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 deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all.
This page is only for requesting undeletion of articles or files which have already been deleted. If the article you are concerned about is still visible, but has a warning message (template) at the top, please do not post here, but follow the instructions in the template or on your talk page. Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 or G11 be undeleted here.
Note that requests for undeletion are 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.
- Instructions for special cases
- G13. Abandoned Articles for creation submissions – see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 for instructions.
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Archives |
---|
Threads older than 8 days may be archived. |
Contents
- 1 Akshay Agrawal
- 2 Skippa da Flippa
- 3 Agneya Singh
- 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_William_Knowles
- 5 Water in The Arab Region
- 6 User:BlaccCrab
- 7 Draft:Gres d'Annot
- 8 File:Constant Regulating Diode.png
- 9 Utilitywise
- 10 Matthew William Knowles
- 11 Draft:Benjamin's Field
- 12 Draft:Brandon McCuien
- 13 Real Vision
- 14 Jose Carlos Gomez Taylor
- 15 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Milk_Crate_Theatre&action=edit
- 16 Pocket Aces (Company)
- 17 Coats of arms of U.S. Infantry Regiments
- 18 Highgate Private Hospital
- 19 Zein Obagi
- 20 Vintage Polly Fashion Doll. Jr. Miss Fashion.
- 21 Above my paygrade
- 22 liam crawley
- 23 User:Swpb/sandbox
- 24 arvind singh
- 25 Fire River, Ontario
- 26 Draft:St. Carmen Sallés School
- 27 Draft:Harold Burnell Carter
- 28 File:Poly.pov
- 29 Louis Jean Baptiste Bergeron
- 30 MangoApps
- 31 delta phi lambda
- 32 Draft:Community magazine
- 33 Wikipedia:Community Justice/Meeting
- 34 DMO
- 35 Draft:Benita Hill
- 36 Draft:Aftab Yusuf Shaikh
- 37 Ashesh Shah
- 38 File:Ghidawikiphoto.png
- 39 GESTR ROOMS
- 40 Draft:Benita Hill
- 41 Piero Bittolo Bon
- 42 M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story (soundtrack)
- 43 Draft:Drag965
- 44 User:Davidng913
- 45 sean macias
Akshay Agrawal
- Akshay Agrawal · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
Wrote a new draft for it. Was suggested by another experienced editor Robert McClenon (the one who read the draft) to look at the previous deleted version of the article and to justify how the new one is an improvement over it. So kindly temporarily undelete the page so that I can follow up on @Robert McClenon:'s suggestion -ThomasMer (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC) ThomasMer (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- @ThomasMer: Done. I verified that your draft was a significant improvement over the deleted version, so I went ahead and moved it over to main space myself, and undeleted the old history. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Anachronist Thanks a tonne *Cheers* ThomasMer (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Skippa da Flippa
- Skippa da Flippa · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]
Page was deleted without any form of prior discussion taking place, two moderators who disliked the musician used their power to make sure the page got deleted while making sure nobody who contributed to it had a chance to discuss. Both users claimed they searched the artist to try and find articles claiming notability, I did this (after the page was deleted) and I found said articles in the FIRST PAGE of results on Google. Not only this but the artist has contributed to multiple viral singles, which is just one of numerous ways this article claims notability. I was under the impression that WikiPedia was a COMMUNITY effort, not just a few blokes doing whatever they please with no repercussions. Them not liking the artist isn't what bothered me, but the fact they refused to even listen to other users who might have conflicting opinions (so much so that they didn't even give the opportunity for them to express it). Cheetoburrito (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2016 (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/Skippa da Flippa, 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 Sandstein (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) 03:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Cheetoburrito and Graeme Bartlett:That's not entirely true. This page is for pages which were deleted uncontroversially, even if it had a deletion discussion. This deletion discussion only had 2 comments, both to delete. RedPanda25 20:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- @RedPanda25: "Uncontroversially" means that the article was deleted for maintenance reasons, or if the only author requested deletion, or if it was deleted via WP:PROD that went uncontested for a week or so. It went to AFD instead, because deleting the article outright, without discussion, might have been controversial. Therefore, this wasn't uncontroversial. That is why we don't norrmally overturn any article deleted via AFD — particularly when the judgment was unanimous to delete among all participants (in this case 4, the nominator, two respondents, and the admin who deleted it). The process for getting the article restored is described in Graeme's response above. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- This literally doesn't makes any sense at all...I'm supposed to go to the person who is abusing their authority about trying to get them to stop abusing their authority? The deletion of this page was NEITHER CONTROVERSIAL NOR UNCONTROVERSIAL, because it took place in abnormal circumstances that WP policy doesn't seem to properly adjudicate (doesn't really do it at all, let alone properly). In addition to all of this, the page in question is heavily sourced and had numerous sources claiming notability, pretty much all of the evidence here points to undeletion (at least from my POV, I strongly urge a logical counterargument as this whole situation has been quite the head-scratcher). Cheetoburrito (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Your personal attacks are unwarranted. Please assume good faith that the administrators involved in the deletion are simply following procedure. The deleting admin, Sandstein, has had zero involvement in that article other than to delete it after more than a week's discussion at AFD. There was nothing "abnormal" about the circumstances of the deletion. Given the normal circumstances, you won't find an administrator willing to overturn that decision unless you follow the process already described to you. Convince Sandstein of the topic's notability and perhaps get it restored to draft space, and if he refuses, have the deletion decision reviewed by the community at WP:DRV — but I expect the best result you can hope for there is for the article to be relisted at AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You assuming my genuine concern is a "personal attack", is in itself a personal attack. I have yet to post anything unbiased to this page, while you're being extremely rude. Deleting an article with where only two posts have been made on the discussion board IS AUTHORITY ABUSE (literal definition), especially considering you can go through the two users activity and can see they've collaborated to delete numerous pages without just cause. Cheetoburrito (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, it was not "authority abuse", and SHOUTING doesn't make it so. It was not deleted "without any form of prior discussion taking place" - the deletion discussion ran for a week, three people thought the subject was not notable; you had the opportunity to contribute, and you did, but nobody agreed with you. The closing administrator correctly assessed that the consensus was to delete. After that, you don't get to just post the article again because you disagree. First, discuss with Sandstein (politely, without telling him that he is abusing his authority or assuming that he is motivated by dislike of the artist). If he does not agree, then WP:Deletion review is where you need to go, but once again, abusing everyone will get you nowhere. What you need to produce is references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that meet WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- You assuming my genuine concern is a "personal attack", is in itself a personal attack. I have yet to post anything unbiased to this page, while you're being extremely rude. Deleting an article with where only two posts have been made on the discussion board IS AUTHORITY ABUSE (literal definition), especially considering you can go through the two users activity and can see they've collaborated to delete numerous pages without just cause. Cheetoburrito (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Agneya Singh
- Agneya Singh · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I am a film curator and created this page of an Indian Independent filmmaker after a great deal of research and citing many reliable sources including NPR -FilmForum61 (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- To state the concerns, he was not satisfying WP:PROF and merely suggesting he is notable now even though it's only been 5 months is still questionable. Like with any request, it helps to show us how exactly he satisfies the needed notability. NPR alone is not a convincing sources unless the contents are substantial, interviews, press releases and other self-published information is unacceptable and will not be considered for an article. SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I was the admin who deleted the page. Essentially, it was because I agreed with the editor who tagged it, in that it was too promotional in nature: it was too close to something the individual might write about themselves. The language was far from neutral. FilmForum61: If you wish to work on it in your userspace, I'm happy to provide a copy, provided you commit to fixing the issue before moving it back to the article-space. Vanamonde (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yes, please provide a copy for the same. I will try to fix the issues. Thanks Vanamonde — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmForum61 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- How can I access the code copy in my user space Vanamonde? Please let me know the procedure. FilmForum61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Can anyone provide the deleted copy so that I can edit it accordingly? Can you help me SwisterTwister? Thanks! FilmForum61 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_William_Knowles
- Page name goes here · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Voleares195 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The page in Question has been rewritten in its entirety. The deletion was made with an assumption by the reviewer and deleted as such. Edits were provided with additional credits to the subject and links to the subject. This was overlooked and the page was deleted without review. The subject in question is in regard to a show in China that has been a subject of question without proof and confirmation. This has been provided and should not be overlooked in this professional's new wiki page due to a past oversight. This is poor judgement.
