Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 183

Draft:Alistair A. Vogan
Kingsley Kuchner (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to have the article I submitted, which was initially rejected for formatting reasons, to be undeleted so that I might make the required corrections. Unfortunately, the submission remained dormant for more than six months due to circumstances beyond my control.

Thank you for understanding.

Kind regards,

Kingsley Kuchner

To start a page called Draft:Alistair A. Vogan, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

21:23, 31 March 2015 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Alistair A. Vogan

The page required corrections to formatting but was left dormant for a six month period. I would like to have it undeleted so that the required changes can be made for resubmission.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsley Kuchner (talk • contribs) 08:45, 1 April 2015 (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 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On a side note, IMDb is not usable as a reliable source because it is ultimately a routine database listing and merchant sources like Amazon should not be on Wikipedia at all. Not only is their primary reason for existence to sell something to you, but by linking to it this can come across as Wikipedia personally endorsing the site and/or product. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:BFKL
''I, Ieet2, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Ieet2 (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2015 (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. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Protrader
It doesn't an advertising information and its proven by valuably links. The content of the article was improved according to all wikipedia requires. -VasyaLukyanenko (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The page was not deleted as "advertising", but rather for lack of "notability". I have restored the page, but moved it to draft space.  It can now be found at Draft:Protrader.  The AfD was way back in 2011, so there is a decent chance notability has been established since then.  However, you need additional reliable sources to establish notability, and the article be a summary of what those sources say.  Here is a news search to point you in the right direction...  Please use the articles for creation process but hitting the "submit" button at the top of the draft article when you think it is ready.  This way it will be reviewed by an experienced editor and advice given if improvements are needed instead of the article just being deleted on sight again.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

coming home (in the fairest of the seasons)
this page contains information about a new Feature Film project.Mod144 19:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC) and then click the "Save page" button below -Mod144 19:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . The article isn't deleted (yet), but when it is, you need to discuss it with the deleting administrator. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Autonomous sensory meridian response
please restore full history of both page and talk, article is notable - Valoem  talk   contrib  02:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as Hut 8.5 is cool with it, I'll restore it. The page looks like it passes GNG quite easily now, but the deleted stuff had gone through AfD so I'm not sure if this would still require his input or not. I figure that I'll go with protocol first with this. I don't see anything that would really be an issue to restore. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection as the recreated version is much better than either of the old versions. This might potentially end up back at AfD as few of the sources appear to pass WP:MEDRS though.  Hut 8.5  06:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I mean this history here Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response.  Valoem   talk   contrib  23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mars Initiative
Mars Initiative is unique and not associated with colonization. It is to develop a prize for the first landing, regardless of whether the landing party stays or visits. It is distinct and separate from colonization efforts. If you Google Mars Initiative, it is mentioned in many places on the web and is a real organization -173.172.30.74 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sam Becker
dont delete he is a college player for stonehill college and a highly reguarded player in the draft. -Hcostello17 (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2015 (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. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Brajendra Navnit
''I, Amnendranavnit, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Amnendranavnit (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)182.65.38.230 (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2015 (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. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Seasons in the Field
Because this band is just as important as Focal Point, like Focal Point, this was the starting band for Daniel Weydant, who is now somewhat famous, (In music, that is). -Metalworker14 (Yo) 13:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The band doesn't appear to meet our inclusion criteria. However, I have redirected the article to Wydant's page, where the subject is covered.  Feel free to expand the information contained there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Music Learning Theory
This deletion is improper, because the criteria for speedy deletion were not valid. The admin deleted it for reasons of copyright and promotional tone. I can only argue, as a domain expert, that the article was not infringing, and that it was not promotional. Gordon Music Learning Theory is a widely-known and cited body of music education research. The Gordon Music Learning Theory page should be restored. We can add additional citations to demonstrate that this page is valid. -Lxdrsk (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done I have restored an earlier version of the page prior to the addition of copyrighted material. As a reminder to  who deleted the page: always make sure to check a page history before deleting – sometimes copyrighted material or other problems are only present in recent versions of the page, not the entire history. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

