Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 221

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Latest comment: 8 years ago by JohnCD in topic Draft:GWAVA software
Archive 215←Archive 219Archive 220Archive 221Archive 222Archive 223→Archive 225

InformNapalm

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

The page was arbitrarily deleted by User:RGloucester. On his page he identified himself as a Marxist, his political views might be involved in his decision. If you look at his edit history you’ll find out he routinely removes politics-related articles he doesn’t like, and threatens another Wikipedia users. ) -Const.me (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Const.me, RGloucester did not delete the article, he merely tagged it for deletion. And his personal political views are not relevant to arguing for the restoration of this article. Attacking another editor is not a shrewd strategy for arguing why this article needs to be undeleted which should focus on the merits of the article itself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Liz About who deleted — do I have a way of knowing that? I am not a moderator, can’t see history of deleted pages. The only e-mail I have about that says “RGloucester left a message on your talk page in "Speedy deletion nomination...”, it was 4 days ago. Speedy indeed.
About RGloucester’s political views not being relevant, please take a look at his edit history. I am not an expect Wikipedia editor, but to me it looks like he took his side and now abusing his administration powers.
About deletion — so, will someone please undelete the page? The subject is perfectly notable, I even put links to sources like BBC, The Guardian, and Die Welt writing about InformNapalm.
Both RGloucester and someone else who as you say deleted the article ignored that. They also ignored my comment on “Dispute deletion” page I left after getting that e-mail 4 days ago. And the fact the article exist on German Wikipedia, and in dozen of local versions.
Const.me (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
If you had read the reply to your question at WP:ANI#RGloucester - Vandalism you would have seen a link to the article's deletion log so that you can see who deleted it. You would also have seen a link to RGloucester's rights log where you can see that he could not be "abusing his administration powers", as he does not have such powers. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
First, Const.me, if you go to InformNapalm there is a notation saying that RHaworth was the admin who deleted the page. Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't have "moderators" which is usually a role on message boards. Third, RGloucester is not an administrator, he is an editor, like you only with a lot more experience. Finally, the administrator who evaluates a tagged article looks over the talk page but can still delete the article if the comments posted there are unconvincing. Again, this page is for arguing for why your article is important and should not have been deleted and your criticism of another editor who merely tagged your article is a distraction from your goal which is convincing an admin that your article is worth restoring. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Const.me is apparently new here and unfamiliar with WP deletion processes: you can see the deletion log of the page here. After a quick web search and looking at a cached copy of the page, I can't predict whether it would have survived AfD, but I don't think it should have been speedied or tagged for speedy. Support undelete, can be taken to AfD if necessary. Blurb at top of this page says this type of undeletion request (because of the A7 speedy) should be done at DRV but that seems overly bureaucratic to me. This article was obviously not a speedy candidate. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
There were no indications of significance, no sources that indicated the notability of the website. RGloucester — ☎ 19:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The proper way to ask for this is to ask User:RHaworth nicely to reconsider their delete and to restore it for you. If you attempt to recreate the page, you can see a text in a pink box that tells you who deleted it, and the reason: "A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
There were indications of significance. There were links to major media writing about the InformNapalm portal. I wrote some links on the dispute deletion page.
OK, you haven't deleted that, sorry for accusation. However, you did arbitrarily labelled that as “insignificant”, which is IMO pretty close. Here’s larger copy-paste for you: Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners.
And here’s from another WP manual: “before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources” Have you done that, User:RGloucester? I think no, because if you did, you’d find even more reliable sources writing about InformNapalm, e.g.: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/russia-makes-complaint-to-canada-after-site-hosted-in-quebec-reportedly-posts-details-of-soldiers-fighting-isil
Const.me (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The linked article does not even mention "InformNapalm". The only mention of it is in the comment section below, and user comments are not a reliable source. Why exactly are you pushing what is clearly a non-notable advocacy blog? RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Re Const.me's claim about "links to sources like BBC, The Guardian": the Guardian source has only one sentence mentioning this blog. The BBC source doesn't mention it at all. If you want to see the article survive the inevitable AfD after it is undeleted, you are going to need significantly more in-depth coverage than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I would have deleted for A7 too; anyway, if this is so contentious, it should go to deletion review Lectonar (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I believe you're wrong about that.
BBC source #1: Volunteer activist group Inform Napalm sifted through more than 35 gigabytes of the data and found what looked like official reports confirming that Russian military servicemen were among the hundreds of people evacuated to Russia after being wounded in Ukraine.
BBC source #2: After studying images posted on social media, analysts from Ukrainian military research group Inform Napalm claimed they were members of the 5th Tank Brigade in Buryatia.
Const.me (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
So, is that notable enough? How many "blogs" out there receive regular BBC coverage?
Const.me (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bark&co Solicitors

