Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 146

Esmond Shahonya
this article is authentic bio of esmond shahonya -Karlmarx776 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg 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 Articles for deletion/Esmond Shahonya, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Federation of Writers (Scotland)
I, 86.149.226.166, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 86.149.226.166 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to restore really, it's a paragraph and then a "see also" link to the organization's website. Which is obviously not enough for an article. You're better off just starting from scratch. Please review the notability guidelines before you do. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Juan Rosa Blanco-Cartagena
I, Alcapurrias, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Alcapurrias (talk) 18:59, 29 July 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. You will need a lot more sourcing than what you have there. Personal recollections are not sufficient for verification purposes. Also see WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:BIO. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 20:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dean G. Smith
I, Secretphilosophy, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Secretphilosophy (talk) 20:57, 29 July 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. Ron h jones (Talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Hockessin Montessori School
I, Kitschweb, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Kitschweb (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done It looks like it is WP:COPYVIO from here and the official website, among other places. It's very closely paraphrased in many sections, so much so that it becomes a copyright violation issue. You'd have to completely re-write the content in your own words. Even if the school was willing to give up the original content as fair use, it's still highly advisable to write it in your own words because the page would always be tagged as containing copyvio and in almost every case I've seen, the content is eventually re-written anyway in order to avoid any negative attention. Also, several parts of the page were fairly promotional tone, which is probably because it was taken from the school's website. That's the other problem with using copyvio- in most instances the content is written to promote the subject and would still be unusable even if the content was given up as fair use. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

HBA Learning Centres
Hi please see the following website for notability of HBA https://training.gov.au/Organisation/Details/31261. It is a Registered Training Organisation (tertiary education) in Australia. Also please see the website http://www.hbalearningcentres.com.au/. Please let me know what else may be necessary for recall. -Tadface (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)--Tadface (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Userfied - the page has been restored to the userspace at User:Tadface/HBA Learning Centres. You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact, the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space.  Please see the criteria for speedy deletion and the relevant notability guidelines - articles that are not in compliance will be deleted. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to your userspace at User:Tadface/HBA Learning Centres. Generally speaking, I normally do not restore articles that have been deleted via WP:A7, but this does appear to be a school that awards degrees so it may pass notability guidelines with a little work. I would recommend that you not restore it to the mainspace until it has been approved by the original deleting admin. I've also marked it as an WP:AfC submission, as AfC (articles for creation) would be a good place to submit it because it could help soothe any concerns about the conflict of interest you have. Tagging it as an AfC adds the template at the top, but also gives you a link to the AfC help desk. I also recommend going through the WP:TEAHOUSE as well if you have any other questions. I'll post a bit more on your talk page. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2C2P
I, Pgupta87, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Pgupta87 (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done Not only is the page promotional in tone, but it also appears to have copyvio from the company's website. Even if the content is given up as fair use, you would still have to re-write it to fit our WP:NPOV policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

groot drakenstein games club
Groot Drakenstein may be a games club, but it has a significant history as a club, having the oldest turf wicket in South Africa. It was a club started by the expats of England for the local farmers to play against touring teams. This club has a strong and rich tradition and history, and while still being a sports club, it has had some of the greatest cricketers touring South Africa come and play there. As well as play a pivitol role in the social welfare of the area by starting projects to help previously disadvanteged children in the sport of cricket. Over and above that, Nelson Mandela, when let out of Victor Verster Prison asked to be driven past the ground specifically because he had heard of its rich tradition and history. -196.212.25.98 (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done We generally don't restore WP:A7 deletions here, but the biggest issue is that the entire article is copyvio from this page. The thing to remember about organizations is that longevity and popularity do not always translate into notability. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Also, notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) by the club's association with notable persons. Nor does the good intent of the club give notability. You must show notability by way of reliable sources that are independent of the club itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Abbey Road Medley
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -58.69.89.65 (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I would like to request that this separate page "Abbey Road Medley" stay and not be deleted. Since the information put on the "Abbey Road" page is very limited and does not help to educated people wanting to learn more about this piece or critics who would like to further scrutinize each detail of the song. Furthermore, I would personally wish that this page be further improved on by other Wikipedia users to help contribute to the development of information regarding improtant classical pieces made by the Beatles and members who were involved in the recording of their songs. I sincerely thank you for your consideration!
