Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 142

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Archive 135 ← Archive 140 Archive 141 Archive 142 Archive 143 Archive 144 Archive 145

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maharshi Maheshananda

I, Markputnam108, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. The page was deleted because of non-activity. I changed jobs and was so busy with work that I neglected my Wiki editing. I'd like to get back to it now. Thank you. Markputnam108 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Oldjams

I, Hypnotizedfilms, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Hypnotizedfilms (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done, because it was unambiguously promotional. Start over, after you read and fully understand Wikipedia:Golden rule. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ali Khedery

I, Elvey, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. {{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 16:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

He just wrote this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki--and-lost-iraq/2014/07/03/0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop and he's in 68 Wikileaks cables: https://search.wikileaks.org/search?q=ALI+KHEDERY. Perhaps this deleted article is a good start. WashPo: "From 2003 to 2009, he was the longest continuously serving American official in Iraq, acting as a special assistant to five U.S. ambassadors and as a senior adviser to three heads of U.S. Central Command. In 2011, as an executive with Exxon Mobil, he negotiated the company’s entry into the Kurdistan Region of Iraq." Knew Nouri al-Maliki well.--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 16:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Tandy

I, Mr Baulk-Line, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Will correct it and edit it to be submitted again for final approval. Mr Baulk-Line (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review: please complete it 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.
For advice, read WP:Your first article and WP:Biographies of living persons. Note the need for references, both to verify what the article says, and to establish Wikipedia:Notability. Be careful to avoid a promotional tone. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kate O'Brien and the Fiction of Identity (2)

I wish to review the draft page and add references. -F. Squid (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. See WP:Notability (books) for the relevant notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omar Slim White

Latrina1974 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Fastunlocker

i am new to wikipedia , by mistake i have done something , wikipedia is not easy for me, i dont know what to do exactly , so i just copied some codes from another articles , i placed it in new page , , exactly i have to learn some cource in university to write pages in wikipedia ..?

i dont know ..where to study ... why my article deleted i dont know , all new articles deleting ..why ..?

can anybody give some knowledge about writing article .? wikipedia is full of codes , its not like blogger or website , some codes ,

how i can get my page back ..?

wikipedia not easy for me , so how its easy for another people ..?

this is why wikipedia visitors low..

if you make it easy publishing articles then all people will come to here

wikipedia deleted my page , but not told me why deleting ..?

whats the wrong i have written..?

i hope i will get return my page ..

also you will give some informations .. "Save page" button below -Sibipaul (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. If we make it "easy" we essentially gut our policies regarding content - WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Spam, etc. As an aside, the deletion log clearly lists the deletion as an A7/no indication of notability (the deleting administrator generally leaves an explanation as to why an article gets deleted). Have you tried going through articles for creation as opposed to just posting in main article space? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 17:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  Not done. The article was deleted because it did not explain why this company is important or significant enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not list every company that exists. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about their own companies: please read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Damn Truth (Band)

I have not edited the page for over 6 months, but was not interested in deleting it. I wish to consider editing the page and then resubmit it for review, when ready. -Hypermeter (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, 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:BAND for the relevant notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shyp

I, 50.189.93.211, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 50.189.93.211 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Didn't get a chance to make the neccessary edits prior to deletion -50.189.93.211 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Omar Slim White, again

I, Latrina1974, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Latrina1974 (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Already   Done in response to your earlier request, and you were notified at 10:28. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Spirit Soul and Body in the bible

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Arktiskblomma (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sirs,

I want you to undelate this page, because it points to the fact that in the New Testament, the concept of soul and spirit are two very different things and not two words for the same.

I do know that words spirit and soul have walked a long way and today so mixed to gather that we lose a very importent message to all of us.

Please don´t censure this, pepole really do want to know what it´s means,

from the point of the New Testament!

