Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 153

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Archive 150 Archive 151 Archive 152 Archive 153 Archive 154 Archive 155 → Archive 160

atul kumar

I do not know why page is deleted But I think Atul Kumar has some significant contribution in the field of Medicinal and Green chemistry. The pages with Scientific and Technological content must contain primary source like journal ref It will also give Wiki a boost as This page has some very High impact ref Like Nature, Green Chemistry and Organic letters ,etc and even he is inventor of some new drugs , drug invention is a life time work it is even thousand time more diffecult than designing aircraft.In this light I request the page should be restored if editor wants some changes they can but such persons should stay at wiki, -Chemsciphd (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chemsciphd:   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/Atul Kumar (2nd nomination), it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user Spartaz (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Wright

Tlönorbis (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tlönorbis:   Not done. I am not happy to restore this, even as an AfC draft, because it contains serious, unsourced allegations about named people. Please read the policy on WP:Biographies of living persons, noting in particular that it says:

"Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Also, it seems written from a somewhat partisan point of view. If you wish, the text could be emailed to you, but you should not repost anything like this until what it says is cited to reliable sources and complies with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. JohnCD (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

John Frankel (financier)

multiple reliable sources and links on Internet. He is a notable VC at ff Ventures. -Dnyc (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Siege and Storm

The article is about the second volume in a series that is growing increasingly popular. The reason for deletion was that it was a non-notable book. I think it is inappropriate to delete an article about a book just because a person is unimpressed with the book. I have no connection with the book Siege and Storm beyond being a school librarian whose students are interested in the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.50.35 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi. Unfortunately Wikipedia uses the term "notable" to mean something very specific: that a subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. It is not intended to be a value judgment on a subject. I've added a reference to the page but I'd hope for a few more. If you know of any other reviews or commentary on the book please add them to the article. Protonk (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Arlington row/sandbox

(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.) Arlington row (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Arlington row/sandbox

  • @Arlington row: I'm sorry, but I do have to share in the declining editor's concern that this was a personal essay for a science class and falls under WP:NOT. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Arlington row: If you can show where this is the start of an article and not a personal essay, I'd be more inclined to restore it. It's just that it came across as a general sort of essay, so I couldn't really see where it was meant to be an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Not done If @Arlington row: can show where this was more than just a school essay I'm willing to restore, but given that they didn't respond I'm going to decline this for the time being. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Queen of the Universe