-
- This will not be restored since it was deleted as, not only a restart of a past community listing closed as Delete, but the nomination specified the concerns, so there was no " assumptions by someone else". Simply because he's a hard-worker in his field is not, by any means, automatically satisfying the notability here. Also, simply because apparent changes were overlooked in favor of deleting, actually means there was still consensus at that listing for Delete, therefore consensus it was not satisfactory. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- SwisterTwister the issues in question regarding this page were addressed. Based on the past discussion regarding deletion there was an assumption made by editors that was incorrect causing the push for deletion. This text regarding a specific credit listed on the page was reworded to eliminate the previous confusion and furthermore citations and reference were provided to prove the claim. Additional past concerns about the language used within the article were also address as this article is new in its entirety and should not be penalized by outdated reviews of a previous article. We ask that you reconsider and reinstate this page. thank you. --Voleares195 (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Water in The Arab Region
- Water in the Arab region · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
The page was deleted because 'Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Middle East.' This seems to be a mistake, the page Middle East only mentions water in one sentence. Thanks -John Cummings (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done @John Cummings: @Masssly: I have moved this to Draft:Water in the Arab region so that it can be fixed up to be less like a general article on the middle east or a jobs outlook and more about water. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks very much Graeme Bartlett, it seems one of the issues isn't the content of the article but the title is to broad and would need other aspects relating to water added. The article covers the relationship between the economy and water in the Arab region so perhaps a title of something like 'Water and the economy in the Arab region' or 'Water and employment in the Arab region' would be more suitable? Thanks again --John Cummings (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
User:BlaccCrab
Just not going to bother interacting with a certain editor who acts ridiculous. -BlaccCrab (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- @BlaccCrab: Restored to the last non-vandalized version I found in the edit history. I also semi-protected the page so that anonymous IP addresses can't vandalize it. That means also that you must be logged in to edit your own user page. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Gres d'Annot
- Draft:Gres d'Annot · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I, Wilsonaj, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Wilsonaj (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2016 (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 colored button in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft for review!" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
File:Constant Regulating Diode.png
- File:Constant Regulating Diode.png · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I drew this in Paint, so there is no copyright issue. -Plaasjapie (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done I have marked this PD-simple. Are you happy about that or do you want to release with CC-zero or another free license? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
PD-simple is fine, thanks! Plaasjapie (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Utilitywise
- Utilitywise · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
our brand page came under attack from a malicious character - and whilst i did try and amend the pages to how it should be - the malicious attack continued to happen. Because information is pulled from wikipedia through to our profile page on google results page i had no other choice but to blank the page - are you able to put the page back to how it was before all the amends started to happen - i.e. prior to August 2016. -Benjamin bicker (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Benjamin bicker: I have restored this to Draft:Utilitywise because (a) you have a conflict of interest, so you should be working from draft space and submit the article for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and (b) the article is not in a state of readiness for main article space. Given that it doesn't show the minimum requirements described in Wikipedia:Golden rule it is unlikely to survive long in main space anyway, so the safest place for it is draft space. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Matthew William Knowles
- Matthew William Knowles · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
The issue concerning the cause for deletion were addressed. Clear annotations provided. Editors perceived that this page was a duplication of a prior page concerning the same subject, but they were in error. The content on this page had been completely re crafted to address prior concerns, furthermore the speedy deletion was contested prior to the deletion of the page and further review should have been provided. Please restore this page as soon as possible.Voleares195 (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC) -Voleares195 (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, the contested deletion statement failed to address the notability concern raised by Tokyogirl79 in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Knowles(Actor). I'm willing to restore this to draft space. There is some coverage in the Chinese press, nothing useful in English (press releases don't count), and I find a claim of significance in that he is the first white actor admitted to the Beijing Film Academy.
