Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 119

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RedCola Music
I, Redcola-records, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redcola-records (talk • contribs) 20:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed incomplete request. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 20:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/redCola Music you will have to submit to get review. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hydrosociology
121.243.11.72 (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg 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.. I have removed your long post above: this page is not the place to write the article. JohnCD (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Shawni Groves
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Shawni Groves (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Hi, I am very new to wikipedia. I thought the page was not live. I read all content had to be written in this program and I was in the midst of doing so. This is not an advertisement, or spam. It is a noted Art Gallery based in New York that has several different aspects to it. Please advise. Thank you.
 * ❌. Welcome to Wikipedia, but that was far too promotional for an encyclopedia article, reading like a PR puff piece: "visionary entrepreneur... successful marketing career... many notable achievements... vast marketing experience... her vision... " Anything like that is deleted at sight: Wikipedia does not allow advertising anywhere, even in user pages or sandboxes. More advice on your talk page soon: meanwhile, read WP:Your first article, WP:PEACOCK and User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Chavin Jewellery
So I can use some of the writing I had already used. It also had a lot of references that were difficult to find. I intend to remove all copyrighted information. I know which bits were flagged up. Thanks -Ogilvieharrisjf (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. We cannot restore copyright material, even temporarily, but I have emailed you a copy of the text. JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ogilvieharrisjf (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Appletree Medical Group
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not advertising - at least not by me. The Health Service Journal, a very respectable UK publication, a reliable independent source,gives it significant coverage and claims that the franchising model of the Appletree Medical Group should be followed in the English NHS.

http://www.hsj.co.uk/home/innovation-and-efficiency/get-stuck-into-franchising-and-boost-innovation/5067093.article#.UvlKmIWAQUE

I don't know whether the claims are true. but I contend that they meet the notability test.
 * ✅ Userfied. The deleting administrator, user, has restored the page to User:Rathfelder/Appletree Medical Group where you can work on it. Check with him before restoring it to the main encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - If any other sysop wants to move or restore it, go ahead, but I am absolutely done with this matter. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can this article now be restored please? There are plenty of independent references, positive and negative.Rathfelder (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Inch by Inch DVD cover.jpg
I regretted having this image deleted from Inch by Inch (film) for the title screenshot. I tried to find the VHS cover without luck, so please undelete this file. If so, I can replace the title caption with this DVD cover. -George Ho (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmcfarland27/Chris Diorio
I, Jmcfarland27, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jmcfarland27 (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. This draft has never been submitted for review, and it is nearly three years since you edited it; please complete and submit it as soon as convenient. It is not clear to me that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirement - check out WP:Notability (people) and WP:Notability (academics). JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

outpsyjah (3rd request)
wikipedia is a source of information - your attempts at labelling outpsyjah's music as unnotable are pretty much based in opinion, and have no effect on the actual quality of the artist. the project is based on the internet for a reason; if you can't accept online sources as reliable, wikipedia itself is full of false information. i'd like to edit the page further ie. album art and further referencing -Tomahawk333 (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the third time you've made this request: I've adjusted the header accordingly. See and . Any further request will be considered disruptive, particularly if you delete failed requests as you just did with the second request. As for your view on opinions, the artist needs to be notable before their work can be included: this was explained to you farther up the page. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability are pretty straightforward: see WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN for more.   Acroterion   (talk)   04:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

^^ they're not really, considering the artist has collaborated on close to 10 different albums.