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, JohnCaples, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. JohnCaples (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCaples:   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. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business listing directory, and so is selective about article subjects. See WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:Notability (summary).
If you are connected with the company, please also read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and note that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use ("Paid contributions without disclosure" under section 4), and in some jurisdictions by laws against covert advertising, to disclose your interest in any edits where you have a COI. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:High Kingsdown

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 78.146.121.26, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 78.146.121.26 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:90min

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I, HarrisEvan, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. HarrisEvan (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We would like to edit the page and add relevant info re:notability to submit it again -HarrisEvan (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "we"? You've been trying to get this on Wikipedia for a couple of years, you have zero other edits. This looks fishy to me. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, @HarrisEvan:, if your account is shared, you need to disclose that. If you are editing in behalf of another entity, you need to disclose that too. We gave you 6 months to improve that article and you did nothing. Wikipedia is not here to host unsuitable material indefinitely. Please convince us why this should be restored, when we have already done so in the past with no followup from you. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Graeme Bartlett:, @JzG: and @Amatulic:. My apologies for any confusion. I assure you there's nothing fishy going on. I plan to add information (with supporting independent links) that I believe will attest to the notability of 90min. This includes additional information from sources like TechCrunch, ComScore, Adweek, ProSiebenSat.1 and other notable publications/media companies.

User:Worldbruce/sandbox/1

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Worldbruce, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Worldbruce (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

List of 3D locations in Google Earth

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Requesting to restore the page to user space so that the article can be improved upon. -ESRoads (talk) 03:42, 30 January 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/List of 3D locations in Google Earth, 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 Coffee (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any of those concerns, I only want to move the article back to my user space so I can address the issues that led to the deletion. Is this not the correct process for userfying deleted pages? ESRoads (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@ESRoads: Yes, this is the correct process, but as an administrator I am reluctant to override the deleting administrator in this case, because I am unconvinced that an article like this would survive an AFD. That's why my reply above suggested you contact Coffee instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've got it back now. I have to admit, it would be hard for me to make this into an article that would survive, if it remained deleted and I couldn't modify it! ESRoads (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Bruce M. Zagelbaum

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Dstik, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Dstik (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Fingerprint database for theorems

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, The tree stump, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. The tree stump (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Angie McCartney

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Lucyconlon, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Lucyconlon (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lucyconlon:   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) 20:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Bandera_County_River_Authority_and_Groundwater_District

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

(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.) Jeff Jilson (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Clerked to right name Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jeff Jilson:   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) 20:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Aqeel Al Mosawi

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Elliottbuckley (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have all the references of this page, I apologize for not inserting them earlier. I got busy and I forgot to do that. Please bring the page back for just a day and I'll provide all the required references which helped me create this page in the first place.

Thank you so much, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliotbuckley (talk • contribs)

Clerking to fix the title Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Elliottbuckley:   Done. I have restored the article and reset the seven-day timer. You may remove the prod-BLP template when you have added at least one reliable source to verify what the article says. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Causes Music

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The page for Causes Music should still be viewable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.137.162 (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Pulling in what I think the IP is talking about Hasteur (talk) 16:41, 2 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Niyidaram/sandbox/Niyi Daram

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(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.) Niyidaram (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Niyidaram:   Done, but I must warn you that I see very little chance of this becoming an article, because Wikipedia is not a social-networking site for people to write about themselves, it is an encyclopedia, and so is selective about subjects for articles. Read Wikipedia is not about YOU and WP:Notability (people) for more. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Raven Sorvino

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Miss Professor KG, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Miss Professor KG (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Miss Professor KG:   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request to a new location at Draft:Raven Sorvino. 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. It needs a rewrite: it is a fan-site-type puff piece full of glowing adjectives; an encyclopedia article requires a neutral tone. . JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cinderella157/edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Cinderella157, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cinderella157:   Not done. All that has been deleted is the draft page User:Cinderella157/edit that you were working on in December 2014. The actual article Battle of Buna–Gona, which you edited then and since, has not been deleted. We don't normally like to have parallel versions about - do you have any particular reason for wanting the draft undeleted? JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Doris Arrington