  Not done. The article was deleted because it duplicates an existing topic: Soul in the Bible. Consider expanding that one, but be aware that your edits must refer to reliable sources independent of the Bible. Proselytizing or posting original thought, as you were trying to do with your article, will be quickly reverted as disruptive editing. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Korzev Ivan

Иван Коржев (Коржев-Чувелев) (родился 24 ноября 1973, Москва) - русский скульптор, архитектор, заслуженный художник Российской Федерации. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAGuseva (talk • contribs)

  Not done. For one thing, this is the English Wikipedia. If you want to make a request, do it in English.
Also, the article was proposed to be deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7, and was ultimately deleted by Bbb23 in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. Please contact Bbb23 first. The article could conceivably be restored to Draft space or your user space for submission to WP:AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lee Terbosic

I, Cmclementi, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Cmclementi (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I paused my work on creating this page and obtaining the proper credentialing for the individual to have a Wikipedia page. I am now ready to begin working on this page again, however it was recently deleted due to inactivity. -Cmclementi (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Juerg Neuenschwander

I, Feberles, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Feberles (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endurance Warranty

I, bradcgarrett, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. The page was previously denied creation due to lack of relevant sources, of which I now have, and I would like to contribute these sources. Because of the lack of sources, the page was left dormant and was inevitably deleted. However, I ask that you please restore the former content so I can edit it for resubmission in light of the new information/source. This in-depth and useful content establishes notability in regards to Wikipedia's Golden Rule. Thank you very much. Bradcgarrett (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AC Oxgangs Football Club

I, ACOxgangsFC, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. ACOxgangsFC (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done. @ACOxgangsFC:, please read WP:FOOTYN and explain why you believe this club is notable in light of Wikipedia:Golden rule. Also read Wikipedia:Username policy, which you are violating, and go to WP:CHU/Simple to change your username. I am hesitant to restore an article being edited for publicity purposes by an organization. Finally, be sure you are familiar with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest because you clearly have one. When you have done all these things, as well as publicly disclosed your conflict of interest on your user page under your new name, we can reconsider your request. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Westshore Town Centre

Requesting refund of the edit history.  Article was deleted today at AfD, and an attempt has been made to talk to the closing admin, link without getting a reply.  Meanwhile, another editor has restored the title as a redirect.  -Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Anybody can create a redirect over a title previously deleted by AFD. How does that invalidate the AFD decision? The article was deleted only today, and the same day you're posting a REFUND request without following proper procedure? Wait for the admin to respond, and go to WP:DRV if the response is not to your liking. ~Amatulic' (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The admin has a semi-retired template posted, and is typically gone for days at a time.  So I don't expect to get a timely response there, in fact it has already been more than 24 hours.  I didn't come here to suggest that this was totally non-controversial.  However, I suspect that a refund is less controversial than a DRV.  The people here would know that better than I.  And I was hoping to get a decision, one way or the other.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
"Already" more than 24 hours? When I post a question on someone's talk page, I typically expect a reply within a week. I'm often gone for 2 or 3 days at a time myself. There is no expectation or obligation for any editor, including administrators, to attend to Wikipedia on a daily basis. This is something we do in our spare time. Many of us aren't students anymore, but professionals with real-life demands of career and family. What is the hurry? ~Amatulic' (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize I'd be asking something difficult.  I will withdraw the request if you want, or continue to wait for a decision.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC);  23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Unscintillating, it isn't difficult to restore an article history. It's basically a handful of clicks. That isn't the issue here.
An administrator won't unilaterally countermand an AFD decision of another administrator without first having a discussion with that administrator or in an appropriate forum like WP:DRV. That's a Wikipedia policy, summarized briefly at WP:RAAA. Countermanding an AFD decision isn't an uncontroversial act... and this page is for requesting uncontroversial restorations only.
Secondly, article history is routinely restored in cases where it's obvious something changed (common examples you can find on this page concern articles re-created from scratch for individuals who became notable since the original articles got deleted). On the other hand, the act of simply creating a redirect doesn't negate the AFD decision. Wikipedia has established procedures for this, namely (a) talk to the administrator, and if the response is unsatisfactory, (b) take it to WP:DRV.
I hope this explanation makes sense.
FWIW, I have brought a case to DRV after waiting a month for the deleting admin to respond. Wikipedia does't operate on a schedule. Things happen as they happen. Just be patient. ~Amatulic' (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that there has been additional discussion at [1].  As I said, I didn't realize that this would be a difficult decision.  My offer to withdraw the request remains open.  I will withdraw the request if you want, or continue to wait for a decision.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  Not done, because the deleting admin has declined to restore the history. WP:DRV would be the next step. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ali Rıza Babaoğlan