This page was speedy deleted noting criteria A7, however this is an improper use of the criteria as the claim to notability is certainly credible and its significance seems readily apparent. This is an international beauty pageant, founded by a celebrity (actress, producer, former Miss Universe runner-up and "Real Housewife of Beverly Hills" Joyce Giraud), staged at the famous Saban Theatre in Los Angeles, with plenty of references to be found. Two annual pageants have been completed and were well-documented within this page. Celebrities have also been judges to this event, including Corey Feldman, Lance Bass, Lisa Vanderpump, Kyle Richards and others. Perhaps the article could have used improvements and additional sources referenced but this should not have been anywhere close to being a "speedy delete" candidate or even an AfD. -LaLaFoote (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion a7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This was indeed an improper use of A7, which states in part: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." A7 is meant to allow frivolous articles to be deleted speedily, not for someone to just decide he does not feel it is notable. The article was sourced and credible and should not have been deleted this way. It should be reinstated and if someone believes it is still not notable, then brought up for an AfD. Please note again, the deletion was most definitely NOT in accordance with A7 if it has made a credible claim of significance, which it has. A7 is NOT for "notability" issues per se but for "credible claims of significance," which is very different.LaLaFoote (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  • @LaLaFoote: Can you leave a note for the deleting admin (NawlinWiki) pointing them to this discussion. Basically we can't unilaterally overturn that deletion, but they can (if they're so inclined). If you can't convince them then you can raise the issue at deletion review. I will note that I'm not seeing very many sources for "Queen of the Universe" which talk about the pageant in any depth. That doesn't make the use of A7 right or wrong, but I implore you to take a long hard look at the sourcing available before going through the process of deletion review because it will be a waste of your time to have the CSD overturned only to have the article deleted via AfD (which is likely if there are no or few reliable sources). Protonk (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    LaLaFoote's arguments don't hold water. The article contained no credible claim of significance. None. The fact that it's an "international" pageant is not a claim of significance; anyone can start a pageant and call it "international" (for example, this is done in local wine competitions every day). The fact that it was started by a notable model is not a claim of significance because notability is not inherited. Without a credible claim of significance, one must look to the sources to see if it is notable. Finding little or no sources that cover the subject in depth, and with no claim of significance, this is a ripe candidate for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#A7.
    That said, I do see an irregularity in this deletion: Normally speedy deletion requires one editor to nominate it and an administrator to agree. That didn't happen here, it looks like the article was deleted unilaterally by the administrator without being tagged (unless I missed something in the deleted history). Also, the article has significant contributions by more than one author, suggesting that deletion would not be uncontroversial. Therefore, it might be best to restore this article for the purpose of taking it to WP:AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm glad you see the irregularity -- but you keep talking about "notability." That argument is for an AfD. The policy on A7 is very clear, and please show me how I'm wrong: the article must make a "credible claim of significance." This person is overstepping his power to delete and anyone who cares about Wikipedia should feel offended by that. I see nothing to gain by suggesting to him he did something wrong when his long history of deleting articles (you can Google his user name and find many instances, over years) indicates he believes he is right. (Also, Protonk, I also do not see any rule which states only the speedy deleter can undelete. I also discussed this matter with a Bureaucrat privately and he sent me here to make the appeal - not to the deleting person.)
      Speedy Delete is a tool to quickly get rid of obvious spammy/inappropriate content and the like. If someone abuses that power they are hurting the encyclopedia and disregarding someone's hard work - in this case, many someones - with very little regard. But for notability's sake, you stop at only the first point as if it makes the case. This isn't a matter of "inherited" notability. Okay, it was founded by a notable person; held at a notable venue; judged by other notable people. How many "notables" must be involved before you decide this is a notable event itself? Doesn't matter? Okay, it is verifiable as well. There are many news articles which are about it and which refer to it, in addition to exposure on television, which is difficult to source on Wikipedia, but some video links can be found as well. At the VERY least, if you see an article which indicates so many notables are involved, where you can find many verifiable sources - you HAVE to admit that the "credible claim of significance" is there, thus NOT a candidate for Speedy Deletion.LaLaFoote (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      The whole point of this board is to handle uncontroversial restorations. We don't (as a practice) restore content which can't be done so unilaterally. If you want to convince someone that the deletion was out of process then you either need to convince the deleting admin (which you don't feel will be fruitful) or make a request at deletion review. Again, I'll urge you not to bother because if it is agreed that the deletion was out of process it will be nominated for AfD as quickly as it is restored. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      This ought to be uncontroversial. The only controversy is people discussing "notability" of the subject when notability is not the issue. It was a thoughtfully written article, contributed to and improved by quite a few editors, was sourced, is verifiable, and maybe can be even improved upon. If there is a controvery over whether it presents a "credible claim to significance" then maybe you have a point, but please read the words again: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." I have to trust your ability to read those words and understand them. This claim is not controversial. You and Amatulic are only seeming to make it so by simply (apparently) not reading and understanding those words in Wikipedia policy. For A7 NOT to be used, it didn't even NEED sources or NEED to qualify as "notable." You seem to be defending the actions of someone who is basically defacing the encyclopedia with his deletion tool. Someone needs to please stop him and ask him to read those words and to also understand them. Please, please tell me you do understand the words: "does NOT apply to any article that... does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." The keyword is: "credible claim of significance or importance." How can you reasonably state that it doesn't?LaLaFoote (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      Feel free to make this argument at deletion review. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the proper place to bring this uncontroversial undeletion request. I was given this link by a Wikipedia Bureaucrat. It is called "requests for undeletion." This is not my article; it is everybody's article. It was willfully and wrongly deleted in violation of the very clear A7 guidelines. Will someone who can read and understand the rule, which was written the way it was written on purpose and arrived at by consensus long ago... please help?LaLaFoote (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been given instructions on how to proceed. Take your case to the deleting admin, and if you are not satisfied, take it to WP:DRV. We will not undelete this article by request on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you the appointed boss of this page now? You say "we," you speak on behalf of everyone on Wikipedia now? You do not even have Admin authority to make the decision on your own behalf. I HAVE been given instructions on how to proceed, by a Bureaucrat. "Deletion review" likewise clearly instructs people to come here with uncontroversial undeletion requests. If you decide to CREATE controversy by claiming "notability" is a factor when it is NOT (read that A7 sentence AGAIN please!), that does NOT make this issue controversial. It means you apparently don't know how to read with comprehension. Tell my why this page even exists if "only the deleting Admin can undelete," or where it says that anywhere? If you cannot make a reasonable statement as to why this article does not have a "credible claim to significance," which so far you have not, then this request belongs right here. LaLaFoote (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
This request will remain here until it is archived. Any of the other admins on this page are free to act on it as they see fit and have been since the discussion started, though since two admins who regularly handle requests on this page have declined it, I'm not sure you'll get the response you seek. As both of us have said, if you want to challenge the propriety of the deletion (which is what this discussion has been), the place to do that is DRV. If you feel that being pointed here by a crat was dispositive in some way, please let me know who pointed you here and I'll remind them of the purpose of this page. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I assume that this page exists for people to request undeletion of articles they feel were improperly (i.e., lack of propriety) deleted? If not, then what is it for? The other fellow's page does not ID him as an Admin unless I missed it, and he has not chosen to correct me if he is. My very first statement here made the case. You and he are arguing "notability" which does not have a place here as Wikipedia's A7 rule specifically says it does not. It is not controversial just because you might choose to make an irrelevant argument vis a vis "notability." DRV says to come here to make this request... unless somehow you can make a good, reasonable argument why a page which has existed for almost two years and was edited by many, is validated by references and can easily be researched to see many more... does not make a "credible claim to significance"? Why would you want to support a wrong decision, made against the rules, by another Admin who is essentially "playing God" with articles which represent the purposeful and productive efforts of many people? Really?LaLaFoote (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