 * X mark.svg Not done The medley and the album is already fairly well covered at Abbey Road and Abbey_Road. Please understand that if you find the other article lacking, the proper course of action is to improve the existing article as opposed to creating a new article about the same subject. The main problem that I found is that while it started off as mentioning the medley, it largely covered the album as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Pick at the Stick
I, Xhoven, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Xhoven (talk) 23:09, 30 July 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Center for Theory of Change
I, Eleberthon, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Eleberthon (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's copyvio from the official website and much of the content is either taken outright or closely paraphrased. Even if you can get the organization to give up the content as fair use, it's still fairly promotional in how it's written and would need to be re-written. Also, the sources seem to be about the theory itself rather than the organization and I do want you to be aware that notability is not inherited by the theory itself having notability, but that's just sort of an aside. Mostly I'm just worried about the copyvio so I'd personally recommend that you just start from scratch with a new AfC version. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Atomic Betty.jpg
Please undelete all revisions of this fair-use image so that I can have a look at them. The current image at Atomic Betty is of terrible quality. -Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't undelete non-free files just to have a look. The image is the same image at . If you think the current uploaded image is not a good quality image, you could replace it with another non-free image. It doesn't have to be the deleted image. Remember, though, that non-free images are supposed to be lower quality per WP:NFCC. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:TLSuda, could you please confirm whether all revisions of the image are the same as that one? It seems to have been deleted more than once. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The deletion log shows only a single upload of that image. And it is identical to the one identified by TLSuda. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What Amatulić said. I did think it was odd to have one two deletion, but only one upload. All of the description pages were for the same image, which is for the same image as above. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's strange, since I clearly see two deletion log entries for that page, not one... but I suppose they could have been for the same image. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean to say two deletions. I agree that it is strange, and I've never seen this before. It may be because the original upload & delete were in 2005. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Images have to contain source info (preferably to an available source), so normally refusing to undelete an image and pointing to the source is completely sufficient. However, we should try to say 'yes' wherever possible at REFUND. I don't think there's a smidgin of harm to the encyclopedia or our non-free content goals in restoring an image temporarily so a non-admin could verify that. If it isn't used in an article, it'll be tagged for deletion by a bot in a few days (even if we all forget about it) and if it gets used, that's great too. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bot's don't automagically tag every orphaned non-free, otherwise we wouldn't be finding them all of the time. If we can just give the source, we don't have to worry about the image not being deleted later. We are minimizing purposely unused content. Its also better for the WMF foundation's mission of promoting free content. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so then restore it and don't forget about it? Restoring an image deleted 8 years ago for 20 minutes so an editor who comes here for help can satisfy themselves rather than rely on admin interlocutors should factor into the calculation somewhere. Even if we don't weigh that too highly, the impact of this image on the mission is so marginal I have trouble differentiating it from nothing. Furthermore, where's the rule forbidding us from undeleting an image like this (e.g. not a copyvio or whatever) to have a look? That's not a deletion policy or guideline as I remember them. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Protonk's remarks above are correct in general (and I appreciate that at least one administrator is willing to stand up for regular users here). However, this particular issue has already been resolved as a link to an identical image has been posted above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, there is absolutely no reason to post a non-free image, even temporarily, when we can post a source and link image. It also documents the source publicly so any future non-admin could find this discussion again. This is the same as linking to a non-free image that doesn't meet WP:NFCC. It is the whole reason for External media. If you feel that isn't sufficient, you could've restored yourself. If it is sufficient, why go through the trouble?  TLSuda  (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't restore it because by the time I got to the thread the issue was mooted (by an external source being available). Once was satisfied the external resource matched the deleted image, there's no reason for me to restore the image. But the problem here isn't that the image is still deleted or that the response is insufficient. We shouldn't be telling editors there's some rule that exists to prevent what is essentially a non-controversial restoration when we can just instead restore the content (especially if the rule doesn't exist). REFUND doesn't exist to educate people on the importance of NFCC or the vagaries of deletion policy. It exists so that editors can have a low stress, low friction route to have content restored. If we can't do it here, we can explain why (sometimes that's a good object lesson), but if we can, the admin responding should consider the purpose of the board when choosing to make a restoration decision. We've made it explicit in the case of PRODs (see the edit window text), but that's really just a specific example of a broader goal. Behind every request is a person who just wants to get back to doing what interests them. If, rather than letting them do so when it is possible we refuse on a technicality, we've failed them. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pratigya
I, Haphar, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Haphar (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Article is on one of the top films in India in the year 1975,(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_films_of_1975) it is referenced with imdb links, not sure why it was deleted. It has a prominent cast and whose lesser films have articles, looks like a wrong deletion.