I, Alibabaoglan, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Alibabaoglan (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

S.V.S. Rathinam

This Wiki page is a Genuine one and hosted more than two years in the Wikipedia site. It got reliable sources and links. The person also a notable person'.This wiki page is edited, corrected, modified and updated by many Wiki Editors, Users. And also viewed by many common people.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkersocial2014 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done. This page has not been deleted. Deletion is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.V.S. Rathinam, and that is where you should comment, but read WP:DISCUSSAFD first. JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Nappturality

I, DeeWikiDee (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC) request the undeletion of the mentioned page which was deleted under WP:GNG. Notability is not in question as the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However the page was created then unattended therefore was an inaccurate representation of the topic. I intent to work on the page, monitor it and cite relevant notable sources. -DeeWikiDee (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Fenix down (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. If the page is to be kept, it needs references showing significant coverage in reliable independent sources to establish Wikipedia:Notability; see also WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

CMDportal

The article is totally factual, comprehensively referenced and the previous criticisms put forward by Deb no longer apply. Moreover, she originally took down the article without responding to the original author who had deep reservations about her reasoning -Johnjohn mac (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  Note: The page was deleted as a result of a deletion debate. Admins will not undelete pages that were deleted with discussion here; go to WP:Deletion review instead. G4s are directly based on the presence of a prior AfD, so a G4 cannot be contested here. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  Not done. As Jeremy said, this page isn't the place to contest deletions via AFD or G4. Since Deb declined to restore the article, your next step is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Note that deletion review is not a debate about the merits of the article subject, but rather a discussion on whether the deletion decision was made properly. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pyspread

I, 93.132.66.43, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 93.132.66.43 (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dave Brainard

I, Zachrokosz, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Zachrokosz (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Campbell McKelvey

I, Ganzyratcher, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. I need more time to complete the editing. This is not helped by the fact that I do not understand the coding Ganzyratcher (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lamar Sternad

I, Airesriddim, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Airesriddim (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ai-Media

Accessinclusion (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Brazzlebox

The Information provided on the Brazzlebox page is not an advertisement. It is exactly what was stated. A social network for small and home based businesses founded by Glen Zinszer with more information to be found on the website. It is the perfect definition. How can anyone else define it but the founder of the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.174.52 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done and will not be done All articles must be written in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. The page was unambiguously promotional and included WP:PEACOCK terms that gave off the distinct impression that the page was written to promote the company in the best light possible. It was so promotional that it would require a complete and total re-write in order to meet our guidelines for neutrality (WP:NPOV). It also read like it was taken directly from a press release or from the official website. We cannot accept WP:COPYVIO and even if the company gave up the content, it would still require that re-write. To be honest, I don't see where the company passes WP:CORP at this point in time. I did a search and other than various press releases and other WP:PRIMARY sources, there is nothing to show that the company has received enough coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS) to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/eTOX

I, Moldeck, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Moldeck (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User: Dmoines09

I, Dmoines09, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G11. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. I need more time to complete the editing. A misunderstanding of the coding is being worked out. -Dmoines09 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done It was NOT an abandoned Articles for Creation - and it was pure spam on a topic that is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, due to its promotional nature, it cannot be undeleted the panda ₯’ 19:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft talk:List of Metaheuristics

Please refund Draft talk:List of Metaheuristics either to Draft space or my User space, it contains references for an obscure topic. Diego (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Day Drunk

I, Jordanhallinx, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jordanhallinx (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Olivier Chesneau

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Fmillour (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I would like to improve the page of O. Chesneau so that it is not deleted... He got some notoriety recently with one of his papers on the peanut star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_5171), therefore the wikipedia article does not deserve deletion in my opinion. Best regards Fmillour

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fallon Ambulance

(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.) Robbie80074 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Wilson (Organist)

I, Shaultain, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Shaultain (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk like TED

I created the Wikipedia article "Talk like TED" on June 30 before 5:56 PM Pacific time. It was flagged for speedy deletion shortly after that, citing rule G7. I contested it maybe 75 minutes later. Someone else later removed the speedy deletion flag, noting that G7 did not apply to books, which this article described. Then July 4, 9:06 AM Pacific time, over 3.5 days later, it was nominated for speedy deletion and deleted 44 minutes later. This cited G11, claiming it was obvious spam.