 * Not really what? Is the artist notable? Can you prove it using references to reliable sources? Can an article on the artist be written and sustained? That's what Wikipedia requires. It's freely editable, provided you follow the rules, which include the provision that all material must be verifiable by reference to reliable sources, and that subjects must comply with notability requirements or be deleted.  Acroterion   (talk)   05:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

i've provided a number of links previously - do you not consider the internet a reliable source of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

and i will keep this article alive, regardless of your opinion as to 'notability', because you are an encyclopedia, and require nothing apart from information, which i have provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

if you refuse to undelete the article, i will persist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

outpsyjah (4th request)
the page requires album art. sources as to the notability of 'outpsyjah' have been provided. -Tomahawk333 (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

do you require another source as to the existence of 'outpsyjah' as an artist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done and will not be done Every question has been replied to multiple times. Stop.  D  P  09:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

TuneUp Media
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Ijabz (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

TuneUp Media was a music tagger and interestingly in contrast to most music tagger software received considerable investment and funding. Suddenly on 31st of January 2014 it ceased trading with no warning http://support.tuneupmedia.com/hc/en-us/articles/201418366-TuneUp-Media-Ceasing-Operations I assume they then deleted their page. But the page should be kept because Tuneup Media was one of the most significant programme of its type at least in terms of sales and it would be if their demise could be documented once the facts come out

(I assume the page did exist because there is a link here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracenote but I cant find it)


 * ❌. The company would not have been able to delete their own article. In fact, the article TuneUp Media was short-lived, a brief account of the company with no references, posted on 17 Jan 2013 and deleted the same day under WP:CSD no indication of significance or importance. If there are independent references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish notability, and you would like to make an article, I will "userfy" it for you - restore it into a page in your userspace where you can work on it. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Katie Correll
The subject should not have been deleted because it is of a notable person. The subject: 1-Had Significant coverage. The subject has been promoted by a major television network and is a reality TV star: http://www.tbs.com/stories/story/0,,268702,00.html 2-Mentioned in Reliable sources: Was written about in a two major city newspaper with several other articles: Subject was mentioned in a 2nd major city newspaper: http://triblive.com/aande/moreaande/5513112-74/correll-nerds-king#axzz2tHdivjtl http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/tv-radio/2014/01/11/CMU-student-nerds-up-for-TBS/stories/201401110017#ixzz2tHPFDVDG That article was referenced by another news group: http://www.geekpittsburgh.com/blog/1401003.htm 3-The subject was written about in independent sources. As a reality TV Star and a female scientist working to promote an increase in the number of women in science, the subject is a note worthy role model and meets all the criteria for being a notable person of interest. -Historyatlas (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. Technically, this article has not been deleted; it was tagged for deletion but the admin who dealt with the request,, converted it instead to a redirect to King of the Nerds, so anyone searching for her will find out about that. You can discuss this with him, but all your references are to do with the show, and reality-show contestants (other than, perhaps, the winner) are not normally considered notable just for being contestants, if they have no other claim (i.e. independent references) to notability - see WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

its a page of compuny i worked and it should be on wiki because every company is listed on this web and employes are able to get information about company where they work
its a page of compuny i worked and it should be on wiki because every company is listed on this web and employes are able to get information about company where they work -58.27.211.74 (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. No, not every company is listed here, only notable ones, see WP:Notability (companies). If we are to consider your request, you must tell us the exact title of the page you mean, with spelling, spacing and capitalization all accurate, otherwise we will not be able to find it. JohnCD (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Kuala Lumpur Pipes and Drums
I, 203.106.117.57, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 203.106.117.57 (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg 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) 18:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamie Smart (Author)
I, 24.18.85.160, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 24.18.85.160 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg 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) 18:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

outpsyjah (2nd request)
i need to edit this page so can you undelete it please? -Tomahawk333 (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * . There is no valid reason to restore an article about a non-notable musical work where the artist has no Wikipedia article. Please discuss with the deleting admin, . ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

the reasoning being that the artist requires an article to allow others to understand the importance of the music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomahawk333 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Then publish it on your own web site. Wikipedia is not your personal web host or publicity medium. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Tom & Manfred w-sig.jpg
Deleted locally after move to commons, but it was removed from commons. -VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 06:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ecfirst Inc
Hi,

The page was deleted due to poor content. We want to improvise it. So please replace or notify me to recreate or update the article of ecfirst Inc.