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Meredithrhodges, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Meredithrhodges (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Meredithrhodges:   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

https://www.wiki.x.io/wiki/plintron

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The page is about a company and all the information stated does not highlight a person or an individual. Kindly make the page live -Kishplin (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kishplin:   Not done. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. This article has been repeatedly deleted as an advertisement and is now protected against creation; it will not be restored here. You may ask the deleting administrator, user DGG (talk), and if he does not agree you may go to WP:Deletion review, but you would do better to wait until someone not connected with the company thinks it is notable enough to write a neutrally-worded article about it.
Please read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and note that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use ("Paid contributions without disclosure" under section 4), and in some jurisdictions by laws against covert advertising, to disclose your interest in any edits where you have a COI. JohnCD (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
By now, 5 different admins besides myself have speedy deleted it in turn.I'm just the most recent. I will not undelete. If it is notable, someone without COI should write the article. They might perhaps have the distance to avoid writing an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Youssry Saleh & Partners

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

i have many sources from high beam and according to Wiki its a reliable and credible sources example 1) https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-420360879.html 2 ) https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-438991021.html 3) https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-417523826.html and i have about 10 more sources so can you give me a chance to add them and please review them its from credible source and one of the tools of search added by wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed metawea (talk • contribs)

Draft:Emily Nagle

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(no further text provided) Causeart (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Belfast Metropolitan Residents Group

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, BMRG1, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. BMRG1 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:'Twas Brillig

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 138.9.8.121, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 138.9.8.121 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports/Martial arts

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wizardman deleted this page on January 31, 2016, but this page should not have been deleted because it is a detailed version of Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports#Martial_arts. -GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

David Tanner

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Was still gathering information about the subject. Information obtained, so the page can be now updated and sent for publishing approval -Valerie.rase (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Jesse Rose

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Dambuleff, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Dambuleff (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ken.dennett/Blackwood Research Group

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Ken.dennett, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ken.dennett (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Uncontroversial G13, no sign that there are CV or other issues that would prevent restoration. --joe deckertalk 20:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/New Dance

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, BreakawayE, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. BreakawayE (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  Done I have restored it not in place but to Draft:New Dance, which is the more common place for article drafts today. Be aware that actually having this promoted to an article will require you to find multiple, independent, third-party journalistic sources each of which provides in-depth coverage of the topic. --joe deckertalk 20:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

New Dance

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Learning... and then click the "Save page" button below -BreakawayE (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: This appears to refer to the request above. --joe deckertalk 20:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Butterflies of Bill Baker

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Peacelovesexndrugs, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Peacelovesexndrugs (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Peacelovesexndrugs:   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) 22:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Gossip Hawk

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This page described the fictional character and his universe created for the cott confessions page on facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by GossipHawk (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@GossipHawk:   Not done. Something made up for Facebook doesn't have a place in Wikipedia unless it has been the subject of substantial independent comment. See Wikipedia:No original research which says: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it", and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This page described the fictional character and his universe created for the cott confessions page on facebook, he also has a novel series being creaated about him and his order. I would like to at least retrieve the information please and then it can stay deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by GossipHawk (talk • contribs)

@GossipHawk: I will email you the text if you enable email on your account. To do that, click on "Preferences" at the top of the screen and at the bottom of the "User profile" tab fill in your email address (which will not be visible to me or anyone) and check the box marked "Enable email from other users". JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Pilgreens

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The stated article was deleted due to a lack of importance for public. I think this is definitely not the case, as already stated in the discussion for deletion. I do agree that the article needs to be improved with more sources but to do this we actually need to see and then revise and improve the deleted article. The article is about a group of students that have undone the first tour around the world in an electric Tuk Tuk. Obviously this was much smaller than Solar Impulse but for example they also got an article so I do not understand the reason for deletion. I admit the article was not finished yet and should be improved. Undulation would help us to do so. Maybe a restore as draft is possible. Thank you! -Ludwigmerz (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2016 (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 Bbb23 (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. We?. Please do openly declare any conflict of interest you might have. Lectonar (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Luke Maxwell