 * Yes check.svg Done. The page was deleted because the submission hadn't been edited for a year. After a certain amount of time, drafts which aren't being worked on are deleted. The submission was declined because the film doesn't appear to be covered by multiple, independent sources which is our basic inclusion criteria for articles on the encyclopedia. I've restored the page but in order for it to be moved to "article space" it has to meet that threshold. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Priscilla Bowden Potter
I, 72.83.70.40, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 72.83.70.40 (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We would appreciate an extension in time to revise this article. Many thanks for your consideration.
 * 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

quinki
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Jaisingh19 (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This page is about an community which is working to create a knowledge base for the improvement in field of Artificial Intelligence,It is not popular because its data will be used in some applications silently.We just wanted to put some information about this project for world that this knowledge base also exist at some extend
 * 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. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, please understand that while Wikipedia is here to inform, all subjects have to pass notability guidelines by way of coverage in reliable sources before the article is created. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jeffery David
I, LoganJoehl, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. LoganJoehl (talk) 21:02, 1 August 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. -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have come across more credible sources for the producer and wish to edit and resubmit the Wiki page -LoganJoehl (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done (For the PROD restoration) The page was deleted due to it being very promotional in tone. The AfC copy has some issues with promotional tone, but has more content and I'd suggest that it would be better to clean that up first and submit it to AfC rather than recreate the PRODed page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Vicky Leandros
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Vl.eu (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Hi! Sorry my english is not very good ;-) ... Vicky Leandros is born 1952! In the letter which I have specified as the source can also be seen! In IMDb.com even the correct year (1952) is specified. The website "www.vickyleandros.com" is shut down. The website "www.vickyleandros.gr" no longer exists. Can these two not be deleted at Wikipedia? This is confusing.

The official website is called "www.vickyleandros.eu" and is in German and English. Bye, vl.eu
 * X mark.svg Not done This page is to request the undeletion of pages that have been removed from Wikipedia entirely. The page itself still exists. Since it looks like one of your attempts to change information was reverted, I would recommend that you discuss any page changes on the article's talk page. As far as your English goes, it's not that bad! If you want, there are people on Wikipedia who are bilingual and would speak your native language. For example, if you speak Greek then you can approach someone at WP:GREECE and ask for help translating and explaining things in your native language. If you speak German, you can go to WP:GERMANY and do the same. You can post in your native language, but the only requirement is that you post below it in English as well, summing up what you're saying. This way if any English-only editors come in, they can also comment and help you with any questions you may have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also asked User:Place Clichy to help out, since I see that they speak multiple languages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I.V.ChalapatiRao
Renwned educationist in India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvsubr (talk • contribs) 16:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol note.svg|16px|link=|alt= ]] Note: Surely you jest! No page's ever existed under that title! Are you sure that the page's title is correct, including the namespace prefixes (User:, Wikipedia talk:, etc.)? I also checked Draft and AfC; both came up empty for the name as written and the name with spaces. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 17:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my Sig should not be there. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find anything at AfC either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was I.V.Chalapati Rao (often worth trying variations of spacing), so Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. The article has long lists of his publications, but it needs better references to reliable published sources about him, to verify what the article says and to establish notability. If none are provided, it may be nominated at WP:Articles for deletion, which would start a debate lasting seven days to which you would be welcome to contribute. JohnCD (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gerarld Egbe


Following your utmost supplication for a written permission prior to any form of modification, duplication, exchange, and/or the non-illicit storage of information on your service, I hereby submit this application for the abovementioned subject matter.