Thanks -Yuvarasa (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 07:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Kelsy Zimba
Enter your have the article back for review. It was originally deleted by speedy deletion. here and then click the "Save page" button below -Shermin828 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 07:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Arunava Chatterjee
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -In.arunava (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... All of the information given are valid and have proper significance. It's not any kind of spamming or advertising! The Author is one of the bestsellers of Bengal and also a founder of an IT organization which is accredited by NASSCOM and TiE! All the information given here are 100% valid
 * The proper place to contest a speedy that hasn't been acted upon is at the article's talk page (in this case Talk:Arunava chatterjee), not here. (Also, if it does get deleted, REFUND doesn't restore A7 deletions.) — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 09:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously this page is created for making fun of the christians. Everybody knows that st first sight.
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Gtc3b01 (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for ridiculing peoples' religion.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Freaky Fortune
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Αντρέας Δέλτα (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles about music. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself.  Articles concerning musicians or music groups will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject. JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/And Smith Must Score (Brighton & Hove Albion football fanzine, 1988-91)
I, 41.109.130.76, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. still working on the original 41.109.130.76 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg 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. Read WP:Your first article for advice, and note the need for references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish Notability. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian Weaver
I, 68.2.151.48, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 68.2.151.48 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg 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) 18:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The Business Students' Union, HKUSTSU
It is the first established student body at HKUST -Ychunhei (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The proper place to contest a speedy deletion tag that hasn't been acted on is the article talk page (in this case, Talk:The Business Students' Union, HKUSTSU), not here. Also, A7 speedy deletions won't be undeleted here. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

AAPG AUSC
Is a good article, I feel sorry about this procedure exclusionary -Afatoh (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done and will not be done  @Afatoh:   This was a copyright violation of this page and this page. Please do not infringe on other people's writing by copying and pasting it anywhere on Wikipedia. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Melissa Scott (pastor)
Page was deleted per AfD, I'd like it userfy'd for work. — Brianhe (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Evolutionary astrology


At one time this page represented one school and only listed books from one publisher. The published books now include listings from 5 different publishers, in contrast to the one source, as the accusation has been made. This is obvious. The accusation is from an earlier version of the site. This field of astrologer is recently founded and this site is a fair representation of both founders, versus one as the accusation is now being made. In addition there are other authors who work independently from both primary schools, whose books have been listed. Curiously, when references were made to site and support theory from books, IRWolfie,the same person who is now making the request to delete this page, also deleted the new version, reporting that copyright issues had been violated. The site had a been red-flagged due to the obvious bias of one party. The book references where deleted, the site re-posted, an assessment was made by wikipedia staff, the red-flag was removed. The site received further editing from wikipedia staff and was reposted. This site now represents an unabiased perspective of the field -Celticstarlight (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * this page has not been deleted. Deletion is being discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary astrology (2nd nomination), and that is where you should comment, but read WP:DISCUSSAFD first. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lachlan Clyne
I, 122.105.129.147, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. I have new information to include in the draft page which I believe may be sufficient to have it accepted for inclusion in Wikipedia. 122.105.129.147 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 


 * Yes check.svg 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) 14:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Faceplants

 * — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 08:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg 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. Read WP:MUSICBIO for what a band need to have achieved before having a Wikipedia article. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg 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. Read WP:MUSICBIO for what a band need to have achieved before having a Wikipedia article. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Niali
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Pksahooctc (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedied as G11 yesterday. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Digital Risk
External company practices caused deletion of our page and then click the "Save page" button below -66.192.28.194 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I am currently a Marketing Analyst with Digital Risk, and it has been brought to my attention that the Digital Risk wikipedia page we once had has been deleted. After chatting with a Wikipedia representative, I was told that the company who had initially created the Digital Risk page (and paid for) was involved in unapproved practices resulting in them being banned along with all their created pages. I have no idea who this company is that created the initial Digital Risk page, and have no intention of using any outside company to manage going forward. For this reason I am requesting that the Digital Risk Wikipedia page be restored. As stated earlier, this page will be managed internally by Digital Risk marketing team, and have no intention of hiring any external company.