I wish to contest the deletion on the grounds of double jeopardy, per the intro to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria".

The Talk like TED article survived one CSD nomination only to be deleted over 3.5 days later in apparent violation of this rule, on a questionable claim that it met G11.

By way of clarification, Talk like TED is a recent book by a well-known author and presentation coach, Carmine Gallo about the well-known TED (conference).

I do not recall ever having heard of the Carmine Gallo prior to reading this book. I read the book, because I was impressed with TED. I was so impressed with the book, I felt others would be interested. The new article received 121 views the first day and 22 the second. These page view statistics seemed to validate my initial judgment that the subject was sufficiently noteworthy to justify its own Wikipedia entry. (The companion Talk page contained more detail on why I thought the article should not be deleted.)

I failed to cite external sources. I later found another published book review that seemed relevant, and I thought of adding a one line summary of that review with a link. However, I failed to do that before it was deleted. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • As you say, it was not deleted as no indication of importance, because that criterion does not apply to books, but the criterion of promotionalism applies to all articles. The key point is that the article consisted essentially of a detailed table of contents, and we regard that as promotional. The article additionally had no references at all; if there are multiple significant 3rd party reviews , such as from major magazines and newspapers, reviews such that he book will meet WP:NBOOK, then a new article could be written. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Userfy (see details below) — The "double jeopardy" argument fails here because the first nomination for speedy deletion (based on criterion G7) was annulled for invalidity, not rejected on merit. There was only one procedurally valid nomination made, and that was the one based on criterion G11. Also, the pageview counts for the first couple of days after the article's creation should not be interpreted as an indication of its popularity or relevance; rather, those counts simply represent views by Wikipedia volunteers with "new article patrol" duty. In any case, pageviews alone are not evidence of WP:Notability.
⋮
However, I'm willing to take DavidMCEddy at his word and assume that he created the article in good faith without the intention of "spamming". Therefore, speaking as an editor who is not the article creator, I would endorse moving the article to its creator's userspace so that he has the opportunity to bring it up to inclusion standards and submit it for WP:Peer review. Having said that, I should add that it appears to me unlikely that the book is sufficiently notable to merit a separate article; perhaps the best solution is to create a redirect from "Talk like TED" to the existing article about the book's author, Carmine Gallo, which already contains a bibliography section in which the book appears (along with a link to the page describing the book on the publisher's website). — Jaydiem (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Not done and will not be done As above, this will NOT be undeleted. If someone wishes to use WP:AFC or a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT then start from scratch. That will not be undeleted in any form the panda ₯’ 22:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I submit that your tone is inappropriately strident. What are you so angry about? ~ It's unclear what you're referring to with "As above"; please clarify. ~ I have no vested interest here, but it seems to me unnecessarily harsh to refuse to restore even to the contributing editor's private userspace the text that he invested the time to write in good faith. Just saying. — Jaydiem (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Lindapolk/Felonism

I, Lindapolk, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Lindapolk (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC) 

Lindapolk (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Not done I was going to un-delete it, but upon further thought I've decided against it and re-deleted it. There are a few concerns for this, but predominantly my reason is that the version you've created could be seen as being promotional/biased in favor of the term. It would require a complete and total re-write in order to even come close to being neutral. The other problem is that the term is still a neologism that you came up with and that you appear to be trying to make more popular or more legitimate via Wikipedia. Even though the actions covered by your neologism have been around for a while, the actual term "felonism" does not seem to be in active use and I can't find anything to show that it's even really used by anyone to where I'd even suggest adding it to Wiktionary. I'm very sorry and while I do empathize with what you're trying to do, Wikipedia is not a place to try to popularize neologisms. I can't see where the term is widely enough used to where restoring the content would really accomplish anything because there just doesn't seem to be any coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brendan Dean