For the sake of consideration and/or time constraint in going through greater depths in information using this portal is suitable and would certainly save time and reduces cost. However, I am aware of not failing to realize the authentication and copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerarld Egbe (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done I've read your post twice, and still do not understand your request. If you are asking for undeletion of User:Gerarld Egbe, that is not going to happen. Please read User pages. If you failed to make a copy of the contents, and want the contents, let us know and someone can email them to you.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Heaven Sent Gaming
The page was apparently deleted due to overref, advertisement, passing mention references, and notability issues, I did not take part in the original deletion discussions, but I would like to salvage the content of the article. I would like it restored and moved to my user-space so it can be fixed. I would also like to know what steps I would need to go through, after the article is up to code. Do I go to DRV afterward, for them to see when its ready? -DocterCox (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg 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 Articles for deletion/Heaven Sent Gaming (2nd nomination), it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion, user . After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the page was deleted and salted to prevent further re-creation, I would recommend that you talk to the closing admin or to the one who deleted the reposted page, User:Sergecross73, and potentially go through WP:DR. Given that it was deleted so many times and since you are a fairly new user, it would be best to go through the proper channels to get this userfied. On a side note, I do have to ask if you are someone who was paid or otherwise asked to create the page. If so, then I recommend reading over our WP:COI policy and disclosing this up front. It's not that you can't edit, just that you have to make sure to be open about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether someone paid me? What are you talking about? I'm a newb, who would pay me to write on Wikipedia? I will contact User:Sergecross73 about this, thank you for pointing me in the correct direction about this, you partook in the deletion discussion in favor of deletion, I don't understand why Wikipedia is being so hostile towards New Mexico related articles. DocterCox (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You were probably asked that because a number of editors defending the article's deletion have clearly been staff from HSG, or people "recruited" by them, acting in their own self interest rather than here to build an encyclopedia. Your user page indicates you know SmileLee, the founder of HSG, so it doesn't seem like that far-fetched of a idea. Also, it's connection to New Mexico had no bearing on its result to be deleted. Sergecross73   msg me  13:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Sergecross73, I don't know anybody at the organization in question, could I take a swing at the article? It was salvageable (since it wasn't primarily advertising). I would like to get User:Smile Lee's response about your statements, that's a highly speculative and far-fetched accusation, according to his user history he's been editing Wikipedia since 2006‎. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My only accusation is that people related to HSG have been recruited to defend/"keep" the article. Judging by how many flawed but similar, non-policy based "keeps" we're given, it's almost certain to have happened.  Sergecross73   msg me  00:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely hurtful accusation, I'm a Christian and I've never made any profit from Heaven Sent Gaming. HSG is a personal project that both my fiancée Isabel and I cofounded together, so I'm not the founder, I'm the cofounder. I've never indicated that I wanted HSG to have an article, especially considering that when the article was created I had my Cloudflare protection off. Isabel has never been interested in Wikipedia. And, since I know Isabel's work schedule, I can safely say that during the vast majority of the edit times in the AfD, she was usually at work, or sleeping, when the other individual(s) posted. Our editor, Jason, has been acting a little squirrelly, and he does share our internet connection, but I'm not aware that he's done anything on Wikipedia and his browsing history is none of my business. So, I personally don't know any of the people involved in the AfD's, and I don't know the person who created the article. Heaven Sent Gaming does not make me any income, so I would never ask someone, or pay someone, to do something like this, and I kept my edits on the article to a minimum, I was forced to restore the article at one point at the request of other less experienced editors. I'm distraught that my company being the center of this, though I am comforted by the fact that the article space has been salted. Because of this, I do feel safe with a user like XiuBouLin taking responsibility for the article, and bringing it to DRV when its ready. One last thing, I don't know DocterCox and the user page doesn't indicate that they know me, he simply stated that we were both interested in a posted list from Wikiproject New Mexico. Smile Lee (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if all of that is true, it doesn't change that a bunch of HSG fans gave a bunch of bogus "keep" !votes and the website plain and simple does