From the top of the page:

Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in "articles for deletion" debates with little or no participation other than the nominator.
Note that requests for undeletion is not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.

Both of those statements have been there in roughly the same form since I helped create this page nearly 5 years ago. They're pretty clear and unambiguous. Protonk (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just a quibble, but the word "uncontroversial" seems key here. I can clearly see that the deletion was improper as it does not follow the stated A7 rules; to me the fact of the rule is "uncontroversial" and should be readily apparent. Sure, I could just go start another request somewhere else and end up in another argument with people who will no doubt also interpret the rule incorrectly and start talking about "notability" again -- or, someone could just look and see the deletion was wrong and just easily fix it with a keystroke. I'm fighting to restore an article I care about; you two here are fighting for... I don't know?... to defend a bad decision made by someone else? If you'd like to go school the Bureaucrat who referred me here about how he's wrong about this page and about the proper use of "speedy delete," please first read his thoughts essayed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bibliomaniac15/Speedy_deletion LaLaFoote (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
How about "If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here." which was also quoted above. We're literally arguing over the propriety of a CSD decision, which is not the function of this page. Full stop. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That says "please" contact them, not stated as a rule. I've already stated why I've chosen not to take that step. I do not expect a reasonable response from someone who seems to be behaving unreasonably and who seems committed to destroying articles which do not pass muster with him despite what the rules say. Meanwhile, you could easily help right now, fix a wrong and perhaps even be the guy who stands up for the encyclopedia rather than a fellow Admin who did wrong. You want to send me away to start all over again, when you could just fix it yourself so, so easily? You want to be that guy? Unfortunately there seems to be too many of "that guy" all around here. It is highly discouraging. Just, please, fix it if you will. LaLaFoote (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You have crossed into WP:TENDENTIOUS territory. You have been told repeatedly the proper procedure. A7 deletions cannot be contested on this page. Take it up with the deleting admin, or take it to WP:DRV. Everyone answering you is an administrator. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
If you are an administrator, why do you not identify yourself as such on your page? Why so cagey about it; why say "everyone" rather than just affirm that you are one? Your behavior here is more "tendentious," you are more interested in being defiant than in actually answering on point, which is what I have been doing, quite directly. I will also tell you directly; because of your behavior, I feel attacked by you. You are being condescending and dismissive. You are ignoring my direct statement as to why I am here and why I do not address the original Admin, and you are incorrect if you say "it cannot be done" and you are improperly speaking on behalf of other people by using "we." You flat-out ignored discussion about the other article's merit by summing that she is not notable if the pageant is not notable, when the original article talks about many other things which I had mentioned. You are being incorrect in your interpretation of A7 and even being belligerent about it. Again, I simply ask you to clearly state how the article, as described, fails to meet the A7 requirement of "credible claim to significance." I would really like to see you try to answer that cogently. Your behavior, your evasiveness and seeming refusal to respond to the point at hand, your misdirection of making the issue about ME by accusing me of tendentiousness while I am staying directly on point -- you are helping foment frustration and anger and you haven't helped one bit here. You don't want to undelete the article, fine, your decision; you don't have to keep going at me. But if you are actually an Administrator, you are setting an awfully poor example of behavior here.LaLaFoote (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to comment here at Protonk's request, even though I would otherwise be inclined to stay away because of the numerous remarks LaLaFoote has made above impugning my integrity ("committed to destroying articles despite what the rules say"). I answer every request on my talk page for an explanation of why I deleted an article, and sometimes I *do* restore them. Here, as Amatulic says above, we have an article about a pageant with no evidence whatsoever in the article that the pageant has been taken note of by anyone except its founders and its contestants. The only sources cited were the pageant's own website and the site of the corporate producer (owned by the pageant founder's husband). It is not a "credible claim of notability" for the pageant owners to say "This is an important pageant! It has contestants from all over the world!" And there wasn't anything else in the article.