I, Brendandean, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Brendandean (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done The article was only a few sentences long and had some promotional content in it. Removing the promotional sentences would pretty much reduce the article to about 2 sentences, so there's nothing that would really be gained by restoring this. Of the sources, the two non-primary links come up with nothing (meaning that there's no article there) and the only other link is a WP:PRIMARY one. I have no problem with you creating a new AfC at that location, although I do recommend that you read through our WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS guidelines before resuming. Given that the article was so promotional in tone and read like an advertisement, I would recommend that you exercise some caution with editing. Not saying that you can't edit, just that since you are writing about yourself, that you make sure that you are aware of our guidelines on notability, tone, and sourcing before proceeding with another AfC entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, one of the two links went to a blog. Most blogs aren't usable as reliable sources because most undergo no editing process and of the ones that do have an editor are usually impossible to verify as far as quality goes. Don't take this badly- there are a lot of blogs that are otherwise great sites but cannot be used to establish notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mindscouts

I, Bschwendimann, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Bschwendimann (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done The article as a whole is written like it's a press release or other promotional material for the organization. It'd need a lot of work to meet our NPOV guidelines, so it'd probably be best if you just started again from scratch. It also seems to be very closely paraphrased from the organization's website, so you'd have to substantially re-write it anyway to alleviate any WP:COPYVIO concerns. Basically, one way or another you'd have to re-write the article before it would meet Wikipedia's guidelines for style and tone. Starting from scratch would be best in this situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Although another thing I have to caution you about is that when it comes to writing about organizations, less is more. You don't have to list every single goal, characteristic, and theme of the organization- that's usually where most articles of this nature start to become promotional in tone. Also, I didn't really notice a lot of coverage for this organization in reliable sources that are independent of Mindscouts. All articles must show that the subject passes notability guidelines, in this case WP:ORG. You might want to see if you can find these sources, because otherwise this would not be accepted into the mainspace. No matter how good the intentions of the organization might be, it must still pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

this article is about a living businessman from india, its nothing related to advertising or promotional and then click the "Save page" button below -Wikimaster in (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done The page contained several WP:PEACOCK phrases and words that made the article seem promotional. Sentences such as "But above all he has proven himself to be a mastermind in share market" come across as unambiguously promotional in tone. I also noted that the article lacked coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS), so if you're interested in re-creating an article you must absolutely find RS that are independent of Lakhotia and in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. On a side note, if you are someone who was paid to create the article or otherwise asked by Lakhotia himself to edit, I would like you to read over our WP:COI guidelines. You can still edit, but having a COI means that you need to be more aware and cautious of our guidelines than any other editor on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thomas_Hemmings

I, 92.128.119.143, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 92.128.119.143 (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Habitual

(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.) Fakhrul anwar (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Reasoning 1. The writer was out for other assignment for last 12 month 2. research on above topic reschedule to budget and financial purpose 3. New topic which need more time to do research which not much can be found now


2= Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fakhrul anwar (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Looking at the page, I'm not really sure how this expands on the article we already have for habit and Habituation. It may be better for you to work on expanding those articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, please be aware that you must have coverage in reliable sources that discuss this term directly. I also noted that the tone of the article was written in a manner that read like a personal research paper. (WP:OR) Wikipedia is not a place to post your own research or opinions on a topic and everything must be reliably sourced. I'm not adverse to re-creating the AfC, but I don't really see where the article expands on the already existing articles enough to merit a content fork. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  •   Not done I thought about this and I just don't see where it expands on the articles above. I think it'd be better if you were to work on the articles already in the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vance Havner

(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.) 50.15.89.61 (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • On a side note, I do have to concur with one of the editors in that the article does need some editing for tone. It's not that it's promotional, but it is just a little too casual and essay-like at times. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/East of Eden Official

Hi, I wish to use the orginal as a template , please reinstate , thanks (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.) 176.227.134.225 (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done After looking at it, the original version was so promotional and non-neutral (in one instance, discussing the members' romantic status) that I'm not sure how much of it would really be all that useful. I really think that it'd be better to start from scratch for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Scotland Outdoors Magazine

