Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 176

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Archive 170 ← Archive 174 Archive 175 Archive 176 Archive 177 Archive 178 → Archive 180

WeLine

This article is showing readers on what WeLine really is. No ads intended at all. -AnMobi (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

User is blocked as a spamusername. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/hoccomocco pictures

I, WilliamPollock, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. WilliamPollock (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • ? User:WilliamPollock this was restored before and you did nothing to edit it. If you let us know what you plan to do to improve the page we could restore it. Wikipedia is not for indefinite hosting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

NJRS

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Vidyutmshah (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a prestigious project by Income Tax Department of India and is in the interest of the nation as it will save lot of exchequers cost in buying un-necessary databases from private service providers which the ITO's refer from time to time.

It is a strong and a brave project and hence this page should not be deleted.

  Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. AfD'd articles will not be restored here should the debate conclude with deletion; the proper venue for such pages is WP:Deletion review. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Walter T. Rea

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -174.67.245.45 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. --ThaddeusB (talk)

nitesh estates limited

Dear All, I want to create and work on Nitesh Estates Limited Wikipedia page. Although I have read it that it has been deleted many times but still I would like to create this page if you all allow me. So, please give me one chance to create this page. -Caseybeagle (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done And will not be done. Account blocked as sock of Ramesh985, like all the others. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:DJ Mpulse

Just saw this email..sorry for late reply.. need the page undeleted. I, Djmpulse, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Djmpulse (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tomás Diaz de la Rubia

I, Whatsnextbob, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Whatsnextbob (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

want to enhance and resubmit -Whatsnextbob (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Scantlebury

(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.) 23.16.72.7 (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The Operatives

Citing further sources for approval of article -Rebeccaflorence (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  Note: This page appears to have been deleted under speedy deletion criterion G10, indicating a page whose sole purpose is to disparage its subject or harass or intimidate others. Such pages will not be undeleted here or anywhere else and will very likely result in having your account blocked. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Not done This appears to be a hoax. If this is not, eg fictional characters, then I suggest that you start from reliable sources and use a draft first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Rebeccaflorence, I'll also throw my two cents in. If this is about a "WP:FRINGE" viewpoint (meaning that the Operatives are seen as real people and not fictional characters) then you may run into trouble with finding reliable sources. In that instance I would recommend that you run any sources through the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RS/N) to see if they are usable or not. Unfortunately most fringe viewpoints don't gain coverage even if they're very popular, so you will likely run into an issue there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Ginny Weasley

I, Solomonfromfinland, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC) --Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • On a side note, Solomonfromfinland, you will need to edit this so it's not as much in an WP:INUNIVERSE style. I know that this can't be entirely avoided since we do need to reference the universe to discuss Ginny, but it'd be somewhat better to make it more fall in line with the articles for Harry and Hermoine. Also, you need to focus on the coverage that the character has received in reliable sources, otherwise it'll just be seen as a character summary page. This may have been what you're intending, but so far it kind of comes across more like a basic character summary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
One more question. I was planning to Userfy said Draft under User:Solomonfromfinland/Ginny Weasley. Or should I Userfy it under the title User:Solomonfromfinland/Draft:Ginny Weasley (note the word “Draft”)? I don’t like the idea of having a redundant Userfied page and a regular Draft page. What should I do?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
If you do userfy it there is no need to include the word draft. However if you are using the articles for creation process the preferred location is the draft space. For this topic however I expect there could be many who would like to help you, so a draft is good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Ronald Gonzalez (Sculptor)

I, Jpspano, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jpspano (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done. This was a copyright violation, containing text copied and pasted from this site, and as such will not be undeleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


Arsalan Khan

please don't delete this page article . It is article about me. this is not copyright or violated. I want to upload my all information on Wikipedia so I make this article. so i m requested not to delete this article i will be very thankful to Wikipedia team. Thank you. -Arsal884 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment @Arsal884: Page names are case sensitive, this page has not yet been deleted please follow the instructions on the CSD template to contest the deletion. However Wikipedia is not a social netowrk and not a place to write about yourself.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Arsal884:   Not done and will not be done Sorry, Arsalan, but Wikipedia is not a social-networking site for people to write about themselves, see Wikipedia is not about YOU. You want somewhere like Facebook. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Toad Rage