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Dat Guy Stevo (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

why would you delete this page i just dont get it. it was a perfectly normal page and there was no copyright issues with it or nothing? just because it didn't have lots of detail? the guy i was writing about is 18 how can you expect me to write loads of words about someone who is just started out. other pages have A LOT less writing than i had in there and i do not think this is fair that it has been removed. especially after all the time and effort i put in to it. this is my first article and it will certainly be my last if this page is permanently deleted a lot of people were interested in this article being put up aswell. i would love to hear a proper reason for the deletion of this page because i have done nothing wrong what so ever. i do hope you take this appeal in to consideration

  •   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/Luke Maxwell, 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 Malcolmxl5 (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. The reason stated was "He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage". It is disappointing to have an article you wrote deleted. You can read WP:Your first article, but I am sure that will not cheer you up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

you say that this got deleted because he has never played in a pro league but he has just signed for birmingham city who play in the league below the premier league so that statement is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dat Guy Stevo (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dat Guy Stevo: "Just signed" is not the same as "has played for the first team". Maxwell is in the BCFC under-21 squad. Once he has actually played for the first team, he can have an article. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

he has actually played though. the Birmingham senior cup against lye town. And will this article get undeleted when he has made a league appearance or something? because he is eligible to play in the capital one cup and fa cup right now as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dat Guy Stevo (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed a shame to have lots of work be thrown away on a page that may indeed become notable (given more research, writing, or likely future developments). Would it make sense in this, and various other similar situations, to move the page to the Draft namespace? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Russell Edwards

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Nealmcb, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Dizanji i nje kerkimi

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -MigenaM (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Animated dreams

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Ticket:2015110610012071 licenses the content (media and text) of http://www.anima.ee/ under CC-BY-SA-4.0 - can an admin please check whether anything can be salvaged? -Storkk (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Raphael Schumacher

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Feran (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Feran:   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/Raphael Schumacher, 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 Kusma (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Frank D. Padgett

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 98.155.101.29, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 98.155.101.29 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  Not done - all that was deleted was a draft page. The actual article Frank D. Padgett has not been deleted, and you are welcome to improve it. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Raphael Schumacher (2)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page may represent a person recently deceased who is current in world news. https://www.facebook.com/topic/Raphael-Schumacher/113396132004585?source=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6248351043447493626 -118.208.170.170 (talk) 01:20, 7 February 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/Raphael Schumacher, 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 Kusma (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. Although the AFD was speeedily closed, I don't see any other outcome from a normal close. The useful content is in List of entertainers who died during a performance though. Graeme Bartlett (talk)

Beta Movement (film festival)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pranay28 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solar Wind Surfboard Propulsion

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Jfields026, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jfields026 (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Raphael Schumacher (3)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The page seems to have been deleted for no reason -2A01:388:231:150:0:0:1:92 (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  Not done – No reason? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphael Schumacher, linked in the deletion summary, or the section above this one. — Earwig talk 05:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Bhumi Pednekar

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pednekar is a notable person in the Hindi Film Industry with two confirmed films (one released and one in production) and multiple awards. -Monica982 (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  Not done. @Monica982: regardless of Pednekar's notability, the article cannot be restored for two reasons:
  • The most recent version was a copyright violation, and we will absolutely not restore such an article.
  • This page is for requesting uncontroversial restorations. Before the copyvio version, the article was previously deleted as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhumi Pednekar. Because of that, it cannot be restored by request on this page. You must ask the deleting administrator Coffee to reconsider, and if the administrator declines to restore it, then your next step is to present your case at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
Thanks for your understanding. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Logan Lynn Roberts

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I made minor updates to my userpage & then before I could even blink the page was flagged & completely deleted even tho I was in the process of working to make changes to rectify the complaints. I've had my userpage since 2013 & I've made edits to articles where I had value to add, I'd like a chance to get the source code back from the old page so I could at least use the hours of work I put in as a base for a new user page. This all happened instantly please help, my intentions were never bad. Thank you. -Logan Lynn Roberts 13:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Logan Lynn Roberts 13:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  Not done Sorry, but the whole userpage was an advertisement for yourself, links to diverse pages included. Please read what wikipedia is not. Lectonar (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Logan Lynn Roberts: You should also familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:User pages policy. There's nothing in your deleted user page that could be used as a basis for a new one and be compliant with Wikipedia policies. Start over, please. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jenny Death/sandbox