Would like to insert a new one to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magazines_published_in_Scotland , I have no idea of the content of the deleted one -Carodani76 (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • There's really not much useful content in it. It was fairly brief when it came down to it, mostly just telling people that they can get a subscription through PayPal and listing the staff members. Not much that can't be already seen at the official website for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tokyogirl79 How come many other magazines in that list have their own page then? And how to create a new one with that name if it's not possible to undelete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carodani76 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Posted to the new editor's talk page to explain about article creation and notability. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

NYLO Hotels

The article was not noteworthy. I have added more than 20 news sources as references to correct this issue. -Tanner Thurman (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  Not done The article is most certainly not ready for mainspace. Please continue working on you Draft:NYLO_Hotels draft version and read WP:FIRSTARTICLE the panda ₯’ 19:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bobby Watson

I, 64.134.234.169, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 64.134.234.169 (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-NCGov

Discussion referenced at User_talk:ChrisRuvolo/Archive/2006#PD-NCGov, the question of NC-Gov works copyright status emerged on Commons, knowing about previous discussions can be helpful. Thanks in advance. --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC) -Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Martin H.: The entire content of the talkpage is:
==Property of the people==
(moved here from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/October 2005#Template: NJGov)
Actually, NC does dedicate state-held information - termed in law as the property of the people - see link from Template:PD-NCGov. I created the NC template after requesting permission to use several images from state agencies, who always referred me to that statute. The text of the template borrows heavily from the statute.--Mm35173 17:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need to restore the content for that bit of discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
What about the edit history? It was edited more than once. (And Template:PD-NCGov was deleted 3 times.) 'Support restoration'. To user space if there's some dispute. No good reason to censor discussion. If the works are not just public record, but public domain too, then the template itself should be restored, but I am not confident that's the case. On the other hand, when it comes to deleting PD-[state]Gov templates, the track record shows a lot of (what have turned out to be) erroneous deletions by the powers that be. --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 01:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mm35173: If that was the entire content of the talkpage it is indeed not needed to restore it, i.e. its not helpful for the project in terms of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G8. Thanks for having a look into this, request withdrawn. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Elvey: There was only one edit to the talkpage, by only one user. There is no need to restore the talk page for one edit where I copied the entire contents here. Edit (20:18, 4 November 2005 . . ChrisRuvolo (talk | contribs) (531 bytes) (clarification on rationale)) @Martin H.: If you need anything else, please let me know, I would be happy to get you anything that you need for your discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 17:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As said above: I withdraw the request, agree with TLSuda. --Martin H. (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Chapman

Enter your reasoning here // Reason: Famous Canadian that has been nominated for numerous Film and Artistic awards. Is the Creator of a unique editing method (in film) , and perhaps may even still be alive. I cannot edit an article (new), unless the old one is available for review of what was wrong in the past. Is it simply that he was from Canada? Seems to be a petty excuse. I may be wrong,(sometimes I am), but it appears that AFD may not apply, but not 100% sure. // and then click the "Save page" button below -Richard416282 (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

All three deletions were A7 deletions in 2006. I'm not sure how useful something from 2006 may be, but the page isn't salted so far as I can tell, so you can create something there or go thru AfC if you're not comfortable doing so. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Gaydos

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Gaydos · ( logs | links | watch ) · [revisions] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobbsy11 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done I've restored the article's history, but declined the article at AfC. It needs an almost complete and total re-write in order to meet our guidelines for neutrality. It's very, very promotional in tone and kind of reads like it was taken from a press release or other promotional material. If it is WP:COPYVIO, please re-write it. Even if the content is given up as fair use, most sources of that nature are just too promotional to be used. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peak Saver

I, Richard416282, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Richard416282 (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Richard416282 (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've restored it, but there is some writing here and there that kind of reads like an advertisement. Not so much that I'd not restore it, but enough to where you should probably re-write it to be a little more neutral. In specific, the sentence "Depending on the region being served, and the respective tools available to the electric utility, Energy management tools such as Peak Saver are designed to be participative but without being too intrusive to individual customer needs" comes across as something you'd see on an advertisement for the product. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_142&oldid=1138663703"