There are several reliable reviews of this book on Trove and AustLit. These show that the book is notable, solving the original deletion concern of 'not showing how it meets WP:NBOOKS'. -110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - @110.20.234.69: The two links above only prove the book exists neither of them do anything to prove notability or significance.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
In addition to proving the book exists, both of the links list several reviews in reliable sources about Toad Rage. How does the existence of multiple reliable reviews not do anything to prove notability or significance? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
You need to cite those reviews, then, not the aggregators. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure why simply linking to the aggregators isn't enough to grant a reprieve, but here goes (from Trove):

  • Sullivan, Ed (2004-03-01), "Gleitzman, Morris. Toad Rage.(Brief Article)(Children's Review)(Book Review)", Booklist, 100 (13), American Library Association: 1188(2), ISSN 0006-7385
  • "Gleitzman, Morris Toad Rage.(Brief Article)(Children's Review)(Book Review)", Kirkus Reviews, 72 (7), Kirkus Media LLC: 329(1), 2004-04-01, ISSN 1948-7428
  • Mitnick, Eva (2004-04-01), "Gleitzman, Morris. Toad Rage.(Brief Article)(Children's Review)(Book Review)", School Library Journal, 50 (4), Library Journals, LLC: 154(1), ISSN 0362-8930
  • "Toad Rage.(Book Review)(Children's Review)(Brief Article)", Times Educational Supplement (4384), Times Supplements Ltd: 23, 2000-07-07, ISSN 0040-7887
  • "Toad Rage.(Book Review)(Children's Review)(Brief Article)", Magpies, 15, Magpies Magazine Pty. Ltd: 32, 2000-03-01, ISSN 0817-0088
  • "Toad Rage.(Book Review)(Children's Review)(Brief Article)", School Librarian, 48, The School Library Association: 192, 2000-12-22, ISSN 0036-6595
  • Morrison, Hope (2004-06-01), "The big picture.(Toad Rage)(Brief Article)(Children's Review)(Book Review)", The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, 57 (10), University of Illinois Press: 405(1), ISSN 0008-9036
  • Iserman, Jennifer (2005-04-01), "Toad Rage.(Brief Article)(Audiobook Review)(Children's Review)", School Library Journal, 51 (4), Library Journals, LLC: 74(1), ISSN 0362-8930

From AustLit:

  • Sheahan-Bright, Robyn (2000) "Irreverence for Sacred Cows" Australian Book Review (ISSN: 0155-2864) (ISSN: 0004-8755), no. 218 February-March, 2000 p. 53-54.
  • Harrison,Peta (2000) "Untitled Review" Fiction Focus : New Titles for Teenagers (ISSN: 0819-5358), vol. 14 no. 2, 2000 p. 29
  • Zahnleiter,Joan (2000) "Untitled Review" Reading Time : The Journal of the Children's Book Council of Australia (ISSN: 0155-218X) (ISSN: 1322-7602), vol. 44 no. 2 May, 2000 p. 17
  • Read, Maggie (2001) "Untitled Review" Fiction Focus : New Titles for Teenagers (ISSN: 0819-5358), vol. 15 no. 3, 2001 p. 49-50

I hope that this is sufficient to show that the subject meets the notability guidelines. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@110.20.234.69:   Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please add the most significant references to the article. I will notify user RadioFan (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. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Primous Fountain

(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.) Canticle (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You should have removed the G13 tag yourself before deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Swiss Scientific Society for Developing Coungries

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Alzeerj (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC) This is just to inform you that the website http://swisssdc.wordpress.com/ is own by swiss scientific society for developing countries and there is not any conflict of interest. I will be happy if you reconsider your deletion decision. Many thanks in advance

  Note: The page was deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7, indicating an article that did not explain or prove why the subject was notable. A7 deletions are not overturned here; try contacting the deleting administrator (Bbb23 (talk · contribs)) instead. Note that the subject themselves is not a reliable source for their own article (other than citing uncontroversial information), and that we do not accept blogs as sources unless the blog belongs to a noted expert speaking in their area of expertise. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eclectica

I, Zoltan.devenyi, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. wish to continue editing Zoltan Devenyi 13:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  Declined pending further information. This was undeleted over six months ago with a pledge that it would be worked on, but no edits were made to improve the entry for resubmission. Articles for creation is not an indefinite hosting service for material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia's article mainspace. I am willing to restore it again, but only if you provide a definite assurance that you actually intend to work on it and provide a short description of what you intend to do to improve it to meet our policies and guidelines. Please advise.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Treepodia

