Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 107

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Archive 100 ← Archive 105 Archive 106 Archive 107 Archive 108 Archive 109 Archive 110

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Golfscript

I, Destynova, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Destynova (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I created this article stub in good faith and it was rejected for lack of notability. This is a rather subjective guideline in general, and since there was nothing wrong with the article itself, it seems needlessly wasteful (and discouraging) to delete it. It's not like the article takes up a significant amount of storage. Destynova (talk) 19:08, 21 November 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.
The submission was not "rejected" in April 2012 - only declined as not yet suitable for the encyclopedia, with an invitation to do more work on it. It was only deleted after it had been left untouched for more than 18 months, so that it appeared that you had abandoned it.
WP:Notability is not a subjective criterion: it asks for evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", see also WP:Notability (summary). Rather than the subjective "do we think this important or significant?", it asks the more objective question: "Is there evidence that people not connected with this think it important or significant?" JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ron Linden

I, Marilyn Nix, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Thanks. Marilyn Nix (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review: please update and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for indefinite hosting of draft articles. Read WP:Your first article for advice, and note that references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources are required in order to establish WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Justin Pearson Artist

reasoning -Lib56 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Hi there,

I thought my article was in a draft form and had not infact, been uploaded as finished. May I please access the original piece, so that I may attach the appropriate references and links.

Kind regards,

Elizabeth Fairleigh

  Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Lib56/Justin Pearson (artist). You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact Jimfbleak (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space.
Read WP:Your first article, WP:Notability and WP:ARTIST, and note that you will need to show references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, take care not to write promotionally - the present draft reads like a gallery's puff-piece, full of "peacock terms", rather than an encyclopedia article, which requires a neutral point of view. JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Abraham modal haplotype

I would like to request undelete since the sources were reliable being used as reference for the second artcile by Rozhadinii which makes it secondary source not primary source since the second study by Rozhadinii endorse it and speaks about the same sunject of klyosov. study. both studies are master studies according to ISOGG website and others which make the whole study (researcher, study, and journal) reliable. both articles are published in Proceedings of the russian academy of dna genealogy, which has issn and oclc but I forgot to put them thinking doi number suffice. also many articles studies referenced both articles klyosov 2009, and rozhadinii as immediately shown with googling where the study show cited by number articles. I also had a list of articles that referenced and cited the klyosov studies and also mentioned the abraham mh in their studies. Viibird (talk) 11:17, 22 November 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/Abraham modal haplotype, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Elisabeth Rogan

Talk page of sockpuppet account of notorious sockpuppeteer. Deleted as "too old", which frankly doesn't apply when dealing with a person who has sockpuppeted for years and still continues to do so, and who continues to try multiple ways to cover his tracks as best possible (e.g. trying to "abandon" former sockpuppet accounts by making the password public, requesting deletion of user talk pages of blocked sockpuppet accounts etc etc.) -85.197.45.232 (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Same situation, same sockpuppeteer, different sockpuppet account. This deletion was actually requested by the banned user per right to vanish, which should be disregarded as a pure attempt at gaming the system – one of many over the last 6+ years. This sockpuppeteer should not be allowed to cover any of his tracks abusing Wikipedia processes, especially considering that the latest of his incessant ban evasions dates only to September 2013. -85.197.45.232 (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Same reasoning as above. -85.197.45.232 (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Richard Newton

I, Marilyn Nix, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Marilyn Nix (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


Thanks Marilyn Nix (talk) 19:14, 22 November 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) 19:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Missouri Route 242

I, Bloonstdfan360, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. --Bloonstdfan360 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 23 November 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) 04:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Grandhi srinivas

reasoning -satyanarayana samatham 17:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC) https://www.facebook.com/GrandhiSrinivasFansbhimavaram — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya3231 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 November 2013‎

  Not done - your article was deleted because there was already an article at Grandhi Srinivas, and yours was too promotional in tone. You are welcome to add material to the existing article, but you must cite reliable sources for what you add, and maintain a neutral point of view - stuff like "considered a giant killer... A Dynamic personality... Striving hard for the development of Bhimavaram constituency" etc reads like an election pamphlet, not an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ekjaa - Unanimous Growth