- @MBisanz: Since you deleted this, do you object to draftifying this article? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- I do not. MBisanz talk 20:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Done see Draft:Matthew William Knowles Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I do not. MBisanz talk 20:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have no problem with this being draftified. He has to resolve the issues of notability and while he wasn't the one who had created the prior article, just be careful with how you phrase things - the last editor to create this phrased somethign in a way that made it come across far differently than what had actually happened. It might not have been on purpose, but just be careful about this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Benjamin's Field
- Draft:Benjamin's Field · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
(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.) Cap603 (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2016 (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. Draft:Benjamin's Field restored. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Brandon McCuien
- Draft:Brandon McCuien · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I, Webmercials, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Webmercials (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2016 (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 colored button in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft for review!" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Real Vision
- Real Vision · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Real Vision's Wikipedia page was live throughout 2016 and conformed to Wikipedia guidelines but an editor erased all page content in November, and replaced it with unformatted, promotional text. It was quickly deleted as per G11. I have re-created the Real Vision Wikipedia page and am attempted to revert it to an original version which I had archived, but would appreciate if there was a way that it could be salvaged from a previous approved version. -Shomar103 (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not done. Valid deletion as blatant advertising. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- JzG, for your info, as the deleting admin, I restored an earlier, less blatantly promotional version to Shomar's user space for improvement, particularly with regard to notability, and asked for a formal COI declaration. The article may well fail on notability grounds, but we'll have to see what eventually emerges. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Jose Carlos Gomez Taylor
- Jose Carlos Gomez Taylor · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Ana65s (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Why was this deleted?
- @Ana65s: No such page has ever been created. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think you are on the wrong site. It was deleted off the Spanish wikipedia site: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_carlos_gomez_taylor --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Also, if so, SpanishWiki will not restore it even if you asked because it was explicitly deleted as "Unsuitable materials" and then deleted again because of the first deletion. Please consider WP:What Wikipedia is not. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Page name goes here · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Milk Crate Theatre (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2016 (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. Firstly go to WP:CHU and pick a new username. Users here cannot represent organisations. They must represent an individual person. I have restored Draft:Milk Crate Theatre which you wrote. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Pocket Aces (Company)
- Pocket Aces (Company) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
The article is about one of India's leading digital content creators and includes facts. It does not contain any promotional activity. The page was compared with pages of similar creators and was found to be similar, if not less ad like and then click the "Save page" button below -AnubhavRao (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Definitely contains promotional text: "talented" "intelligent, differentiated" "garnered" all sound like press-release speak. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's ineligible for restoration by request anyway, having been deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Coats of arms of U.S. Infantry Regiments
- Coats of arms of U.S. Infantry Regiments · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
Article deleted as being more appropriate as a Gallery on Commons. Requesting userification so that can be accomplished. -Hammon27 (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Hammon27 (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Hammon27: Done, article userfied to User:Hammon27/Coats of arms of U.S. Infantry Regiments. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Anachronist:. Thanks so much! I have incorporated the info into the correct page in Commons. I don't suppose you might be able to do the same userification for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coats_of_arms_of_U.S._Cavalry_Regiments? Hammon27 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Highgate Private Hospital
- Highgate Private Hospital · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Factual article about a substantial hospital which is notable. Not in the least promotional. -Rathfelder (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- As I believe, I was the second tagger, and having 2 deletions within the same month for G11 is going to be too questionable hence it may be best to restart anew (if at all), notifying DGG for his interest. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- I restored in earlier after a A7 deletion, as the contributor said they could improve it (normally in such a case I'd restore to Draft, but they are an experienced contributor) Unfortunately, it has now become even worse, with highly promotional content added: " is dedicated to providing outstanding healthcare to the local community." and a list of all the medical specialties it serves (which, as usual in such articles, seems to be most of the usual ones) was there from the start , but it now says also "welcomes all patients whether Insured, Self-funding or NHS funded." "complimentary onsite parking" The only refs are 2 local papers. Where this belobgs is where the contributor first moved it, a redirect to the parent company. Frankly I do not see potential for an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not done. Valid speedy deletion process was followed, this page is for uncontroversial undeletions -you need to take this to deletion review (where it will probably fail as the article was blatant advertising). Guy (Help!) 01:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Zein Obagi
- Draft:Zein Obagi · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
31.7.49.31 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Created by a sockpuppet, and an IP address with no history is requesting undeletion? Why? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not done the why is orangemoody scandal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Vintage Polly Fashion Doll. Jr. Miss Fashion.