I, 81.218.88.10, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 81.218.88.10 (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  Declined pending further information. This was undeleted over six months ago with a pledge that it would be worked on, but no edits were made to improve the entry for resubmission. Articles for creation is not an indefinite hosting service for material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia's article mainspace. I am willing to restore it again, but only if you provide a definite assurance that you actually intend to work on it and provide a short description of what you intend to do to improve it to meet our policies and guidelines. Please advise.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Priyanka Titus Soares

Priyanka Titus Soares I am writer on public figures and personalities for a well known Gujarati newspaper in India, i just recently posted an Article on Priyanka Titus Soares who happens to be a designated model for newspaper video ads and paper ads since 2 years, She is a hardworking girl from a well known Indian-Portuguese origin family, Her great grand father and grandfather was of Portuguese Descent and worked as a commander chief in the British army in early 1890 to 1950. Priyanka Soares She is a multi-talented artist who has been anchoring in TV shows regionally in India and Hosted live events, she debuted as a main lead actress in regional cinema in India and is now coming up with her singing debut by releasing a album in India in june 2015. I know her and have interviewed her a few times for national newspaper and would like to make a page on wikipedia about her. i just started my article on her and went out to call her brother to ask some more personal and professional information on her event articles, femina magazine photos and movie details as she now resides in United Kingdom and got back to find an empty page. You deleted my Article.Kindly undelete my Page and give me my article back.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journal.information (talk • contribs) 11:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user Randykitty (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I work at the School in question, and have been tasked with creating a wikipedia page for it. The original draft of the page was a first attempt by a colleague who has since left, so it sat there for 6 months with nobody here to edit it. Please undelete the page so I can edit it, add in reference links etc -Nbaxter86 (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done @Nbaxter86: An article can be created anew but this cannot be restored as your colleague violated copyright by copying and pasting the content, as shown in its deletion entry. That infringing content was also wholly unsuitable as it read like an advertisement. If you do create it anew, please don't make the same mistakes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Manitoba Pioneer Camp

It says this page was deleted because there was no evidence of notability. The page in question is about a camp that is over 70 years old. That in itself is notable. -207.204.209.184 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses a considerably stricter definition of "notability" than the norm. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Connor kent

The article had yet to be completed. I was filling out my biography and the rest of my was to be filled out by my management. -ConnorgKent (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion A7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user RHaworth (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. Huon (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@ConnorgKent: I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and do not proceed further. However, if you can provide evidence of notability, I would consider restoring the article to draft space for you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Open Data Quality Management Framework

I, Zonkelnut, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Zonkelnut (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Bodhtree

redit and then click the "Save page" button below -Mahi kapoor (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done and will not be done. This was was deleted as blatant advertizing under Section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion ("CSD") (as it should have been), then was deleted after a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodhtree Consulting Ltd, and then recreated and deleted again under CSD G4, and then recreated again and deleted under CSD A7, though it could have been deleted as a repost or as blatant advertising just as well, and it appears it may have been a copyright violation to boot that no one caught.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mahi kapoor: The company is possibly notable, although it isn't proven to be so at this time. If you would like to work on a draft of the article, let me know and I will see if I can find a version with any worthwhile content. Note, the article would need to be approved by a third party before it could go live, so I can't guarantee your time editing it would be worthwhile. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My Movie Productions

This is a company which has a copyright. So, I'm requesting you to restore it.-KommaVineethkumar (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done Existing (all works automatically have copyright status) is insufficient to establish notability. What we need is evidence that the company has been covered by reliable sources, such as newspapers and books. This is a not a judgement on importance; it just means if there is nothing published about the company by outsiders, then we can't accurately know what is true and thus can't have an article. If you want be to restore the article to draft space I can, but note that 1) it won't be picked up by search engines in draft space and 2) the article would have to be approved by an experienced editor before it could return to mainspace. So, if you can't establish notability, there is no point restoring a draft. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Charles LaDuca

Page should not have been deleted. -Cfisher54 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  •   Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles LaDuca, 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 Northamerica1000 (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.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Kultivera