not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. It failed an AFD, a speedy deletion, a deletion review, and then got deleted again. It needs to be dropped for a while. Overwhelming consensus by people who actually know policy are consistently saying it doesn't meet the GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  00:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know policy as well, again, I've been here quite a while. I'm very aware of definition of notability on Wikipedia, I don't think I'll ever be notable for anything (low self-esteem ftw), but removing my bias, my company might meet WP:BARE since it has a book about it and whatnot. The speedy deletion, and deletion review, were due to obvious over-enthusiastic inexperienced users attempting to restore it, which is why I support the salting. User:XiuBouLin kept a cool-hand during the DRV and 2nd AfD, so I think he would be good fit. He's also interested in AfD and DRV in general, this will give Xiu practice in getting an article restored. The article space is salted, so I don't see the danger in giving it a go. Smile Lee (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Stepping back in here for a second- I didn't mean the COI comment as an insult or accusation, just that the page had some people coming in that looked like they were editing on behalf of the company. Because DocterCox didn't have many edits, I figured that it'd be a good idea to just ask outright if they were aligned with the company somehow. If he was, then that's fine- it just means that he'd have to be more cautious than most with how he goes about trying to get a copy of the article. I've noticed that a lot of paid editors (not saying anyone here is one) tend to not be overly aware of the various policies, partially because a lot of them are sort of thrown in here by their employers and told that submitting the article would be simple and that they pass GNG and so on. It's still on the editors to know guidelines, but through my interactions with some COI and paid editors I just get the impression that some COI/paid editors are kind of deliberately thrown into the lion's den. If it doesn't work out, the company can always blame an overzealous COI editor and that sort of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that I never particularly accused SmileLee, I just said that it looked like a organized/recruited effort to some capacity. Sergecross73   msg me  12:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fair enough, I'm just glad to have this clarified. I'm pretty sure it was probably some type of well-intentioned fan effort that spun out of control. But, who knows. Regardless, since the article was pretty well-sized, it would be a shame to let the prior editor's efforts go to waste. Xiu seems to be interested in the AfD and DRV process, and since that user is also interested in building the article, I think we would be safe letting XiuBouLin take the reigns. Smile Lee (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Tokyogirl79 or User:Sergecross73 I'll take the article in my userspace, otherwise I would be worried about WP:COPYVIO from any future editors. Especially if it eventually makes it back to mainspace through the DRV process. The article space can't be edited by anyone except admins now, so I don't see any issue. XiuBouLin (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it and I'd initially restored it to transfer, but then rethought it since it'd really be best for User:Sergecross73 to be the restorer. Sorry about that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I thank you for that, because I'm actually against it. The community has been very clear that it does not meet the notability requirements right now, through an AFD, a rejected DRV, and now two speedy deletions. The article wasn't especially well written, and had WP:BOMBARD and unreliable sources in it, which I fear will only confuse people reviewing it in the future. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but to be blunt, this fanbase doesn't seem very familiar with the most commonly accepted interpretation of meeting WP:GNG, what constitutes a reliable source, or what significant coverage means, and I don't especially have confidence in this new editor of 3 weeks to break this trend. I'd rather it be dropped for a while, and/or created from scratch. Otherwise I already see how this is going to play out. In a couple weeks it'll be attempted to be brought back. I'll say no, because nothing has changed and it still doesn't meet the GNG. Then I'll be the bad guy because I cancelled out a few weeks of misguided work. Sergecross73   msg me  14:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sergecross73 and Tokyogirl79, I completely agree that consensus reflected that it did not meet notability requirements. I have never been underneath admitting that I'm new, but I've also never been underneath asking for help when I need it. The reason I joined Wikipedia is because I read an article about exclusionism on Wikipedia, which it the camp that I'm in. I don't have any allegiance to Heaven Sent Gaming, and I don't particularly like to read comics or play video games. I don't understand what "this fanbase doesn't seem very familiar" has to do with anything, that's not an insult, nor is it relevant to this article's future. I can't move it to main-space without an admin anyway, and I will be periodically asking experienced editors and admins once substantial revisions to the article are made. I'm just concerned that without the original revisions this will become a COPYVIO down the road, especially since the article wasn't exactly a stub. I would like the experience in bringing an article from the AfD grave. Though, if you don't trust me, a user interested in this sort of thing, like BOZ could move the article to a Draft page. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ted Neward
