deleted page you would like undeleted? JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Houck

I, 96.246.65.70, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 96.246.65.70 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2013 (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 accepted as an article, the title will need some disambiguation, e.g. "John Houck (artist)", to distinguish from the existing article John Houck about a different person. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to reinstate the photograph of Dugald Campbell Patterson

reasoning -Raymond Reitsma (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to reinstate the photograph of Dugald Campbell Patterson, to the article, based on the following rationale:

The photograph of Dugald Campbell Patterson is historically significant. As a British Columbia pioneer, this photograph has been used to supplement articles in the Burnaby Now newspaper, the Royal City Record newspaper, and is available on the Heritage Burnaby website. The photograph also appears with the accompanying biography on the History of Metropolitan Vancouver website. The photograph is a family photograph which has been used in public for over 100 years.

  Done - that sounds a good case, but you have to add a formal {{Non-free use rationale}} template to the file, as explained in WP:FUR. I have reset the clock on the di-no-fair-use tag, which gives you seven days to do that. JohnCD (talk)

Milon Gupta

Please do not delete. I am new to wikipedia -Milongupta (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

  1. The Mainspace article is being nominated for deletion because the article wasn't yet ready for mainspace, and the editor sent the page back to Articles for Creation to allow you to improve the article without the immenent threat of deletion.
  2. The AfC page is being nominated for deletion because large portions of the article appear to be taken from an external site in violation of copyright.
While the move to AfC space could be contested as non-conraversial, the AfC copyright violation is non-negotiable. Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)  Not done. This was a Copyright violation from http://harmonicaclubofgujarat.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/tribute-to-milon-gupta-indian-mouth.html. Wikipedia cannot hold copied material without a formal copyright release, but this material would anyway be unacceptable because it was far too promotional in tone. Wikipedia articles must not be puff pieces, but require a neutral point of view. To learn more about Wikipedia, read Wikipedia:Your first article and (if you are connected with Mr Gupta's family) the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
To add to this, I moved it to AfC, but then examined the edit history and noticed that the creator has removed a notice from MadmanBot (talk · contribs) alleging copyright infringement. I ran the duplicator report and had no option but to add {{db-copyvio}} to the submission. It's possible the article's subject is notable, and the creator is a fan rather than the (deceased) subject. After incidents like this one, I'd rather assume good faith and give articles that might be nationally well known but totally unknown elsewhere more of a chance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think Gupta is probably notable enough for an article, but this text couldn't be kept for copyright reasons, and anyway neede a complete rewrite for promotional tone. I have added some advice on the author's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Weatherfield Businesses

I would like this article userfying so as to use it's contents for an article on Corrie Wiki -Paul2387chat 12:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

DailyFlag for DailyBread

reasoning -Nancarrowiki (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2013 (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/DailyFlag for DailyBread, 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 KTC (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.
There is still a draft version at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dailyflag for DailyBread which you can work on in order to produce a draft for consideration by KTC or by Deletion Review. That draft has not been deleted; you were notified of pending deletion because it had not been edited for six months; but if you now make any edit, that deletion will not take place.
What is required if it is to be accepted as an article is evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability; see also Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair Warning:The draft at AfC is eligible for deletion right now under CSD:G13, if you do not make a change there is a possibility of the draft being nominated for speedy deletion. If you do not make even a single change, the page will be deleted. Please take the appropriate steps to improve the page. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It did in fact get speedy-deleted, but I have restored it. @Nancarrowiki: please add references to show notability and submit it when you are ready. JohnCD (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Golden Duke

I, Jmayer, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. J.Mayer (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2013 (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) 08:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maharloka

I, Bhavasindhu, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Bhavasindhu (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2013 (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) 08:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Brian_Penny

deletion states no sources mentioning me, however every single source (including the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, and other very reputable media sources) mentions me, and I was in the process of adding government sources, such as http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/25277/1_Brian_Penny_Redacted.pdf to further establish significance when my page was deleted. Proper deletion process was not followed. This is not cool. -Versability (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  Not done. You have completely misunderstood Wikipedia: it is absolutely not "Your New LinkedIn". It is not for self-promotion, or any other kind of promotion. Among the strict guidelines you mention are Wikipedia:Autobiography: "Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. We want biographies here, not autobiographies" and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If a Wikipedia article "brings a level of prestige in itself", that is because it means that people other than the subject think he is interesting or important enough to write about in an encyclopedia.
Maybe you should do a follow-up blog post entitled: "Attempting to use Wikipedia as your personal LinkedIn is likely to cause embarrassment."
As the article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Penny and has now been salted for repeated re-creation, it will not be restored here. You should first approach the deleting or salting administrators, whose names you can read here; then, if your concerns are not met, you can go to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history for this user, it seems nearly every edit is for self promotion. Perhaps the editor in question could also agree to not adding his own name to Wikipedia articles at every opportunity. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
LMAO!!! Maybe I'll do a follow-up expose entitled, "How I offended a couple elitest Wikipedia editors, who removed an article that was clearly sourced via legitimate academic, government, and media sources simply to prove a point." My page had been reviewed by various editors, and nobody had a problem with it all year until I advertised it on one of the many mainstream blogs I write for and offended a couple wiki-nerds. So long as you allow personal bias and politics to override legitimate sourcing, you will never be the legitimate source you so wish you were. Censorship in this manner is akin to Hitler's Nazi regime. Just because you don't like what I say about you doesn't give you the right to change history. Good luck to you, Wikipedia...this means war... Versability (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Godwin's Law! You've won a one way, all expense trip to being blocked. We've weathered greater storms than what you could muster up. Hasteur (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Since he's threatening further off-Wikipedia efforts to damage us, beyond the damage he already has done with his articles advocating spamming and autobiography, do we need to take this to ANI as well? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I think not. It is hard to seriously consider anyone an actual threat when they post comments like "this means war" - apparently without intent to be humorous. KillerChihuahua 16:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Netop Remote Control