I have edited the page "Save page" button below -Colmcile (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the article to draft space. See you talk page for further explanation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Meng Weng Wong

notable personage deleted because lack of notability -Steven McIntire ALLEN 02:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nineteenth-Century French Studies

We didn't mean to promote(G11) the journal, we are trying to share the knowledge of french literature. I request to un-delete the page, so that we can work on it. -KambaGiri 02:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  Note: This page was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11, indicating an page that was irredeemably promotional or blatant advertising. Note that G11 deletions are more an issue with the tone of the page as opposed to its sources or formatting. As articles deleted under G11 need to be rewritten from scratch, they will not be undeleted here or anywhere else; try contacting the deleting administrator (Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)) in order to be emailed a copy of the article as it stood at time of deletion. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 02:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Not done They've since re-created the article and at a quick glance it doesn't look like it has any overwhelming G11 issues, so I don't think it'd be speedied again under that guideline. If it does get tagged again I'd probably recommend that any deleting admins (assuming they see this) userfy the data rather than delete since the article's editors are willing to work on any issues. I'll leave a note of this on the article's talk page as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Amaya Kumikai

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Srikoth (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • On a side note it appears that a large amount of the article centered around her work with MegaCon. Notability is not automatically inherited by someone having an association with a notable topic, so you would have to provide coverage that focuses predominantly or solely on her and not on MegaCon itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I edited conflicted (twice) with Tokyogirl79 so I have snipped some of my original post but please also note that this was a blatant copyright violation of the content seen here and splashed across other sites on the web which is another reason why it will not be undeleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

mitesh sharma

All valid refrences are given from newspapers and media channels, all reliable resources and not only web base data, but also print media is attached, and hence comply with rules of wikipedia -Ameetvats (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. Note that A7 deletions will not be overturned here. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  Not done I deleted this page as an blatant advertisement of the subject. He may be notable (although the article didn't really make a true assertion of importance), but such material would never be accepted. I left information on the user's page about creating a draft. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RUUM American Kid's Wear

I, Ruumusa, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ruumusa (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I heavily suggest you change your username before you get blocked for it. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  Not done For now. I left information on your talk page about changing your username. Accounts are not tied to articles, so you will be able to continue working on your submission once it is restored. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Eric Widmer

Sources and claim of notability easily available, I didn't see the deletion proposal or I would have updated the article. -Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

We need to see the sources you intend to use before the deletion can be overturned, as it is a stickyprod. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I restored it. The article was not actually eligible for BLPPROD as it was created several years before the rule went into effect. However, I do encourage Samuel J. Howard to add sources ASAP to discourage people from pursuing another form of deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Super Bowl 99

I Just Wanted To Make A Fictional Page To Cheer Me Up After The Seahawks' Loss. Now You Guys Are depressing Me. -ThomasSwanson76 (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done Wikipedia relies on verifiability. I suggest you use an alternative outlet for such content.—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

GH Fitlab

I believe that the page must not be deleted since it is notable and also appeared in some local news sites like Chicago business, The Radar Now and also featured in Chicago Fitness magazine. -talibong (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

talibong (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  •   Not done This was deleted as WP:A7 (an article about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) and WP:G11 (in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic). We typically don't restore A7 articles here and you'd have to ask the deleting admin (Jimfbleak) to restore it, but the bigger issue is that it is fairly promotional in nature- the entire thing is written to promote the business and you'd have to substantially re-write it in order to make it more neutral. You should avoid using marketing WP:PEACOCK terms and phrasing like "proven effective" and I'd also recommend exercising extreme caution in listing clinical trials as proof that something works. The reason for this is that in many instances the research is supported/financed by the company whose process/product/etc they're testing (or are run through a lab or group that is otherwise affiliated with the company) and the goal of the research is to prove that it works, meaning that there is almost always a bias at work. It's especially visible in the second clinical trial, where GHF is partnered with the people running their study, meaning that there's an incentive there to show that the program works and any clinical trial would be considered a primary source because of this. The wording in the first clinical trial gives off the impression that this was also a partnership type of scenario as well. Pretty much you need to completely re-write everything. I also have to ask: are you affiliated with GH Fitlab in any way, meaning are you an employee or someone hired or otherwise compensated for writing the article? You can still edit even if you are, but you do need to read over the WP:COI guidelines and make sure that you follow procedure very closely. I notice that you had similar issues with another article, Ikoala, so this kind of gives off the impression that you are a paid editor. It's fine to edit with a conflict of interest but you must disclose this up front on your user page. It's only when users do not disclose this and do not try to follow guidelines after receiving warnings that it really becomes an issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