If you need any further information from me regarding this matter, please let me know.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.
 * This is a G5 on content created by one of the blocked Wiki-PR accounts. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done and will not be done. The company you paid was spamming Wikipedia with hundreds of paid-for articles written (to conceal their tracks) by hundreds of throwaway accounts. They have been banned, which means that all their contributions are deleted. If their articles were restored on request, they could happily carry on, and Wikipedia would cease to be an encyclopedia and become a free advertising noticeboard. They knew quite well that what they were doing was against the rules and their articles would be deleted when detected: I suggest that you ask for your money back.


 * The next thing to say is that Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, and is selective about subjects for articles. If there were an article about your company, it would not be "managed internally by Digital Risk marketing team"; you would be very strongly advised not to edit it. Please read the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide which tells you what you can do. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Wormhole Series
I, 212.219.10.158, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 212.219.10.158 (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done. The draft article contained blatant copyright infringement of text associated with the stories. Although the text appears on the author's website which bears a form of free copyright license, there are a number of reason why it can't be used. First, the free copyright license is incompatible with ours. Second, it appears there in quotation marks indicating it actually is from another [unspecified] source, and, even if all this wasn't true, it was plagiarism as it was unattributed as the writing of another.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Point Inside
The Point Inside page was taken down in 2013, and I am requesting for it to be undeleted. It was not a case of bombardment- rather, it included earned press and factual information. http://dbpedia.org:8890/page/Point_Inside is the page in 2009. If it was created by a Point Inside member, this was obviously an error - However in 2009, that was not a publicized rule which we are well versed in now. Thank you in advance for your consideration. -22:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Crystal pointinside (talk)
 * ❌. The first record we have of this entry is in January 2013 (the dbpedia entry's 2009 seems to be the date the company started). It will not be restored because it was posted by one of the hundred of sockpuppet accounts of a notorious commercial spammer. They have been banned which mean that their edits are automatically deleted and will not be restored, the reason for that policy being that if their paid-for articles were restored on request, they could continue spamming, and Wikipedia would become an advertising noticeboard rather than an encyclopedia.


 * The next thing to say is that Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, and is selective about subjects for articles. Read WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:Notability (summary). Many perfectly worthy companies do not meet the requirement, which is not at all to their discredit but means they are not suitable subjects for a global encyclopedia.


 * If you think there are references to show notability in Wikipedia's sense, read the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for what you can do to make a draft article for consideration. JohnCD (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