That said, as both Protonk and Amatulic have told LaLaFoote, the appropriate place to seek review of this deletion is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Many other editors watch that space and will weigh in on the discussion. As Protonk and Amatulic have said, this page is for noncontroversial deletions. The fact that three administrators disagree with LaLaFoote should be enough to show that a reversal of this deletion is not "noncontroversial." NawlinWiki (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You've basically validated my reasoning for not approaching you in the first place. You put in quote, "credible claim of notability," which is flat-out WRONG. It is "credible claim of significance." You could research the subject and see that it easily meets that standard. Speedily deleting articles is only to be done in cases of flagrantly inappropriate topics. It is NOT to be used if you feel something is not "notable" -- again, I urge you, too, to read the A7 section once again. You are using it WRONG. I've Googled your user name and have seen several other instances of articles you've deleted going back years. Once these were documented in user history; now they aren't. I've seen your name mentioned in news articles talking about deletions; one such: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/04/26/what-constitutes-notability-wikipedia-twice-deleted-native-american-journalists -- in which the Native American organization's president is quoted about your article deletion: "Significant to whom? If you said that to us, then you’re adding to the genocide of our people by saying we don’t exist."
As you can see, what you do can cause some very strong feelings; painful ones. And you keep doing it, despite the fact that the rules clearly state "significance" versus "notability," and you are also off as far as notability is concerned, which outside of A7 is a more stringent standard. You are playing "God" and bypassing Wikipedia's well-worn standards. If you had only, as decorum dictates, looked into this pageant, you would see that it's not just some celebrity's vanity project; you would see that it had over 100 different contestants representing countries all over the world. It had an audience of some 1,400 people, including their friends, family, well-wishers, "country supporters," and press, etc. It had celebrity judges who donated their time. It was also to benefit UNESCO, an international children's charity. In its first outing it had a "Miss Iran," unusual for many pageants, and this created a flurry of excitement from American Iranian journalists. It had an event book filled with paid advertising by sponsors. It was sponsored by many notable companies -- who all paid to be included because they realized its significance. It was covered by multiple press outlets, including television. So would you dare stand before all these people and say, as you basically have, that this thing they're participating in is NOT SIGNIFICANT? Every contestant represented a humanitarian/philanthropic concern, and this was their platform to speak about so many important causes. But you don't think about that as you use your click. Can I be blamed for assuming, as you are also using your click clearly against the stated rules, that you aren't expressing "best intentions" here? Deleting work that took many people hours to create, with one stroke, without even bothering to look further into it, improve the article, or regard so much discussion about this matter of deletion? You could have flagged the article; you could have improved the article. Nope, you just deleted it. Against the rules. So since you are here now, I will ask you: Please restore these two articles.LaLaFoote (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Take this to deletion review. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I have heard and responded to your request, and told you why I have rejected it. You don't need to repeat yourself. I was told to come here by one of only 34 Bureaucrats on this site; I believe, a higher "rank" than Administrator. If you would like to go correct him and ask him to re-advise me as to where to go, then I will. This should be uncontroversial as the deletion was in flagrant violation of the rules. Once again I ask someone else to please help. If those of you responding so far do not wish to help, you have been heard, and I respectfully ask that you recuse yourselves now.LaLaFoote (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Bureaucrats have no rank or authority over administrators. A bureaucrat is basically an administrator who can rename/move user accounts and toggle some additional privileges on accounts, that's all. There are administrators with privileges (such as checkuser) that bureaucrats don't have either. If a bureaucrat told you to come here, he probably was not aware that A7 deletions cannot be contested on this page. The procedure is to first go to the deleting administrator, and then to WP:DRV. The article had zero credible claim of significance, as has beeni already explained to you, therefore it was deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. I have stated that there was an irregularity about this deletion, and if you take it up with the deleting administrator, I am sure he would be willing to restore the article for the purpose of submitting it to a proper discussion at WP:AFD. @NawlinWiki: if it's OK with you, I have no objection to restoring the article for that purpose. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the thumbs-up to restoring the article, however the reason should be because it should not have been ever deleted the way it was in the first place. Your assertion that a pageant founded by a notable celebrity, produced by a notable, Oscar-nominated producer, attended by a full house of 1,400 people over two years, reported on, sponsored by major companies, talked about on TV and judged by notable celebrities is not "significant" -- still tells me you completely miss the point of the idea of what "significance" even is. It tells me that you probably are not qualified to make decisions regarding "significance." YOU tell all the people who worked so hard on it, who reported on it, who donated their presence to judge it, the people who paid to attend it, the famous venue who agreed to host it, the contestants who sought sponsors and rehearsed for months to prepare for it, that it is not significant. I'm sorry, but that idea is just plain insulting. A pageant is not a bunch of pretty girls who just show up in a bikini and wave at people. If you want to suggest this is in any way not significant -- you must know you are also effectively insulting a great many people with that assertion. And if you'd like to assert that being a Bureaucrat on this site also ain't no big deal -- yeah, get him in here and tell him how wrong he is, too. There's only 34 of them; I'm sure an Administrator would LOVE to attain that status... or maybe not, if all they get is a few new buttons to play with. The page says they are held to a higher standard and expectations of them are higher; I don't assume they are your "boss" but I have to ask -- would you really want any of them to see how rude and dismissive and condescending you've been here? AND, outright WRONG about this A7 policy to boot? Please take note, your behavior here made this stop being about just these articles and about clearly establishing how this policy should be used. The article should be restored and IMPROVED if you feel it needs better references, not toted over to a different board to be argued about again because it's just some silly beauty pageant. Maybe you didn't say that directly, but you heavily imply that by carping over and over again about how "insignificant" you think it is, and that is insulting to a lot of people.LaLaFoote (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what bureaucrat you conversed with, if you want him involved, invite him here. And yes, few administrators are willing to go through an RFB for the sake of having a minimal increase in the tools available. I certainly have never found a need for them in my years on Wikipedia. My behavior here has been about the proper procedure on this page. Administrators will not overrule another administrator decision without concurrence, and NawlinWiki hasn't concurred. Also, this page is emphatically not for contesting A7 deletions. Because there was a process abnormality about this particular deletion, I kindly suggest that you go ask NawlinWiki if he'd be OK with another admin restoring the article for the purpose of putting it through a proper AFD. I've pinged him on this page for that purpose also. As for insulting people who aren't part of this discussion, imagining implications and insults that don't exist, well, those are a non sequiturs and irrelevant to the bottom line: that we don't restore A7 deletions by request on this page. I have offered a way out. I suggest you take it. Until you do, this will be my final reply, you may have the last word if you choose not to take my suggestion. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay then. I might point out that if this was the improper place and that is the biggest point, then this should have been stated upfront rather than this discussion about "notability" which is, per A7, irrelevant. It seems somewhat silly to have a page called "Requests for Undeletion" and to have a different page for "Deletion Review" with this very tiny distinction about whether it's "uncontroversial." It does seem that if a rule was clearly violated, that is uncontroversial, despite any ensuing "controversy" over the irrelevant matter of notability here. If that much is clear, there is no NEED for discussion, thus no need to take it to a discussion-oriented other area.
Then, I might ask that you please review WP:SIGNIFICANT to see the actual established policy about that. This is not a "King of Mars" assertion, it is not a hoax or patent silliness or any of that. You actually made the statement that this has a "ZERO credible claim of significance," and that is an irresponsible assertion to make. If someone cares about something, it is not insignificant. Significance means "meaning." If you can say this topic cannot be seen as having meaning to anyone, then you'd be right. But you know this is not the case.
I point you to the recent news of one Donald Sterling, who had a private phone call with someone, who said some very insensitive things with no regard to people who weren't party to the discussion or imagining the implications of how insulting what he said could be to other people. That is a very prime example of why you should comport yourself with consideration of others. Telling ANYONE that they or their accomplishments are "insignificant" is indeed insulting, and you should be sensitive to that -- ESPECIALLY here on a public forum. I am telling you here, I feel insulted that you sit there telling me to my face that something I care about is insignificant. This is WHY you don't just go deleting potentially good articles this way. This is WHY they are supposed to be discussed first beforehand to figure out their propriety on this site. That power should not be in a single person's hands, and I'm supposing this is WHY the consensus hammered out the particular wording of A7 and WP:SIGNIFICANT, mainly BECAUSE "speedy delete" is only intended to eliminate pure nonsense or erroneous information. You can EASILY imagine that if the thousands of people who care about that pageant saw you publicly declaring that it is insignificant, that they would be insulted. You wouldn't say the "N-word" here if you figured that the participants observing wouldn't be insulted by it, would you? If you ARE an administrator here on this site, entrusted with nothing but the written word and expected to uphold high standards and be an example to others -- you mustn't be careless about your own use of language. You MUST be sensitive to whatever you might label as "insignificant." You go tell anyone he or his work is insignificant -- you are heaving a mighty insult there.
I DID mention who the Bureaucrat was. You have apparently been too focused on telling me how wrong I am and how insignificant this pageant is to have actually noticed most of what I've had to say here.LaLaFoote (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
One more little point: It seems clear that asking the deleting administrator about a matter is more of a courtesy than a policy. But if one has done something wrong, we who must ask for an administrator's intervention MUST be able to trust in their ability to act on wrongdoing. That administrator was actually called over here and actually misstated the policy and exhibited his clear lack of understanding of the policy and its intent. This whole discussion has been miserable because I'm dealing with three different administrators who apparently don't understand a policy which says "notability" is not part of the criteria and that this deletion is clearly wrong. Ones who don't understand that "significance" means something else entirely; it means "meaning" and if a subject can arguably have real meaning to someone, then you don't delete it "speedily" with no discussion for consensus. Ones who would rather nitpick and harp about "venue" than to just make things right. The offending administrator has insisted he is correct despite what the carefully worded policy says. This should be reason enough for anyone with the power to fix this, to do so, if they do understand the issue here.LaLaFoote (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a third (fourth?) administrator who is a regular at this page to give you the same message: if you want to contest a speedy-deletion and are unable to agree with the deleting administrator, the place to pursue that is WP:Deletion review, not here. You are barking up the wrong tree here, because you believe that this deletion is so obviously wrong that it should be undone at sight; but nobody agrees with you, and further argument on this page will just waste your time and ours. JohnCD (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Per LaLaFoote's request on my talk page, I have moved the text of the deleted article to his/her userspace. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ivette Saucedo