- Vintage Polly Fashion Doll. Jr. Miss Fashion. · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
my article doesn't show nothing that violates wiki's guidelines its very informative and helps people know what fashion doll they had in their collection please don't delete my page. -WikiLovesManny29 (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- It hasn't been deleted, its been nominated for deletion. You can discuss it there. Search Amazon for books mentioning it, find a newspaper, magazine, something that talked about it. Dream Focus 02:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Above my paygrade
- Above my paygrade · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
The article creator, that's me, was not told of the prod. I believe there was enough valid referenced content to justify the article's existence. - Dream Focus 02:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
liam crawley
- Liam Crawley · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
a valid article with an unwarranted deletion. About to be updated along with a number of other pages linked to rugby league heritage numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.241.45.130 (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- First, is he actually satisfying WP:Notability (sports)#Rugby union? SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Swpb/sandbox
- User:Swpb/sandbox · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Had projects-in-progress, self-tagged by mistake -—swpbT 20:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done I don't think you tagged it for delete, but it may have transcluded one from User:Swpb/assess table Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
arvind singh
- Arvind Singh · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
The page has been deleted without any valid reason -180.151.218.143 (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arvind Singh. The correct venue to challenge deletion is deletion review, but your request would need to have a much better rationale or it will be just as speedily rejected. Guy (Help!) 01:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Fire River, Ontario
- Fire River, Ontario · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Article deleted by Admin User:Skier Dude with log entry "2011-11-05T23:05:23 Skier Dude deleted page Fire River, Ontario (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection)". Have not received a response from Skier Dude seven days after making request on that user's talk page, and so am unable to discover the underlying cause for the deletion. There is an identified place, a railway point, by that name in Ontario, Canada, per Fire River at the Geographical Names Board of Canada database, an authoritative, reliable source for geographic places in Canada. -papageno (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Please add your references to this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:St. Carmen Sallés School
- Draft:St. Carmen Sallés School · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I, JohnelCamilanDimco, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. JohnelCamilanDimco (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- @JohnelCamilanDimco: Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Harold Burnell Carter
- Draft:Harold Burnell Carter · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I would like to complete the article ready for submission and hopefully approval. Previously the photo we had included was rejected due to the fact we could not provide copyright, whereas we now have a photo with a copyright -Benito Cartero (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Benito Cartero: Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
File:Poly.pov
- File:Poly.pov · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
This was an important POV-Ray source code for generating several standardized images and animations of polyhedra. It's very important that this file exists somewhere. This is the second time this has been improperly deleted. If having a non-media file page is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia, then we should at the very least move it to some appropriate page elsewhere, like User:Cyp/Poly.pov or something (I believe Cyp was the original author). Does Wikisource allow source codes? -— LucasVB | Talk 15:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- @LucasVB: Why is it "very important that this file exists" on Wikipedia at all? Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide, and shouldn't serve as a resource for software documentation or source code. A POV-Ray user would expect to find this file available somewhere on http://www.povray.org or on http://wiki.povray.org — which is where it really belongs. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- You clearly completely misunderstood the purpose of this file. POV-Ray is a program that allows the creation of 3D graphics by "compiling" source code text files which describe the geometry of the 3D objects, as opposed to typical programs with a graphical user interface. This animation I made, for instance, includes the source code for it in that page, which allows future users to modify or update the animation if necessary.