Undelete to perform the requested re-build of the page -Kantonus (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  •   Done I have also removed some promotional sounding text. Please improve the article to make it more balanced and less like a press release. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hemanth G N

reasoning -Hehemanth (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  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. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ziad Ghanem

I, JoJo Iles, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. JoJo Iles (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2013 (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) 19:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Jeeva Sathish

reasoning -Mr.indianwriter (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC) notable and very substantially covered in reliable independent sources. " He is the one among the youngester who created an world record in theatre acting and also honored by notable personalities in india. He is also listed in Internet movie database, recongnised by universal records USA ( links given )and notable person who has made an extraordinary contribution in the field of theatre arts. " It is worth considering. Sources are relisted Jeeva sathish at IMDB Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4756008/bio Jeeva sathish recognition at universal records USA , URDB http://r.urdb.org/BRZ http://recordsetter.com/world-record/theater-performance/5294#contentsecti

  Not done - this page has not been deleted, and its deletion or retention is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeeva Sathish. You are welcome to comment at the deletion discussion (indeed, it appears that you already have, whilst logged out), however, please do not persist in removing the AFD template from the article; continuing to do so will result in your account being blocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Xsyon

(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.) 24.182.27.229 (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably related: User talk:Vireya Hasteur (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
How do you intend to improve the article that had lain dormant for a very long time and how that the page has been deleted, you feel the need to request undeletion? Hasteur (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2013 (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) 21:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
For the most part, yes. Copyright, promotion, BLP are a no immediately, and any draft article that has not been touched in ages we need to know if it's going to be ameliorated or if they're just using Wikipedia as a webhost ES&L 21:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Besan Shennib

Available sources and citations to be included. Creator of page not notified prior to deletion -Rizhad Krol (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  •   Done I have reset time counter so get in quick to add sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

MGBworld

reasoning -Mr Mohit Bahl (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  •   Not done the tone is promotional and the organisation does not exist yet. No independent references prove notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Muthu S A

reasoning -121.242.42.35 (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC) sss

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Animal Jam (Online game site)

I, 76.169.25.63, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 76.169.25.63 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


I just want to copy it to my commputer and then will delete it again. There is now an article on the same topic.

Bogusz Banderski

reasoning -BoguszeQ (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC) 

Bogusz Banderski

in addition to the completely different case as I wrote the article I'm an activist .... an article about me on Wikipedia allow greater reach to my shares that I do on the internet :) like i wrote already WIKIPEDIA IS -FREE- ENCYCLOPEDIA !!!

  •   Not done It's not free as in you can do anything you like. I have moved your recreated page to User:BoguszeQ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

File:795px-Combos.JPG

It was a picture of a bag of Combos that I took myself. How could it have been "non free"? -Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The front outside of the bag itself is non free. Do you want to have a fair use rationale to go with that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  Done pleased to be of assistance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Rose Guitarinaal

reasoning -Darkmaverick99 (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:LegendRJL/BRN

This template was speedy deleted under criterion T3 because it was a duplicate and unused template. I would like it to be userfied because I want to make some modifications and apply them to the relevant articles after I have finished them. Thanks. -Pizza1016 (talk | contribs | uploads | logs) 07:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dirk Reynders

reasI don't know who to turn to now, but my page is deleted and this is now fair, i did everything you asked for, when i see other pages with even almost no references on it, or links that aren't working than i think it is not fair for a objective and sincere page i made about that professor. I demand an explination?Wavesurfer2013 (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC) -10:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Wavesurfer2013 (talk)

  •   Not done If you have fully read the AFD Discussion, you'll find that references are not the sole issue - the bigger issue seems to have been notability. The explanation is there in plain, clear writing. Just because the person exists does not make them encyclopedia-worthy, and the discussion through the community appears to have been very objective and valid. Please do not make arguments about other articles - it's usually not a good argument to make and usually means we simply haven't gotten to that article, yet. That said, articles that have been deleted via community discussion cannot be undeleted here - if you believe the process was not followed, then you may make a policy-based argument at deletion review - however, in my mind, the person is NOT YET notable enough for an article based on the English Wikipedia strict standards, no matter how much work you put into it ES&L 11:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Econsult Solutions