This article was deleted via A7 speedy delete, however the claim to notability was certainly a credible claim and was well sourced. This person was the winner of the Queen of the Universe international beauty pageant (page also referenced here, also improperly deleted using A7), a notable pageant, and in addition she is an actress and model and equestrienne who has received awards. She was also featured on "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" in its recent season alongside "Housewife" Joyce Giraud, the pageant's founder. (Also potentially worth noting is that this page was deleted barely one minute after the same person deleted the pageant's page, indicating that the page was barely reviewed or given due consideration before applying A7.) -LaLaFoote (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  Not done. If the pageant is not notable, then neither is the winner. Even if the pageant is notable, the winner isn't necessarily notable as a consequence of pageant notability, because notability is not inherited on Wikipedia. If you can get the pageant article restored, feel free to make another request to the deleting administrator (not here) about related articles. Articles deleted as A7 cannot be restored by request on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This was indeed an improper use of A7, which states in part: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." A7 is meant to allow frivolous articles to be deleted speedily, not for someone to just decide he does not feel it is notable. The article was sourced and credible and should not have been deleted this way. It should be reinstated and if someone believes it is still not notable, then brought up for an AfD. Please note again, the deletion was most definitely NOT in accordance with A7 if it has made a credible claim of significance, which it has. A7 is NOT for "notability" issues per se but for "credible claims of significance," which is very different.LaLaFoote (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well since this section is copy/pasted from the above, I'm just going to point you to the responses I gave there. Protonk (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I will add that being the winner of a non-notable pageant is not a credible claim of significance. LaLaFoote, you obviously failed to read my original response in this section, which was not boilerplate. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Copied/pasted because it is the exact same argument: "notability" is not the main criteria within A7. It must make a "credible claim of significance" which it did. Again here you stop with your first point as if it makes the case (and I don't see you listed as an administrator, so could you even see the deleted article? And why are you declaring "NOT DONE" when you couldn't have done it anyway?). BESIDES being the pageant winner, this person is an actress and model and award-winning equestrienne. The article was NOT flagged (after deletion I could see the cached version of it from just fifteen minutes prior to deletion for a while!) and it included at least six verifying references within it. This person deleted a fully written and researched/referenced article, just one minute after deleting a different article, apparently based on the same idea "she's not notable if the pageant is not notable" while ignoring everything else. He couldn't have read that article, considered its sources, and then delete it (or better, further researched it to see if it could be improved), all in just one minute.LaLaFoote (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    You have been given instructions on how to proceed. Take your case to the deleting admin, and if you are not satisfied, take it to WP:DRV. We will not undelete this article by request on this page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    I will reply here to make note that your reply is extremely condescending, and that the reason I am not following "your" instructions is because those instructions are incorrect. Again, this is a non-controversial undelete request and according to the page you're trying to send me to, and the Bureaucrat I conversed with about it, it belongs here. LaLaFoote (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    No, it does not. In my last reply to you in the section above, I proposed a path forward. Hopefully NawlinWiki will reply. Let's see how it goes. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Per LaLaFoote's request on my talk page, I have moved the text of the deleted article to his/her userspace. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/divinatory system of India