I, Ekjaa, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Ekjaa (talk) 06:08, 23 November 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) 17:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Tenold Peterson: Artist

reasoning -99.197.151.31 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  •   Not done - a deleted page with this name does not appear to exist. but see previous AFC request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Festival of the Forks

Maggielanoue (talk) 21:28, 23 November 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) 10:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dundas Heights

I, Rybec, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. —rybec 00:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review: please update and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexandre Naoumenko

I, Russki33, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Article was deleted due to inactivity for 6 months. I now have more materials and sources for the article and wish to improve it to a standard where it will be accepted and published. Russki33 (talk) 09:05, 24 November 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) 11:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enterprise Configuration Management

I, Andrew J Barker, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Andrew J Barker (talk) 20:32, 24 November 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) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Forestmill

I, Girlies mum, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Girlies mum (talk) 22:12, 24 November 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) 09:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Co-operative Socialism

I, 92.23.77.133, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 92.23.77.133 (talk) 09:24, 25 November 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. Thanks for fixing your request! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

ChaosNgn

I am not sure why this has been deleted. This is an actual game developer with a highly anticipated game coming out -Chaosngn (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  •   This page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. You will have to make claims of why this company is important enough to have an article here, but see WP:CORP and WP:COI. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

All subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert I

This requests concerns talk and subpages of this old 2006 arbcom case. As noted at Wikipedia_talk:ARBCOM#Courtesy_deletion.3F, the deletion, not supported by our policies, was done due to technical reasons, no longer valid. Those pages should be undeleted (and than immediately courtesy blanked). -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User: Nautankifilms

it is an impotant article. -Nautankifilms (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  This page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. Nothing of your work has been deleted. Have you lost User:Nautankifilms/sandbox, or Nautanki films? If you click on "contributions" you can see the list eg Special:Contributions/Nautankifilms. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dorsey Hall (Miami University)

reasoning -134.53.112.70 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user DGG (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. Halld of residence do not often meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirement for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources outside the University environment. JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
and so I have: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorsey Hall (Miami University) DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GMAT Pill Study Method Online Video Course

I, Fushion83, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Fushion83 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review: please update and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Read WP:Your first article for advice. JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Captain Ray

Content should not have been deleted but added but merged to the relevant parent page, Super Powers Collection -181.50.27.166 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Mitt Romney Paul Ryan logo.svg

This image is out-of-copyright, so revisions must be recovered. -George Ho (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

  • The only difference was adding a white border, otherwise they all look the same. SO this is pointless. No attributions are needed if this is PD-simple. Do you have a better reason for "revisions must be recovered"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wade Bergman

Please restore edit history for this recently recreated article -Dolovis (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Brian Kolins

I have no idea why it doesn't fit the rules. I have seen other pages similarly short about 1 specific person who has no real historic significance, but is an active participant in current events in a local area. I am a teacher, and an artist, I have seen other artists posted on wikipedia. I also can not contact the guy who deleted it (MrX) and ask him for why he deleted it, and how I can improve it so it won't happen again. -MathGeek83 (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  Not done. I am sorry that Wikipedia does not make clearer at sign-up time that it is not a social-networking site like LinkedIn or Myspace for people to write about themselves. It is a quite different sort of site, a project to build an encyclopedia, and writing about oneself is strongly discouraged, for reasons explained at WP:Autobiography and WP:Conflict of interest. For other articles you may have seen, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the inclusion criteria are in fact quite demanding, requiring evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, see also WP:ARTIST. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