BFKL
''I, Ieet2, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Ieet2 (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol note.svg Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. As the page is still live, you can make an edit to it to cancel the G13 speedy. Please note that the draft space is not for indefinitely hosting material unsuitable for an encyclopedia. This request has already been serviced above. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 17:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

University of the Philippines Los Baños Institute of Biological Sciences
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Abdupo (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol note.svg Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. G11 speedy deletions will not be overturned here or anywhere else. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 17:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ promotional text has already been removed. There is nothing to undelete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dixon's Violin
''I, 50.156.11.231, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' 50.156.11.231 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2015 (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 also moved it to Draft:Dixon's Violin, per AFC guidelines. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Barts1a
I would like to have my userpage restored. Thanks. -Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 03:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Karl Nerenberg
''I, Chrisking1977, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Chrisking1977 (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2015 (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 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

umer romio
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Umerromio (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol note.svg Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. A7 deletions are not overturned here; when the page is deleted you will need to talk to the deleting administrator. However, I would suggest finding a blog to do this on. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's deleted now. Wikipedia is not the place for you to post your original poetry. See WP:NOTHOST and WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * X mark.svg Not done It also looks like this account is a sockpuppet of User:Shafiqzafar217, so I've blocked them for this. The other user posted his resume and other content using the page as a LinkedIN page, so I've blocked him for self-promotion. If he can show that he understands policy and will not do this again he can probably be unblocked, but the Umerromio account is too much of a WP:DUCK not to block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Karl Nerenberg
I didn't have time to edit it before it was deleted. A little sidetracked. -Chrisking1977 (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Already done above Chrisking1977- you don't need to ask for it again. It's been restored to AfC space. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

REDCODE
Hello. REDCODE is the (proprietary) file format used by all models of one of the top-three, cinema-grade, digital motion picture camera manufacturers, the RED Digital Cinema Camera. The article describes the file format and, as far as I now, it is the only web page on the Internet trying to address that; that is a reason why it may be target of wikilinks. Take a look at the manufacturer's page to see how many movies and TV Series have been shot with RED cameras: http://www.red.com/shot-on-red Since this is a proprietary file format, yet it has very original metadata scheme, there are no sites describing it while this should be present in any technology-drive encyclopedia. As a matter of fact, I created or edited several articles describing other file formats, and they are all successful. I have also been thinking of adding more articles on other raw camera file formats' internals but, since I have too a full-time job in the business, I can never find the time. I apologize for not replying earlier (than [REDCODE]'s deletiaon), but this is understandably my main justification: lack of professional time. Thanks for your precious time reading. -Walter.Arrighetti (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't have a huge issue with restoring it but I am somewhat concerned with the statement "there are no sites describing it while this should be present in any technology-drive encyclopedia". The issue with this statement is that you're essentially saying that this does not have any coverage in reliable sources, or at least this is how I am interpreting this statement. Regardless of how often something is used, if the coverage does not exist to show that the topic (in this case a file format) passes notability guidelines then it really can't be on Wikipedia. Even if you or I think that something should be in Wikipedia, if it doesn't pass notability guidelines then we really can't include it until the coverage surfaces or until guidelines are changed to allow for it to be included. On first glance many of the sources in the article appear to be WP:PRIMARY, meaning that they cannot show notability and can only be used to back up basic information. I'd be a little more comfortable with this going to your userspace and you working on it until the coverage becomes available if you'd be OK with that, since if I restore it to mainspace it'd be very likely that Be..anyone could/would nominate it for AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, the problem with too many spammy links to REDCODE and Red Digital Cinema Camera Company is solved for now from my POV. :-) –Be..anyone (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was more speaking from a notability angle, since there is an admitted lack of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Crimson Alberta Ferretti dress of Uma Thurman
This AfD here has set a precedence, these dresses are notable. A cursory search of the subject brought these sources and  suggesting some notability. Please userfy both page and talk page. - Valoem  talk   contrib  04:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done, this was deleted via this AfD so you will need to either ask DangerousPanda (formerly BWilkins) to restore it or take it to WP:DRV since we can't restore this here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to just restore it I never do that, I am asking for the material to be userfied so I can see what I am working with. Valoem   talk   contrib  05:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have userified it for you. It can now be found at User:Valoem/Crimson Alberta Ferretti dress of Uma Thurman. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Gen. Gharzai Khwakhuzhi.jpg
Permission received via. OTRS 2014111710018001. Please ping me when replying -Mdann52 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ already by . ~Amatulić (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Exchange
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Baijukc (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation on the contents added as the same is reproduced from the Corporate Website of the Exchange 1. www.easternexchange.com.qa 2. www.easternexchangeqatar.com