- So that source code that got deleted isn't for the POV-Ray program itself, but for generating such 3D graphics. In particular, for generating the standardized green polyhedra (lower on the page) used throughout all of Wikipedia and its sister projects. Having the source code allows other users to generate more images in the same style as necessary.
- It's a matter of having open-source media on Wikipedia that can be updated and edited in the future. It's no different than having articles being editable and open to modification, and it's part of the Wikipedia spirit.
- The source code must be part of the Wikipedia project, since these images are part of it and more images of the same kind may be required in the future. — LucasVB | Talk 02:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- You clearly completely misunderstood my response. I know very well what POV-Ray is. I use it myself. The fact that there is source code for generating various polyhedral shapes is irrelevant. The point is, Wikipedia isn't the place to keep and maintain software-specific macro files. There are places available on the net for keeping and maintaining such files. See http://www.povray.org/resources/links/POV-Ray_Include_Macro_and_Object_Files/Object_and_Scene_Files/ for example. It should be there. Or go to http://lib.povray.org/searchcollection/index.php and search for "polyhedra". You haven't explained why it's "very important" that this file exists on Wikipedia. Additionally, failing to assume good faith with accusations that the file was "improperly deleted" and that those responding to you here are somehow ignorant of the topic, isn't helping here. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The file was created by a Wikipedia user to be used specifically for generating standardized polyhedra images for Wikipedia. That is precisely why User:Cyp uploaded the source in the first place. It has nothing to do with the general purpose archives you have mentioned, and it is not included in any of those. It has absolutely nothing to do with POV-Ray's project or its general community. Your suggestion of hosting it elsewhere feels like a silly arbitrary restriction. But it doesn't matter anymore, I got the source code from the Wayback Machine and I'll include it somewhere else, as the File namespace isn't appropriate. — LucasVB | Talk 03:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You weren't requesting a copy of the file. You were requesting restoration. If you had just wanted a copy, just ask, and it could be emailed to you. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I do think it should be somewhere, with a link to it from the image description pages (which it seems to be, now — thanks LucasVB). It doesn't really matter to me exactly where, but I think it's best all images on Wikipedia have the original source available (assuming they're generated from a source, that is). Κσυπ Cyp 21:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Oppose restoration. Agree that Poly.pov is a useful code snippet, but as per CSD F10, only media files are to be hosted on Wikipedia. I recommend either creating a GitHub repository for it or simply pasting the code into someone's userspace. -FASTILY 04:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Since it is text, it could easily be on a normal page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Louis Jean Baptiste Bergeron
- Draft:Louis Jean Baptiste Bergeron · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I, WikiTraube, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. WikiTraube (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- @WikiTraube: Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
MangoApps
No marketing content is present, the page has been referred appropriately, no promotion of the organization is present it is general information about the company no reference to individuals are found -Alankritg (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not done. First you should disclose your paid editing relationship somehwere, preferably on your user page. Second, see your talk page for an explanation of why this was deleted. Please use Wikipedia:Articles for creation to submit articles on topics with which you have a conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
delta phi lambda
- Delta Phi Lambda · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
First time experiencing seeing this page being consider for deletion, and did not provide suggestions on how to resolve it. -63.124.79.253 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- The deletion notice was on the article for nearly a month. Anyone was welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Phi Lambda. And it wasn't deleted; the discussion closed as redirect to National APIA Panhellenic Association. The edit history on the redirect page is still all there. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Community magazine
- Draft:Community magazine · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I, Jacomatic, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jacomatic (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community Justice/Meeting
- Wikipedia:Community Justice/Meeting · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Please restore this page. This page has a talk page that is fully protected, obviously for historical reasons. (Most likely, when this page is restored, it will need to be marked {{Historical}}.) -Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Done, page restored, and protected as well. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
DMO
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -173.19.238.222 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Not done. Malformed request. The article DMO already exists as a disambiguation page. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Benita Hill
- Draft:Benita Hill · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I, Janiemarie22, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Janiemarie22 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2016 (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. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Aftab Yusuf Shaikh
- Draft:Aftab Yusuf Shaikh · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I, Ayshaikh, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ayshaikh (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Shaikh ... article content removed ...