So basically, the others got there first, you won't take them down because they were there first, and no one else can do it, because you've changed the rules after they got posted. When I see these similar sites, should I send you messages about them for them to be deleted too? I didn't realize that wikipedia considers a description about an artist and educator to be the same thing that would be on that persons social networking site. I certainly kept it extremely professional. How many citations would be required? I have been published, my work exhibited, and interviewed. What exactly is required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathGeek83 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The expected standards are set out at WP:Notability and WP:Notability (people). If, having read those, you observe pages which you think do not meet their requirements, you are free to tag them for deletion as described in WP:Deletion policy; but please also read WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Note that the threshold for speedy deletion is no credible claim of significance or importance, which is a lower standard than notability.
The difference from social-networking sites is that they are intended for people to tell the world about themselves, but Wikipedia explicitly is not, in order to avoid conflict of interest and maintain a neutral point of view. Even notable persons are advised to leave it to someone else to write about them.
For further advice, read what I wrote to another autobiographer at User talk:WilHarris#Advice, ignoring the references to WP:MUSICBIO which is a special notability standard for musical performers. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Urinothorax

I, Eastmain, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  • This medical articles for creation submission appears to be notable and adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The submission was deleted because it had gone 6 months without an edit. Without the text, can you explain why the submission had languished for that long without any improvement? Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not the creator of the submission, and do not know why the submitter didn't follow up. Perhaps he or she felt bitten, although I have no way of knowing. Nonetheless, the topic appears to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Additional references on this topic can be found in this search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:46, 26 November 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. The problem with this was it was not clear to the reader. I hope you can improve it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sion Cathedral

Not a controversial or unnotable topic. -Riggabbert (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  •   Done but not by restoring, I have written a stub for you. The article was not controversial, but its creator was. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Sports Builders Association

I, Mhsprecher, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Mhsprecher (talk) 17:22, 26 November 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) 20:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Classical Pursuits

I, Lisanab, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Lisanab (talk) 18:23, 26 November 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) 20:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Blady

I do apologize for submitting and incomplete article but I was in the process of adding the information (such as charts, references and other data) to create the article and was unaware that the article would be contested so quickly. The group is a legitimate and well established band and will probably get an article even if I cease to edit it. If you choose to not restore it, could I at least be given the source code so I can continue to edit the article and provide a better article. Thanks again. RatiziAngeloucontribs 16:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC) -RatiziAngeloucontribs 16:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_van_Bon

reasoning -Hystanford (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I just got an email in that my Wikipedia page was submitted for deletion by your editor Mr X. Reason: A7. I thought I still would have time to discuss this matter (as done with a previous editor, who put it in the sandbox and later approved the revisited article) in good consent! When I tried to open my page directly after I received the email it was already delated by Mr. Secret.

This is curious. Wonder if these two editors are the same person hiding under the named Mr. X and Mr. Secret.

Although I think it's unbelievable but I recently had a similar 'attack' on my blog (trial and error pictures) and FB-page that could be traced back to a jealous person.

The wikipedia article was BTW rewritten by another one of your editors Ulla Kelly from East London in South Africa who has an extensive experience in both Wikipedia articles and Social Media.

All content in the article is verifiable and the general importance is certainly there. Read for yourself.

Can you please review the original article and restore it.

Thank you.

Herman van Bon

  Done, sort of. I have restored the page to userspace at User:Hystanford/Herman van Bon. It still requires considerable work before it will be suitable as an article - it contains no independent, reliable sources (just citations from your own websites and works) and should be rewritten in an encyclopedic voice before resubmission. Given the page's history, I would strongly suggest that next time you submit it via Articles for creation (use the "Finished? Submit the page!" link at the top) rather than moving it directly back into userspace. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Boxcar Books

reasoning -Alihaimson (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A user deleted this page because she had not heard of Boxcar Books after living in Bloomington for several months and because she claimed that the article was written by one of the founders. However, Boxcar Books has been an important community institution since 2002. It is also referenced by name in this document:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ivar_matlaus

which has not reached consensus. As that discussion states, many bookstores like Boxcar that are also community centers and have more significance than just a retail space remain active on Wikipedia.

It doesn't seem right to delete a page just because a person who lived in a town for a few months had not heard of it, despite its vibrant community involvement for almost 12 years. Regarding the claim that a founder wrote the page, I honestly can't remember if I wrote it or not. I did contribute to it, but I'm sure many other people have also.