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I request that my page be undeleted. I was planning to continue working on some tables I had there. Jenny Death (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Sarahgiggle/sandbox

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Sarahgiggle, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Sarahgiggle (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

After the Ball (Tolstoy)

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We are in the process of constructing this page for a class assignment at Dartmouth College (which has been approved by Wikipedia editors) and recently posted our proposed list of sources. The "After the Ball (Tolstoy)" page was deleted, and we are not sure why. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sy dart2016 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  Done It was deleted because the creator, Sy dart2016, blanked the page. We take that as a sign that it was unwanted. However I will restore it back to a version with text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Sy dart2016: I have also moved it to Draft:After the Ball (Tolstoy) as it is not currently ready for the main space in any manner as it is only a list with no context. Feel free to work on it there and submit it for review when it's ready.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ilgvars Zalans

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Katya.pogrebnaya, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Katya.pogrebnaya (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Katya.pogrebnaya:   Not done, because what was deleted was only the draft. The actual article at Ilgvars Zalāns has not been deleted, and you are welcome to improve it. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Institute of Neo Education (iNED)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Tafeax, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tafeax (talk) 13:21, 8 February 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 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!" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Alice Bowman

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I, Nealmcb, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I also wish such pages wouldn't be deleted so quickly after a warning about this surprising policy was sent out. That makes it harder to figure out what is going on and seems to waste everyone's time. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment @Nealmcb: you were warned January 4 that deletion was going to happen in a month because it hadn't been touched in over 5 months. Then it was actually deleted on February 6 a full month later. Considering most deletion discussions last 7 days I think 1 month is not quick at all. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear - yes - wow. I'm very surprised I missed that warning a month ago! Thank you for the links to clarify the situation. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the restore! ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Emily Nagle (2)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Causeart, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Causeart (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Causeart:   Done - the draft was restored on 4 Feb in response to your earlier request higher up this page. To repeat what was said there: 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) 20:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Unlucky 31

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I forgot to save it as a draft, and accidentally published it without any references, notability, etc. -Tjsmith9656 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tjsmith9656:   Done - I have restored the page to User:Tjsmith9656/The Unlucky 31 where you can work on it; but there are two important things to say:
  • It seems from your username and the name of the company's website that you are connected with it. In that case, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. You will see that you should not submit an article directly, but may submit a draft for review by an uninvolved user. Note also that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use ("Paid contributions without disclosure" under section 4), and in some jurisdictions by laws against covert advertising, to disclose your interest in any edits where you have a COI.
  • Wikipedia's inclusion criterion, called Wikipedia:Notability, is quite demanding: it looks for references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Youtube, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? See also Wikipedia:Notability (summary). It seems to me wildly improbable that a shop founded two days ago can yet have acquired the independent comment necessary for notability, and I urge you to think hard about this and not to waste your time trying to get an article accepted.
I am sorry to be discouraging but Wikipedia is not here to help publicise start-ups. JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pridwin Preparatory School

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Nasaspaceman, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Nasaspaceman (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nasaspaceman:   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request to a new location at Draft:Pridwin Preparatory School. 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..
Please check out Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Your first article and note the need for independent references. Also, short though it is, this reads like a prospectus and is unacceptably promotional. An encyclopedia article is not a place for the school to tell the world about itself, in the first person ("We strive... "), and should not contain marketing fluff like "positive learning experience... unique and multifaceted potential... " Read WP:PEACOCK. You should write in a neutral tone, no opinions or glowing adjectives, just plain facts cited to reliable sources. If you are connected to the school, read WP:PSCOI and note that you are required to declare your interest. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/McKenzie Mack

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Lisawebisode (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lisawebisode:   Declined pending further information. This was undeleted in April 2015 after this request when you said 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. We may be 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.
Please also note the comment made last time: "this proposed article needs a lot of work. It is right now a panegyric. It sounds like it was written by a PR department trying to convince the reader of the virtue of their client." JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:GWAVA software

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I, El Jefe Inbound, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Have new references I can add. Not sure why it isn't added to main wikipedia. plenty of references and similar to other companies already in wiki -El Jefe Inbound 19:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@El Jefe Inbound:   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) 22:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_221&oldid=1142568597"