I, TheYoginisOracle, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. TheYoginisOracle (talk) 16:37, 22 September 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) 22:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eliakim Koenigsberg

I, 129.98.152.162, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 129.98.152.162 (talk) 17:04, 22 September 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) 22:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sant jagjit singh harkhowal

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -117.214.230.199 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2014 (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/Sant Jagjit Singh Harkhowal, 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 Slakr (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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

atul kumar (2)

I do not think that article like Atul Kumar should be deleted from Wiki. He has good contribution and an active researcher whom has done quite good work in the area of osteoporosis and anti-cancer some excellent publications and around 40 patent in women related disease like osteoporosis and anti breast cancer area I think such an article should be restored as his work is very well supported by references. I think some senior editor or Administrator must review deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterruby (talk • contribs) 06:36, 23 September 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. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, this was requested above and declined because it was AfD'd. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George Farah.

I, Electoralreform, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Electoralreform (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Electoralreform:  Not done for now. You made the same request last January, and it was restored then, but you have not touched it since. AFC is not a place to keep drafts indefinitely. If it is restored again, when do you plan to do anything about it? JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Immediately! My apologies for the delay. I didn't realize it had been restored. Thanks for your patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electoralreform (talk • contribs) 02:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  Done JohnCD (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

BNG Infotech

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Harshitjo (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done, yet. What does this edit mean? If you're here to advertise things on wikipedia (and the deleted draft article reads very much like an advertisement) then I'm not inclined to restore it. Protonk (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Larry Rostant

I, Cocksparrow, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Cocksparrow (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

would like to re-edit to include notability context -Cocksparrow (talk) 14:24, 23 September 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. Protonk (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Laura Genender

E3 -Goccie (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done I don't know what E3 means in this context. Regardless, the article was deleted for not indicating any significance of the subject and can't be restored unilaterally here. If you'd like to work on the article you may start a draft outside of article space (See here for details). Protonk (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Staci Anne Spence

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Goccie (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done There's very little to restore here. Please take a look at "your first article" to get a better sense of the sorts of articles we expect on wikipedia. At a very minimum the article should include one reliable source, enough context for a reader to identify the subject and a neutrally worded bit of information on why the subject is the sort of thing that an encyclopedia would have an article on. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Researchers' Night

I, אמא של גולן, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Golan's mom (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

hi, I would like to try again to edit this page .. can it be restored to my sandbox? thanks Golan's mom (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

American Sleep Association

Please reconsider this submission. Most of the criticism of the organization and submissions are no longer valid. The organization has 5000 members and is active in the community. We have be quoted by many reputable sources, including FDA.gov, see link at http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm330932.htm . D} — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepAssociation (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done, yet, as the page hasn't been deleted. If you want to contest the deletion you can follow the instructions on the template (basically go to the talk page of the article and explain why it shouldn't be deleted). In this specific case I would normally be inclined to remove the tag myself since the previous discussion was years ago, but given the name of this account (SleepAssociation (talk · contribs)), I think there is a better route. First, you will probably have to change your account name. Wikipedia requires that accounts be matched to contributors (see here), not to organizations. An account name like "sleep association" gives us a strong indication that this is a corporate account, not one associated with one person. Second, you will want to write an article draft here and present it to another editor for review. Wikipedia cannot (generally) accept contributions from editors with a strong conflict of interest with the subject, especially whole articles. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

T. J. Johnson (American football)

Has now made NFL debut [1] -WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Garage (Slagsmålsklubben Album)