Abruptly ended discussion and provided the originally author not enough time to establish notability and references. The Article was established as a stub and then immediately deleted as "advertising" when it fact there was nothing promotional in the original articles text. The article was restored and then modified by other authors and the original author was left out Pretzelfactory (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC). The "agreed" conclusion to delete was premature and uninformative about what was agreed upon. Especially note that Economic Consulting is a tool of Economic Theory, and those that perform the service are cutting edge in exploring the dynamics of what is "theory" and making it "real". Therefore, the knowledge/experience of Econsult Solutions is significant to that process!! Please re-establish the article -Pretzelfactory (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Pretzelfactory (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2013 (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/Econsult Solutions, 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 Secret (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. GB fan 11:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
See also WP:SOLUTION. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Passion for Skiing

I, Stewater, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Stewater (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2013 (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) 16:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Olga Marçal Correia da Silva

I, 109.48.215.185, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 109.48.215.185 (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2013 (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) 16:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Olga Marçal Correia da Silva

reasoning -Dangarbe (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC) At present there is no changes needed to the page, as they have to do with past events. Upcoming events, which have been planned by Committee will be postponed as soon as they are in place.

  Not done. The page Olga Marçal Correia da Silva has never been created. The draft page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Olga Marçal Correia da Silva was declined in May 2010 because it did not demonstrate that the subject met Wikipedia's inclusion criterion of WP:Notability, which requires references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", see also WP:Notability (summary). After that, it was available to be worked on, but was eventually deleted because it had not been edited for over three years. I have restored it on request, but this is in order to give you a chance to develop it to show notability 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) 16:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BGVPN

I, 88.100.54.79, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 88.100.54.79 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2013 (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. See WP:Your first article for what an article needs if it is to be accepted. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ESPEN

I, Rgfuchs, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Rgfuchs (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

  Not done - the article exists in the main encyclopedia at European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism with a redirect from ESPEN, so there is no point restoring the AfC submission draft. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Right Click Capital

The page was deleted under Section G11 of the criteria for 'speedy deletion' as the page 'seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.' The purpose of the article's creation is completely informational - I am not affiliated with Right Click Capital in anyway. Please un-delete for me to reconstruct the article. Many thanks for the consideration. -Ckevinliu (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Aviculture

reasoning -Cherane (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Detletion wasreported to me thatI'm blantely advertised. Ihae not advertised for anyne can put my name in google and see that I have other avenues to adverti freely. I'm one of two individuals that propagate the rare blue headed macaw in the united states.

I will remove what is the tproblem for what is up now is so inaccurate and I see a great deal of advertisement for the organziations 'home pages are all advertisments. I would or have asked for assistance deu to m y low fision. If you would kindly send me my pages of edits I would be thankful . Cherane Pefley Cherane (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are talking about why your editing to Aviculture was removed and you want it back, please talk about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Recent edits to Aviculture which aims to get some of this included. The Avianitarian in Aviculture was an advertisement so that is not being restored.   Not done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Zaretzky

reasoning -Youngshakespeara (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2013 (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) 08:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colin Nockels

reasoning -GuyNamib (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2013 (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) 11:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dancing Times magazine

I, 212.42.183.237, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 212.42.183.237 (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2013 (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) 11:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EHSAN JAHANI

I, 37.72.52.145, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 37.72.52.145 (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2013 (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) 11:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rick Kelsey

I, Bigdanprice, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Bigdanprice (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2013 (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) 11:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EleQtra

I, Tobinjones1 request the undeletion of this article for creation submission deleted under CSD G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. I would like the chance to make changes so the page conforms with the Wikipedia guidelines. Please restore as appropriate. -Tobinjones1 (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  •   Not done - there is nothing here worth having back, it is all promotional, it was deleted as an advert. So please start from scratch and stop trying to make the company sound good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geeks On Site

190.129.203.74 (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2013 (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) 13:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

J Rice

An angry fan requested deletion of my page. I am independent, but have a large online following. I do not have a team of people checking wikipedia on a daily basis to make sure it's not altered or deleted. -Jriceproductions (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. I will notify user Little green rosetta (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days. You would be welcome to contribute to that, but before doing so you should read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Please understand that it is not your page, as it would be on Myspace or LinkedIn, it is Wikipedia's page about you. Nobody, least of all its subject, owns a Wikipedia article or can "make sure it's not altered or deleted". JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

2010 Romanian International Darts Open

The information on the page was correct being based on the info provided by Romanian Darts Federation (http://www.federatiedarts.ro/pdf-uri/single-men.pdf) -Darts Romania (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Biruitorul (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. You need to add that source to the article to comply with WP:Verifiability, but just being true is not enough to have an article; you also need to show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:DBGustavson/Track saw

I, DBGustavson, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. DBGustavson (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

  Done. The page had been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Track saw. As an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, it 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) 09:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_100&oldid=1140388553"