I, Akatyayan, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Akatyayan (talk) 19:36, 2 August 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) 11:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wanees Zarour
The article I created was deleted on the grounds of copyright violation, because it was claimed to have infringed upon the photo on http://waneeszarour.com. However, the photograph was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons by the photograph owner under a CC4.0 license so that it could be used on his wikipedia page. -207.181.231.108 (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. The article was not deleted because of the photograph, but because the text was much too close a copy from http://waneeszarour.com/styled/index.html, which is marked "All rights reserved, Wanees Zarour 2014." Maybe a formal copyright release could be arranged as described at WP:Donating copyright materials, but copying the subject's own website does not usually make a satisfactory encyclopedia article. In this case there are many promotional terms: "powerful melodies... extraordinary abilities... unique arrangements... " etc. An encyclopedia article should be written from a WP:Neutral point of view, and should be based on what others say about the subject, not what he says about himself. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Legend (South Korean band)
New Kpop Bands that debut have an article here in Wikipedia. Please consider this page so that people or fans can know facts about Legend. A lot of people especially Kpop Fans like them, if you will accept to undelete this page, I think Fans will be glad. The reason I made this article is to make fans updated on their new albums, live performances and awards. -Napate11 (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ - no, new Kpop bands that debut do not have an article here in Wikipedia until they have achieved enough to meet the WP:Notability requirements explained at WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * According to JohnCD no new Kpop bands are here in wikipedia. How about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Velvet_(band) or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HALO_(Korean_band) they haven't achieve anyting. Red Velvet just debut in August 1, 2014 and they already have a Wikipedia page? -Napate11 (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the fact that some unsatisfactory articles get through is not a reason for allowing more. One of those has already been nominated at AfD, and the other soon will be. Thank you for pointing them out. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ridikulous
I was a bit naive about wikipedia and the fact that you cannot write about yourself,I will request the undeletion for the page so that I can clear it myself,one of the reasons the page was deleted is the to the lack of references so I ask for the undeletion Thank you -Phillip Mweemba (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol note.svg|16px|link=|alt= ]] Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. That said, you can ask for the content to be restored to a draft page in your userspace or for a copy of the page's content at time of deletion. (The other deletion in the log isn't germane to this request and doesn't affect it.) — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 17:39, 4 August

Can the content be restored to my userspace?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian J. Townley (motivational speaker)
I, Leslyr418, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. need help with editing this page to make it compliant with Wikipedia's citation guidelines Leslyr418 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Jason Yoo
This page is fully sited with reference to Christchurch golfer - Jason Yoo. He has since furthered his achievements winning multiple titles in Canterbury -202.36.245.24 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 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. The notability standard for golfers is explained at WP:NGOLF. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Trust Schools
I, 111.68.105.230, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. this is is genuine page, so it must be pulbished111.68.105.230 (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. This article was largely copied from the Trust's website. For legal reasons, we cannot restore copyright material, even temporarily. While it might be possible to make a formal copyright release (see WP:Donating copyright materials), copying an organization's own material is unlikely to make a satisfactory encyclopedia article, because of promotional tone and lack of references to reliable, independent sources. You would do best to write in your own words, basing the article on what others say about the Trust, not what it says about itself. There is good advice at WP:Your first article and User:Uncle G/On notability. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peking duck
I, Psong1969, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Psong1969 (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - An article on Peking duck already exists, so why not work on improving that one, rather than trying to replace it with a new draft? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a different subject, so 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..