Thank you for your consideration.

  Done Article has already been recreated. If you wish, I can merge the edit histories to retain a record of your contributions; drop me a line on my talkpage if you'd like me to do this. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2XU for Wikipedia

I, Humanperformance, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Humanperformance (talk) 22:31, 26 November 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) 10:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Chuck Harder

reasoning -98.77.91.154 (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Chuck Harder was one of the top 10 talk show radio hosts in the USA during the 1980's and is very well known by tens (hundreds?) of millions of listeners. Multiple Wikipedia pages reference him. Deletion of his page is unwarranted and the page should be reinstated. Thank you.

  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/Chuck Harder, 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 Sjakkalle (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.
I see that you have a copy at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chuck Harder and I suggest you work on improving the references to meet the criticism in the AfD before showing it to Sjakkalle, who in his close said "This result is without prejudice to another and better sourced article." JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IQTELL

I, 79.183.171.183, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 79.183.171.183 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 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. Note that to estabish WP:Notability you will need to provide references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SAHRIS

{Could we please have the article back without the revision containing the pdf. The pdf article was published in terms of the Creative Commons license by CIPA and we assumed that, since Wikipedia and SAHRIS are also CC that it was possible to link this resource. We will rewrite the article without the link to the pdf in the meantime and will simply reference it from CIPA. Knocknacree (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  Not done - even the first version contained extensive quotation from http://www.sahra.org.za/sites/default/files/website/articledocs/SAHRIS%20CIPA%202013%20Final%20N%20Wiltshire.pdf. That document says nothing about being released under Creative Commons license, and in any case there is more than one type of CC: Wikipedia requires CC-BY-SA which permits copying, modification and re-use for any purpose including commercial. The way to make a copyright release is described at WP:Donating copyrighted materials, but you might do better to write in your own words - copying an organization's own material is not usually the most satisfactory way to make an encyclopedia article. There is good advice at WP:Your first article. Note that in order to establish WP:Notability you will need to provide references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Phillips Law Offices

reasoning -Lukelagis (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I repeat the reply I made to your last request a month ago:
  Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Lukelagis/Phillips Law Offices. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact Peridon (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space. Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and the relevant notability guidelines - articles that are not in compliance will be deleted. What is required is references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I would advise truncating or omitting the enormous list of practice areas, which makes it look like an advertisement. If you are connected with the firm, please read the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.
You have done nothing to the userfied page since then. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Danny Page

reasoning is deletion information is incorrect ((PROD - Main claim to notability was he is in a movie which hasn't started production yet. The movie listed finished production and has been shown at festivals in Europe, America as well as having completed cinema release in Australia. Other information listed was correct regarding work in professional and international sports. -Redbox43 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Boleyn (talk), who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. Check out WP:Notability (people), especially the sections WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Childers - photographer

I, Marian at Childers, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Marian at Childers (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

    • Without significant explanation regarding the percieved conflict of interest, I think it would be unwise to restore the G13 article. Hasteur (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  Not done. Actually, submitting a draft to AfC from an account which clearly indicates a connection is acceptable in terms of the advice given in the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. However, this one will not be restored because it is a copyright violation from the subject's website http://www.michaelchildersphotography.com/biography/. No doubt a copyright release could be made, but Wikipedia is not to be treated as a notice-board for pinning up copies of promotional material. A valid encyclopedia article would be better written from scratch, see advice at WP:Your first article, and would need to show references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Don Bloom

I, Kenbunichi, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Kenbunichi (talk) 19:40, 27 November 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) 20:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Bradley L Baker

References are okay, Please re-check and give me more time to contribute -Khocon 03:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  Not done. The artice was actually deleted as much for being promotional as for referencing. I suggest you ask the deleting admin, user Yunshui (talk), whether he is willing to "userfy" the article for you - move it into a sub-page in your "user space" where you could work on it. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Article was deleted under CSD G11, but it's as much "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arduino or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaspberryPi -Hugoslv (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tattoon Master

I, 75.67.49.68, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 75.67.49.68 (talk) 06:19, 28 November 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) 11:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Steam games released in 2008

Requesting userfied copy for transfer to another wiki -BrentNewland (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting userfied copy for transfer to another wiki -BrentNewland (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting userfied copy for transfer to another wiki -BrentNewland (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting userfied copy for transfer to another wiki -BrentNewland (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting userfied copy for transfer to another wiki -BrentNewland (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting userfied copy for transfer to another wiki -BrentNewland (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am making this request here per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles 

"Requests can also be made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion."