-
- Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Ashesh Shah
- Ashesh Shah · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
page was deleted because of no references. Please give me an opportunity to give references. -corporate, industrial and panoramic photographer 11:15, 29 November 2016 (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/Ashesh Shah, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. I suggest that your write at Draft:Ashesh Shah. independent references would be required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
File:Ghidawikiphoto.png
- Page name goes here · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Lalsulaiman (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Lalsulaiman: Not done. The image file was deleted because it did not have a license to show that the copyright owner agreed to release it. Since the image is of a living person, it cannot be accepted in Wikipedia as a "Fair Use" image; so it should be on Wikimedia Commons which will make it available to all the Wikimedia projects.
- The file had actually been transferred to Commons as Commons:File:Ghida Fakhry.png (a better descriptive title) but was deleted for lack of license information. You can request undeletion there at Commons:COM:Undeletion requests but, unless you created the image entirely yourself, you will need to get the actual copyright owner (normally the photographer) to give permission as explained at Commons:COM:OTRS. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
GESTR ROOMS
- GESTR ROOMS · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Hi, I'm the article creator. Here are some points I'd like to highlight. Happy to discuss further.
- In light of this AFD submission, the article has been edited and tightened up as of 29 Nov 2016. A full list of references has been reinstated. Language has also been edited to be more objective. References provided in the article are purely editorial in nature from reputable media organizations.
- The article talks about a company.
- Facts provided in the article reflect on the service provided by the company. It intends to provide an objective view of the nature of business. -Sra30 (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- What is your relation to the company? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 01:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Benita Hill
- Draft:Benita Hill · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I, Janiemarie22, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Janiemarie22 (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Draft:Benita Hill · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I want to start editing the page again to include sources so that it can be resubmitted for publishing. I had started this project last year, and it had been rejected due to lack of sources. I want to try it again. Plus, my aunt has recently written new songs for country singer, Garth Brooks. It would be nice for her to finally have her own page. -Janiemarie22 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Already done by User:Anachronist Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Piero Bittolo Bon
- Piero Bittolo Bon · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
Piero Bittolo Bon is an internationally renowned avant-jazz saxophone player, I added many reviews that prove that and external references as well. I would like to understand why he doesn't deserve a page in english. Moreover, the fact of not being known in the press in a determined language (that is not the case for Piero Bittolo Bon in English) means that the subject can't get a page in the same language on wikipedia? So no pages in most of the languages if the subject is not known previously in the press written in those languages? - Askid (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Askid: 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/Piero Bittolo Bon, 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 Sandstein (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.
- References do not have to be in English, but must be from a published source independent of the subject. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Also, Piero Bittolo Bon must meet at least one of the criteria listed in WP:MUSICBIO before he merits an article in the English Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story (soundtrack)
- M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story (soundtrack) · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
Please undelete this page as their is no soundtrack listed in the main article.It is a movie's soundtrack. -L.D. White (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2016 (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/M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story (soundtrack), 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 MBisanz (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. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Drag965
- Draft:Drag965 · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I, Immu 01, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Immu 01 21:12, 30 November 2016 (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. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Davidng913
- User:Davidng913 · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
I may as well retrieve my user page. Don't even know why I deleted it in the first place. -Davidng913 (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
sean macias
- Sean macias · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
Sean Macias is a well-known Hollywood lawyer . Proof: http://sip-trunking.tmcnet.com/news/2008/08/14/3602449.htm.
http://perezhilton.com/tag/sean_macias/#.WD96TLIrKM8
http://www.law360.com/articles/574213/14m-adam-carolla-podcast-biz-a-handshake-deal-jury-told
http://www.thegrouprep.com/LadiesNightLawsuit.asp?Link=4
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/23/california.contestant.reward
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1109/27/pmt.01.html (michael jackson commentary) -49.151.149.153 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)