akrit jaswal
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -24.57.114.63 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Expired PROD. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user, who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Rugrats main character pages
Main characters of the show Rugrats. -CityMorgue (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Main character of the show Rugrats. -CityMorgue (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Main character of the show Rugrats. -CityMorgue (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why these pages were deleted, as they serve an important purpose as an extension of the show's Wikipedia page. While I did notice the pages were poorly organized, I think it is possible for them to be improved. Not sure who removed these pages or what their reasons were, but I am interested in helping expand and improve the articles to Wikipedia standards if they are restored. Thank you. – CityMorgue (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @CityMorgue, Drmies:  Hey CityMorgue. None of these pages have been deleted; they have been redirected. Thus, this project has no applicability (as there's nothing to undelete). If you want these pages to 'no longer redirect, you have the technical ability to revert the redirection. However, these pages were mostly or entirely unverified (as noted in the edit summaries) left when they were redirected. This means that they failed to contain reliable sources that verified their information content. Secondarily, this also means that they failed to evidence notability as stand-alone topics. You should also be aware of the verifiability policy's subsection known as WP:BURDEN, which essentially provides that if unsourced content is challenged, the burden is on the person wishing to retain the content to provide reliable sources using inline citations verifying the content. I take the redirection here as a species of challenge and believe that if you want these to not redirect, it is up to you to source them when you undo that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks--yes, you give a good sketch of the situation. It's like the Pokemon situation: a whole bunch of minor characters who deserve an article on Wikia, but not here. Editors are reminded that all subjects need to pass WP:GNG. For the record, I don't see what any of those articles added to anything, or how they could possibly be expanded in an encyclopedic manner. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @Fuhghettaboutit:  ok thanks for clarifying that. I do not claim to be a Wikipedia expert. I do not disagree with anything you pointed out. I just felt like the articles could be good extensions of the show's main article. That's all I meant. And I did mention that I realized the pages were complete shit in regards to the way there were organized and researched. I would be interested in attempting to clean up, accurately research, and cite the articles properly. That's what I was trying to get at. Sorry if you felt like I was trying to one-up you. I just try my best to make the pages I edit better. That's all. Thanks for taking your time to get back to me. – CityMorgue (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , no harm no foul--no need to apologize for anything. In principle those articles could be a valuable addition, of course, and you are welcome to try and make it such. Take care, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

MUHANDIRAM WILMOT HARRY KULATUNGA
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Preenitha (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Good day, I have not violated any rules nor did I ever wanted to do so.. as you guys are doing such a great service to these people who lived a colourful legacy. The Celebrated Gent MUHANDIRAM WILMOT HARRY KULATUNGA is a man worth having in the list of MUHANDIRAM's of Sri Lanka as he is the only person who has donated his Walawwa (the grand old bungalow) worth millions to a school even after his death. I have little time too and I did send this to you coz this is worth sending for people to know... and if you are not convinced I leave it to you to republish as I can't see it.

keep well Preenitha
 * We are not here to spread the word about people; we exist only to collect what those who have heard the word have said. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Edway Group

 * The Edway Group is a well known Labor Hire company in Australia. I recently had to do an economics report on hiring, workforce and competency for school and I came across them repeatedly as well as the CEO. All of it was research for a paper in my business class. I was surprised there was no Wikipedia page for them so I felt compelled to create one. It is not for promotion because I have no ties to them. I was just stating facts about what I found and I made sure to provide references. I would appreciate it if you would undelete the article because it is about a notable topic, and company in Australia, specifically, their workforce and stipulation for entering it in certain industries. Thank you in advance and I appreciate the hard work put in as it pertains to curating the site. Onefourall (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article you built overtop of it is still promotional in tone and will get deleted. Please read WP:Spam, WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Neutral point of view. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article you built overtop of it is still promotional in tone and will get deleted. Please read WP:Spam, WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Neutral point of view. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Gramercy Property Trust


17:55, 26 January 2014 Ronhjones (talk | contribs) deleted page Gramercy Property Trust (Expired PROD, concern was: Subject lacks notability as per WP:CORP. No WP:RS source coverage is provided.)

The person who nominated the page for deletion obviously did not read WP:CORP or try to find any secondary sources--this is not the right way to handle a deletion of this type of article.

Publicly traded corporations Shortcut: WP:LISTED There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE, NASDAQ and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source). Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability. Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.

Please restore this page and I will edit it to include enough reliable sources to establish notability.

HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly has no business being in articlespace. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of businesses - WP:NCORP is quite clear about this.  The article as written clearly fails the required notability.  As it's a PROD, I'd be willing to userfy it for you to work on, but you would need to ensure that you verify with at least one senior editor prior to requesting it be moved back to articlespace  D  P  18:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NCORP is also quite clear that any company that is listed on the New York Stock Exchange is almost always notable, see above. If you want to put it in my userspace until there are reliable sources, that's fine. But what is a "senior editor"? Is that a new title on Wikipedia? HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See Senior Editor service award though it is only a semi serious title. -- Brianhe (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * request to restore to main space. Will consider userfying.
 * WP:NCORP says explicitly with regards to being listed on the NYSE: Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. You quoted this yourself. And it is also untrue that any NYSE listed company has sufficient sources to establish notability; there are plenty of non-notable penny stocks, for example.
 * I agree with DangerousPanda. The article has no business being in main article space. I'll restore it to your user space for further improvement if you request it, but if you want to do that, don't move it back to mainspace without improving the sourcing and completely cleaning up the promotional tone, and verifying its suitability with at least one trusted high-volume editor or administrator. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