The deleted pages were not appropriate for Wikipedia, but are appropriate for other wikis. These pages were deleted for non-controversial reasons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Steam_games_(2nd_nomination) Requesting these articles be "userfied" so I can transfer them to an appropriate wiki. BrentNewland (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Bitsquashing

The article was a written explanation and you can't patent a word so the argument was awful. Also, there was no gibberish in the article -- The reviewer could not even spell 'gibberish' correctly, and you put that spelling in the official note. Get a grip wikipedia. -TwoLessOutcast (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  Not done. "Gibberish" may not have been the right term to use, but this was deletable under speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#A11 "An article which plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant."
Wikipedia is not a place for you to write about your new theories. The fundamental policy underlying this is Wikipedia:No original research. You should read the whole of that, but the key sentence here is:

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery."

See WP:Alternative outlets for ideas about where you could expound your theories. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Divine Conjecture (Mathematics)

This has nothing to do with patentable work. It is a mathematical equation. There was no gibberish and legitimate. Please make sure the reviewers can actually competently do what they're doing before you take their word for deleting things. Their grammar was fucking terrible, and they couldn't even spell right. In mathematics there is only right and wrong. The editor was clearly never correct. -TwoLessOutcast (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  Not done - see reply to Bitsquashing just above. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Onsert.jpg

Was moved to commons, who have since deleted it because it contains an image of a copyrighted work; no fair-use rationale is available on commons -Josh Parris 09:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  • So what is your fair use rationale? This is obviously not public domain. The source however is evident from the picture, so a di-nosource is not appropriate. However it is not licensed freely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    Are you talking of the newspaper or the image not licensed freely? I'm unable to see the licensing information, but as the uploader I imagine I would have PD'd it - however, it was a long time ago. The image is not to illustrate the newspaper, but the onsert placed upon it; The image meets all of the fair use criteria:
    1. No free equivalent. Onserts are only placed onto commercial, copyrighted publications
    2. Respect for commercial opportunities. The newspaper issue in question is many years gone; there is no commerical loss to the publisher
    3. Minimal usage:
      1. Minimal number of items. One newspapers.
      2. Minimal extent of use. Only the above the fold part.
    4. Previous publication. The newspaper issue in question is many years gone
    5. Content. The image is educational, illustrating an article.
    6. Media-specific policy. Image meets Wikipedia:Image use policy.
    7. One-article minimum. used in onsert
    8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Check.
    9. Restrictions on location. used in onsert
    10. Image description page. Photograph of an onsert advertising Microsoft Office in The Age on 2006-06-01
    Also, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (I know), but look: File:Newsstand.jpg has plenty of copyrighted works depicted. It's on commons. Josh Parris 00:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to undelete. Requester is original uploader and I have added the page description from the deleted revision. MBisanz talk 05:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  Done — Earwig talk 21:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ct classic to modern automobile repairs

reasoning -Flaounas 5 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC) So people can find it

  Not done. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business listing directory. This article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about companies. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

itrnsfr

reasoning -Itrnsfr (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC) This article meets general criteria doesn't violate any copyrights. It's been created to help readers get the maximum benefits of the website

  Not done The page was not deleted because of a copyright violation. It was deleted under sections A7 and G11 of the speedy deletion criteria, because the subject did not appear to be notable, and because the text read like an advertisment. Yunshui 雲‍水 16:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Albeu

Albeu (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IMS-21

I, 76.178.209.48, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. 76.178.209.48 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 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) 20:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