please don't delete the article

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Tejagolla (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  •   Not done The page wasn't deleted, but I ended up deleting it since I really can't see where the director (which I assume is yourself) passes notability guidelines. Simply being a director isn't enough to give notability- this can only be shown through coverage in independent and reliable sources per WP:RS. I couldn't find anything in a search to show that he's received any coverage in reliable sources, let alone even in self-published or unreliable sources. Even the primary sources don't give off any evidence that he passes notability guidelines. Since I do believe that you are the director himself, I have to ask that you not create pages about yourself on Wikipedia as autobiographies are strongly discouraged and Wikipedia is not like IMDb or Linkedin, where it's fine to write about yourself and the site is pretty much a routine database listing. All persons on Wikipedia must have notability in the here and now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, please don't remove the speedy deletion tag or any tags that mark that there are issues with the page. Removing the tags without solving the issues does not accomplish anything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

T.A.H.I.T.I. (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

I have substantially improved the page and fixed the first complaint about it (that it had too little information) and the second complaint about it (that it had too much plot). I was working on the latter complaint some more when it was deleted a second time. At that point I didn't reinstate it again as I am not trying to start an Edit war. But I think the page could have been flagged as having too much detail, in accordance with Wikipedia policy without deleting it and preventing my improving it. -Karriaagzh (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Karriaagzh, you could probably work on a userspace copy at User:Karriaagzh/T.A.H.I.T.I. (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for the time being. The article isn't deleted per se, but the main problem here isn't really the large plot section as much as it's a lack of overall notability for the episode. Even if you whittled the plot section down to a few sentences it'd probably still have been deleted because all it contains is a description of the plot and it doesn't show where the episode has been the focus of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that discuss the episode apart from the series as a whole. A good example of what you'd need for an article to show notability would be something like 42 (Doctor Who) or (to a much smaller degree) Bitchcraft. Both episodes have had coverage in reliable sources by way of reviews and general coverage of the specific episode, which is ultimately why the page was redirected. The longish plot didn't help much, but it's ultimately the lack of RS on the page that really did it in. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think that anyone would really mind if we moved it to your userspace. That's pretty much the best place to work on articles since you don't have to worry about it getting redirected or otherwise nominated for deletion. Here are some sources to get you started: an AV review, IGN review, ScreenRant article, EW article, WSJ article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, the userspace is the best place to do work in progress unless you're going to load up the article with sources first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Nitesh Estates Limited

I, Kritika Khurana, request the undeletion of this Article for creation submission deleted under WP:G11, WP:G4, WP:G5, WP:G12, WP:A7 . Please restore the page as I intent to work on it.Kritika Khurana (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done Yet another sock of User:Ramesh985. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Music MG

I need time to add more information to page "Save page" button below -Rameet Mashta (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Rupert Williamson

I, William Syntagm, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. William Syntagm (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Now have inline citations to add -William Syntagm (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The History of Montco, A Documentary

I, Zapp67, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Zapp67 (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Updated information for this article for this title needs to be continued and was on hold due to administration rights for the documentary. Please reconsider to continue the article under the same title so all of it's content can be written and updated for Wikipedia. Article was in process of being created but was on hold due to administration rights from other copyright holders for the film and for obtaining content for the article, as a result, the article was deleted due to inactivity for over 6 months.Zapp67 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Zapp67:   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 17:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RITF Gaming

Because we were considered a non-notable 'organisation', yet it was only deleted after I put 2 and a half hours worth of work in! True that we are, by no means, a large group, but I would at least like the page back for a few minute so I can copy the work I have made on it so that isn't lost, although it would be great if it was kept! -LianneJefferson (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@LianneJefferson: If you enable email for your account, we can send it to you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
For now, you can also see a chache of the page at Google. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Prime Focus Technologies (PFT)