I, AmbitiousFilmMaker, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. AmbitiousFilmMaker (talk) 19:32, 23 September 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) 12:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Potato_radiograph_for_CT.jpg

i am the creator of the image -Norbertkir (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  • what license would you like to grant on the image? How did you make the image? What is it a picture of? it does not look like just a potato as the title suggests. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

TvNolly

The article on tvnolly clearly states a BRIEF and HISTORY of the organization (in only 6 lines); with no intention whatsoever to promote or advertise the organization. If any phrase or sentence in the short article on TvNolly does not conform with wikipedia's standards; please kindly point it/them out for my attention. Thank you all for your constructive criticisms; I have indeed learnt a lot from your feedbacks. -Bhevencious (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done The article hasn't been deleted yet and if it were deleted for the reasons noted on the tag we couldn't unilaterally restore it for you here. I think the big problem is there's no indication that the site is anything other than another video streaming service. the best way to resolve this issue is to contest the nomination on the talk page (see the instructions on the deletion tag) and provide reliable sources which indicate that there's enough source material to write a verifiable, neutral article on the subject. Without those sources or a claim in the article indicating why such sources might exist it's hard for us to have an article on the subject. Protonk (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Youssef Bey Karam Foundation

The Youssef Bey Karam Foundation is nonprofit, private organization based in Zgharta, Lebanon. It represents Lebanese hero Youssef Bey Karam. It has an official website http://www.youssefbeykaram.org and has a page on facebook http://www.facebook.com/YBK.Foundation -Saroufim1 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

skyline (band)

I don't understand why it getting submitted for deletion when the article is perfectly fine and is for a popular social media band -Allyokay (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion a7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user Randykitty (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.
See also WP:BAND for inclusion criteria, and explain to the deleting admin exactly which of those criteria are met by this band. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Midual

Company still exists as reported (September 2013), http://uncrate.com/stuff/midual-type-1-motorcycle/ , http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/bikes/midual-type-1-prototype/ , http://robbreport.com/automobiles/midual-type-1-prototype-motorcycle-debuts-pebble-beach , http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/Midual/Midual%20Type%201.htm , http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&goto=6849206&rid=12189#msg_6849206 , http://www.gizmag.com/midual-motorcycle/33481/ , http://www.salonprivelondon.com/midual-type-1/ -192.109.190.88 (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  Done The prior AfD was closed as a soft delete, and Amatulic has restored the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

R2Rick

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Izzi Ai (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

The reason for me in writing the article concerning a Malaysian local singer is because I belive he has a lot to offer to this world at large. His idea is not merrily about making music and for the fun of it but he is on a self discovery journey in conducting a "Social Experiment" in the field of arts and crafts. It is his through his contribution that he hope would benefit others like him - independent music purist who are not given the much needed guidance and support in enhancing their music and arts experiences. Most of them are shunned by big corporation who only seek to empower those who are deemed financial beneficial in their eyes. These same product of corporate players are dictating what and whom we hear and why we hear it and because of this, we are experiencing the decay of human civilization in terms of true appreciation in the arts and music field. The same much herald commercially viable trend setters are nothing more than dummies who are used over and over again and upon a certain expiry date; are then disposed off conveniently only to be replace by a fresh batch and eagerly awaiting corporate molded artistes.

R2Rick's social experiment seek to break than bond and release an inflow of true music and arts in to the worl again. He hopes by his spearheading the "Social Experiment" that many more unknown and gifted artistes around will be able to come forward with dignity and showcase their unique blend of diffrent talents world wide.

So do not cancel this singers page just because his is still new but give him a chance to shine and created something new.

Peace :)

Izzi Ai'

  Not done. None of the above is relevant to Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. If he does not satisfy any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO, then he can't have an article here. Artists who are up and coming do not merit articles on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

B.r.Balu

This article is about a doctor who is good example for medical students, sharing the passion of medical teaching and treatment ethics -Gpsarathy21 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done There's little indication from the article that the subject would be covered by reliable, independent sources, which we need in order to sustain a neutral, verifiable article. Remember that while wikipedia contains many biographies, it is not a biographical directory. Not everyone will have a wikipedia article and all of those who do need significant coverage from multiple sources to help us write about them. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steven Eisenberg

I, 75.80.187.100, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 75.80.187.100 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/OREY NYABAGAM

I, 2601:D:8800:6B:EA:F4AA:5406:1ADA, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 2601:D:8800:6B:EA:F4AA:5406:1ADA (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to recreate it yourself. The deleted version was just one short sentence, hardly worth restoring. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_153&oldid=1083424793"