File:SVUopening.jpg

This file should have better revisions, does it? -George Ho (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There are 4 deleted revisions: 638 × 480 of poor quality; 589 × 360 good; 463 × 284 ok; 282 × 173 a bit small. I would suggest that you want 589 × 360 if the current one is too small. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Just undelete it or them right away; no questions asked. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
      • You were the one asking the question, the reason it's not restored yet is that this is only under fair use, therefore we only can have one revision, so if an old revision is restored, then we delete the current one. Is that what you want? Are you just trying to have a better quality image in the article? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Umm... the file is ineligible for copyright; how is it unfree? Shadings, or what? --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Alamitos Bay Marina

I would like to see what was there and possibly merge some of the content. If it's short maybe it can be copied or if it's significant I would like it moved to my userspace. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Not done It had a corrupted info box, a list of services from http://www.dbw.ca.gov/maps/facilityinfo.asp?facilityID=1172 and a copyright infringement from http://www.longbeach.gov/park/marine/alamitos_bay.asp. So I won't restore that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Long Beach bicycle path

I would like to see what was there and possibly merge some of the content. Can it be moved to my userspace? Also Long Beach bike path, but I think that was just a redirect? thanks. -Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Here is your content apart from tags and headings.

The Long Beach Bike Path in Los Angeles County meanders about 4.5 miles (7.2 km) along the sand from Shoreline Village in downtown Long Beach, California to Bayshore Avenue in Belmont Shore.[1] The path is shared with walkers, joggers, and skaters, so its attraction is more for scenery than for travel speed.

The Long Beach Bike path was originally proposed in the late 1970s but local residents resisted the bike path as it was felt it would be an eyesore.[2] That opposition faded away with time. Final plans for the path were ordered by the Long Beach City Council in 1986 with a budget of $1.4 million. [2]

  • written by Oakshade, OneWhlDrv, Tom guyette, I hope you read the AFD which casts doubt on this. The second link seems to be nothing, not even a deleted redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/South Boston's Seaport District Cruise Destination

I, Legoines, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please userfy or restore as appropriate. Legoines (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This has never been submitted for review, but in its present form it is not suitable for Wikipedia, because it is more of a tourist guide or link-farm than an encyclopedia article - see WP:NOTGUIDE #2 Travel guides. You might do better to submit it to our sister site Wikivoyage. JohnCD (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

inout scripts

i need the contents because i need to know y it was deleted. -Newbewiki (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about companies. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. ES&L 14:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

ima appweb

in the article it is mentioned in a clear way for a business, that they should have these kind of weapons to succeed in marketing their company. As i went through some other company pages. they had too mentioned about the work of their company, so i also mentioned it, if it is not allowed then i shall delete it by myself. :) -180.188.237.47 (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about companies. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning companies will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject.. It also was certainly NOT written in any manner close to en encylopedia article ES&L 14:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh my glob

reasoning -Theloltroll (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC) wait what whaeres the info gone

  Not done - this is not an appropriate topic for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia does not accept articles which consist of original research, or which lack any reliable sources of information. ES&L 14:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Focalizing

Danielmax32 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 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) 23:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Shyam Sunder Premi

Shyam Sunder Premi (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC) User:Shyam Sunder Premi

  Not done. I have not restored User:Shyam Sunder Premi because that is not the right place for a draft article. Your user page is intended for you to say something about yourself and your Wikipedia work - see WP:User pages. Instead,
  Done - I have restored Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shyam Sunder "Premi". That is the right place for you to work on the article. What it needs is references to reliable sources, for two reasons: (a) because of the WP:Verifiability policy: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source", and (b) to establish WP:Notability, which requires references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Brady, Patrick (2007). Bicycling: Los Angelos County: A Guide to Great Road Bike Rides. Menasha Ridge Press / Keen Communications. pp. 96–99. ISBN 0897327799. Retrieved 1 May 2013. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ a b staff (October 7, 1986). "Long Beach : Bike Path Plans Ordered". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 1, 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_107&oldid=1138663578"