The page should not have been deleted. After a notification I had worked on it. If it was not appropriate, I should be given a chance to improve it. It is a company's page and talks about its services. I had put the relevant links to support each point. Please un-delete it so that I can improve the page. -Richa101091 (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  •   Not done The article has WP:A7 (notability) issues, but the biggest concern I saw was that the article was extremely full of promotional phrases like "CLEAR™ brings content to the center of your business and helps drive creative enablement, enhance efficiencies, lower TCO and realize new monetization opportunities." That's considered to be very inappropriate as not only is it not neutrally written, but it also appears to be a partial copyright violation from various locations. We cannot accept copyright material unless you file a ticket through WP:ORTS but even then the text would still require a complete and total re-write. There's no salvaging the material on that entry. You can try working on a new version of the article but I would suggest going through WP:AfC since there appears to be a clear conflict of interest and it would also give you more leeway to work on the article if it is declined at AfC. (Also, any conflict of interest need to be stated up front on your user page since transparency is key here.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the revert. I understand what you mean, but can the page be restored back so that I can rework on the content part and do not need to start all over again. As soon as the content would be revised, I will notify you so that you can help me review it and make it suitable for Wikipedia. Richa101091 10:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      Done I have restored the article to draft space as there appears to be a good possibility of notability. PLEASE use the AFC process this time (it was previously in draft space & moved out without approval) to insure it meets our standards. Failure to do so will likely result in rapid re-deletion, and make it unlikely anyone will help you again. When you feel the article is ready, click the green "submit" button on the template and an experience editor will review the article for you and give advice on how to fix it if necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help ThaddeusB. Will do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richa101091 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

user page

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Ahmed.kishta (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC) just i need to make copy from my deleted page

You posted your resumé to Wikipedia but didn't think to keep a copy of it anywhere else? This beggars belief a bit. In any case, the Google cache is still visible. —Cryptic 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I emailed you a copy of User:Ahmed.kishta to email address on the deleted page (as Cryptic was commenting apparently). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Tiddalick

The page in question is the beginning of a chronicle of events outlining the progress of a mobile video game. The original article lacked referencing, however I took a break to sleep and prepare for work, within 8 hours the article was deleted. If the article is unable to be restored in its current format I would like the content returned to me so that I can review and complete the article prior to reposting. Note: my thoughts are that it should be broken into 3 articles: Tiddalick (the character), Tiddalick-The Hungry Frog (The Game), Good Game Group (The developer). Please let me know your thoughts on this matter. Thanks. Russ -Cyber2024 (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cyber2024: The article was pure promotion, failed to establish notability, and would likely be speedily deleted again if restored. You would have to start over from scratch, and this time use WP:AFC or create it in draft space instead of main space (i.e. create Draft:Tiddalick).
Furthermore, splitting the article up into separate pieces is a bad idea unless you can demonstrate that each piece is independently notable; that is, each piece must have significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cinnamon Hotels & Resorts

We are looking to update the page and have it as the official page for Cinnamon Hotels & Resorts -123.231.104.254 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done and will not be done. We don't restore copyright infringing content.
Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a publicity or public relations platform. No company gets an "official" page on Wikipedia, because no company should edit articles about themselves. Doing so would violate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/`Round Magazine

I, 118.103.138.77, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 118.103.138.77 (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  •   Not done I have no issue with you making a new draft/AfC entry, but this was way too promotional to reinstate and came across like it was taken from a press release (meaning that it read suspiciously like a copyright violation). I think that it'd be better for you to write a new entry from scratch. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Salvador Aulestia

I, Sidero65, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sidero65 (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been busy with the classification of the entire artworks of Salvador Aulestia (1915-1994) and I'm now ready to write a complete article -Sidero65 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sidero65:  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:MedalTableTop

This template talk page was apparently deleted in error as part of a mainspace deletion of Average (sports). Undeletion will help me identify how this error occurred. Template has thousands of transclusions so should have a talk page anyway. -SFB 23:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There are only 4 edits in that talk page's history, and all of them are redirects to Template talk:MedalTop, with two of them being a misplaced edit request that was moved. I see no reason to restore, and there is nothing preventing the creation of a new talk page that's really a talk page and not a redirect. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
While Amatulic is correct that there is nothing useful in the history, there also was no reason to delete it. I've restored it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks ThaddeusB. Could you do the same for the following pages? I located the deletion log and they're all the same case of deletion in error. The deleting admin has no problem with reversal of this. Apparently it was an automated tool error. Cheers! SFB 17:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done - I'm just glad it was only talk pages hit by the bug. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_176&oldid=1138663838"