 * If the article is accepted, it will need to be called something like "Peking duck (schoolyard game)", but it will not be accepted without references to confirm what it says. Check out WP:Verifiability: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source", WP:Notability and WP:Your first article. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Davies Group, Publishers
I, 123.243.40.15, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 123.243.40.15 (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Protonk (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tape Noise
NoiseTape (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * X mark.svg Not done. The page hasn't been deleted. It's waiting for a review. Generally, drafts won't be deleted unless they are left unedited for months. You're free to improve this draft at your own pace. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter W. Marty
I, St.Paul QC, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. St.Paul QC (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ Looks like the speedy deletion request was removed, so the "clock" has been reset for another six months. Wikipedia does not host drafts indefinitely, so please finish and submit it. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 21:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scottish Samurai Award
I, Truncie, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. truncie (talk) 10:14, 4 August 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ethan K
I have changes several information with references because previously I have not included the references with it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelin92 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We also do not overturn G11 deletions, again because they would need a fundamental rewrite. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 17:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Article was deleted as both advertisement and no significance. Try WP:AFC instead. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tetryonics
 174.100.79.120 (talk) 05:18, 5 August 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored it, but I have to echo the sentiments of the people who declined it at AfC previously. We cannot accept a theory that hasn't received coverage in reliable sources. Because this was last touched in 2012, I figure that there has been time for the theory to have possibly received coverage in WP:RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nostops
{{subst:refund|1= Nostops |2= content is genuine and the author takes ownership of the hyperlinks provided. it is years of work that has been cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostops (talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done I'm sorry, but I will not restore the page. The page paired with the username comes across as promotional in tone, but there's also the issue that Wikipedia is not a webhost or a place to promote things. Some content is allowable on userpages, but it should relate to Wikipedia editing and should not be solely about an organization. I've blocked you for having a promotional/COI username and you're free to seek an unblocking, but I will caution you that Wikipedia is not a place to promote your organization and that all organizations should pass notability guidelines before an article is created. Simply existing is not enough to show notability and we cannot keep an article or a userspace area because it would be WP:USEFUL to someone. I'd recommend that if you are unblocked, that you instead create an article via WP:AfC rather than post an "about us" section on your userpage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Peter_Zaboji
I, Joki1sajt, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Joki1sajt (talk) 12:06, 5 August 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.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Onvolo
I think the page is notable and I think there are significant sources to indicate that fact. I understand the article was deleted because of A7, but if recreated I think I can quickly show its relevance. Moreover, if it is to be deleted, I would like to take my case to WP:AfD -Casprings (talk) 04:01, 5 August 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. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd have to discuss this with User:Alexf since it was deleted via WP:A7. The big thing that I noticed that would keep it from being re-created is that the page was pretty promotional in tone and you'd essentially have to re-write it from scratch. There weren't any sources on the page to speak of, as the only source was primary- the Onvolo website itself. I'd personally recommend that you just write a new version of the article, since the previously deleted version is so promotional that it could be speedied as promotion even if someone wasn't going to tag it as A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not against the idea of the article being re-created and getting run via AfD, just that it'd be better to create an entirely new version of the article from scratch since there's nothing to really be gained from the previous copy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will fix the tone. Can you cut and paste it to my sandbox?Casprings (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandy_Wong
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Bigcupot (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg This page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shift4 Corporation
I, Casper n, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Also, is it possible to restore the talk page associated with it, as we had many helpful comments there from more experienced editors. Thanks! Casper n (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Casper n (talk) 18:18, 5 August 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.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You asked about the talk page. The nature of the AfC project is that it uses talk pages, so there is no other talk page, as far as I am aware. The comments usually added to a talk page are on the top part of the page. Do you think there was something else, or do you have what you need?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Judith Gurfein
I, Arista2020, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Arista2020 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Arista2020 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.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Further editing is required for resubmission of previously rejected article -Arista2020 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no such article I assume you were looking for the AfC, handled above.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)