William Tomicki
I CAN PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION FOR EVERY FACT ON MY DELETED PAGES

Request a review please...happy to send backup for all claims, representations on this listing

I object to being deleted without due process...

Thank you

WILLIAM TOMICKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddymcgough (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There was due process: a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/William Tomicki. That being so, the page will not be undeleted here. 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 . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at WP:Deletion review. If you are William Tomicki, please read WP:Autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Forrest Fenn
Tyblossom (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -  @Tyblossom:   as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

SK Media Group
I want the page to come back, as it DOES represent a media organization and I am continuously working/editing it to provide more information. -S.M.A.A.R (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

world of dmcs
there was no promotional material, the association is very notable, the article is written objectively -Victoria.veiga.lima (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One G11 and one G7 speedy. There's also a declined AFC submission. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Gail Karp
The article had some third-party and independent references (quad city autism society, radio iowa, and quad city times) and so did not meet the cited PROD criteria of being completely based on self-promotional sources -LyrlTalk  C  03:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user, who proposed it, and who may choose to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. JohnCD (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Oz Principle
We were in stages of providing more secondary sources to support the page. This research, as well as securing a proper editor, have been taking some time. Please undelete so that we may be able to finish. -PILWiki (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Already ✅, two weeks ago, see Requests for undeletion/Archive 117. You were notified on your talk page here. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Aventis Systems
The time between when this article was tagged for deletion and deleted was less than 12 hours. This article is about the creation of the company and a list of independent organizations that nominated that company for the awards. It has been flagged promotional, so I will review the contents to determine which section was flagged and revise it, but I will need the article restored in order to do that. Thank you. -Creeptick (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done and will not be done. Advertisements are speedy-deleted as soon as they are spotted, and this was a blatant advertisement, the company addressing potential customers "What can Aventis Systems offer you?" and puffing itself: "Industry Leading Warranty... Vast Inventory... Dedicated Technical Support... our extensively trained sales and marketing team... " etc. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform, and anything like that should be deleted at sight; it is worrying that it lasted so long. I presume you work for the company: please read the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Opto-Digital
I, Opto-Digital-Technology, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Opto-Digital-Technology (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg 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 request a change of username, as explained on your user talk page. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bluelounge
I, Hbardenheuer, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Hbardenheuer (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -  @Hbardenheuer:   as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Kolkata Riverfront Beautification Project
The article was nominated for copyright problem listing. However, only few paras of the article had copyright issues, the article could have been restored by removing the disputed text. I would request you to restore the page, as the article had substantial non-infringing materials which were contributed by multiple users over a period of time. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  06:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC) - Amartyabag   TALK2ME  06:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done.  @Amartyabag, MER-C:   I just looked at the first revision to get a base from which to look. It was a copyvio of not just The Hindu newspaper article that was highlighted at copyright problems (this one) but the first paragraphs were direct copy and paste from here and the very last section was from here (though the content is no longer available at this last). In other words, it looks like every word was a copyvio. Now, comparing that first revision to the last, all the same content remained with only slight modification and there was no new content but for the one sentence lead and the two sentences you added. I can provide to you the content you added if you want, along with a skeleton of the article, but this must remain deleted. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * :: Is it possible to userify the article to my userspace/email. I am interested to work on it. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  06:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * >I can provide to you the content you added if you want, along with a skeleton of the article, but this must remain deleted
 * I've emailed him exactly that. MER-C 08:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Rin Tokiwa (JAV Actress)
Come back soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im5yrsold (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done.  @Im5yrsold:   Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rin Tokiwa was entirely an untailored, misformatted (and unattributed) copy of the existing content of Sakura Sakurada, and sat for six months with that content from another article so there's no useful or original content to undelete.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Manish Pathak
Addition of more information to improve significance and then click the "Save page" button below -122.162.157.135 (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg 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 . If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review..--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Iska Dhaaf (band)
My reasoning for requesting undeletion is because I wasn't given enough time to discuss why my article was validly in the namespace. Since I live on the West Coast, my article was technically deleted 'overnight' through the speedy deletion process, and I wanted to get the opportunity to discuss my article that was up for deletion. Through that discussion I would also get better insight on how to improve my article so it would survive the creation process. However, I believe I had found an additional source to explain why my page was valid. Please consider undeletion. Thank you. -Mewhho18 (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. Please read WP:BAND for what a band need to have achieved before having a Wikipedia article. "released two singles, and plans to release their first album" does not sound as though they are anywhere near that level, yet. JohnCD (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Camp Joy Entrance.JPG
I believe that the uploader mistakenly forgot to add the license, but that the licensing should be identical to File:Camp Joy Sign.JPG ---evrik (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. You are probably right, but neither you nor I can make a copyright release on the uploader's behalf. That is user, who has not edited for over a year, and unfortunately does not have email enabled. If I restore the file now, it will just be deleted again in another 7 days. All you can do is leave a note on their talk page and ask them, next time they are around, to request undeletion here; then they can make the necessary release. JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amora gem
I, HeartoftheMadder, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. HeartoftheMadder (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done and will not be done.  @HeartoftheMadder:   The page was a blatant copyright violation of amoragems.com's website. Please note that if you own the copyright to that text (even if it was suitable for the content of an article), we could not use it by permission for our use but would require the copyright to be released by a verifiable method. In any event, even if this was not a copyright violation it would not be undeleted as it was blatant advertising and would have been properly deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to get the page un-deleted so that I can revert it to an earlier instance that has scientific links. What "verifiable methods" are acceptable for clearing the content, with the owner's permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeartoftheMadder (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhiram Behera
subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abhiram Behera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.110.177 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jay Van Poederooyen
I, KFijal, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. I'd like to finish his page and submit it for Wikipedia's approval. Thank you! Katrina KFijal (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review; please complate it and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Read WP:Your first article for advice, and WP:Notability (people) and WP:MUSICBIO for the relevant notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sailing Pangolin
This page was deleted under Wikipedia's A7 guideline [A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)] This page is about a real organisation and group and verification can be provided by visiting the website sailingpangolin.yolasite.com This page is not of insignificance as it was made following every guideline of Wikipedia's policy including guideline A7. I have provided reasoning, you may now make you judgement on the fate of this page. -Jdbepono (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. It is not enough to be a real organization: A7 requires some indication of significance or importance, and I'm afraid I don't see any. The article said only that you have produced one (self-published online) Enid Blyton parody, and plan another. Even if not speedy-deleted, in order to be kept in the longer term, the article would need to show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability to the standard of WP:CREATIVE.


 * Also, even if notable, you should not be writing about your own organization, for reasons explained at WP:Autobiography and the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Good luck with it, and if your group becomes notable someone else may write about you. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The OM
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Om.sukanta (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 February 2014‎
 * ❌. The article you posted was a copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot accept copied material - please read Copy-paste. We have an existing article on the subject at Om, and the title The OM has been made into a redirect to that. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BYU Department of Economics
I, Kerkphil, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Kerk (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg 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.. I should warn you that individual departments are not often able to show the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" necessary to establish WP:Notability independent of the parent university - see College and university article guidelines, particularly the section Faculties and academic colleges. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)