The exchange house is one among the oldest exchange house established in the State of Qatar (1979) and hence it is appropriate to include the name and brief description about the exchange house in Wikipedia for the benefit of the Citizens and Expatriates from the State of Qatar.

Please restore the page.


 * X mark.svg Not done - Whether the text was copied from an official webpage or a third party source, it is still a copyright violation. See my reply on my talk page for more information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Play With This Too
The page was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", which is was not. It was an article I wrote about a toy company which has been covered numerous times in various media on the topic and had numerous notable sources. No one involved with the company wrote the page. It should be undeleted. -Mathewignash (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . From unsubstantiated statements about "high end" products, to a laundry list of interviews the head of the company has given in non-notable outlets, to over-detailed information about Kickstarter promotions and product lines, the article looked like pure advertising. If you disagree, take it up with the deleting administrator, . ~Amatulić (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject appears to meet our inclusion criteria, so feel free to start a new article that sticks to a summary of what third-party reliable sources say. See WP:Your first article for straightforward advice to writing on Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Paulo Oktavianus Sitanggang
Article about a footballer who has since made his professional debut see here, thus passing notability guidelines. I would also ask that Paulo Sitanggang be re-created for similar reasons as they are the same person. Thank You -Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Healthcare in Washington (state)
Can I please have a userfied copy of this article? Thanks. -  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  11:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done The page can now be found at User:Bluerasberry/Healthcare in Washington (state). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Wnt-tooth.png
From the source of the image, I found that the authors could use the CC-BY (Attribution 3.0) license if the article that I received this image from is open access (which it is), but the administrator said that was incorrect, which is why it was originally deleted -Manpriya.A (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * X mark.svg Not done The file was actually titled File:Wnt_Signaling_Pathway-_The_Tooth.png when on Wikipedia. However, it has since been uploaded on Commons under the name you provided and it not deleted there. As such, there is no reason to restore it here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The Raben Group
There was a credible claim of importance (even more so in earlier iterations of the article) so A7 didn't apply. Clearly deleted in error by an admin who didn't bother to look at the talk page and learn the full story. -181.167.52.241 (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done It would have been better to contact the deleting admin, but I'm confident he would restore it after seeing the article history and talk page, so I went ahead and did it for you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Congleton Lawn Tennis Club
Andrew Giltrap (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: no text provided by user. -- Finngall  talk  17:31, 4 April 2015 (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 also Andrew Giltrap's talk page. Huon (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beverly Hills Sports Council
''I, 71.108.185.205, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' 71.108.185.205 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol note.svg|16px|link=|alt= ]] Note: This page has been deleted multiple times as an abandoned draft article. As Articles for creation, the Draft space, and user subpages are not to be used to indefinitely host material inappropriate for the encyclopedia, what exactly would you do to help make the draft get accepted as an article? — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 18:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a reasonable question to ask, Jeremy. To say how they're planning to develop the draft, the IP user would have to be able to view the draft, which they very obviously are not at the moment. Without that, all they can say is some generic stuff like "add info and refs" that would be as unhelpful as your above note. An editor expressed their interest in working on an abandoned draft so let's restore the draft and see what happens, it's not like we have anything to lose. 181.167.52.241 (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is the standard question that all users seeking to get a draft that has twice been deleted as abandoned are asked, even by the administrators that service these requests. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 18:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A "generic" promise to add sources would be sufficient to restore. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas E. Alahverdian


This page was deleted without meeting G4 criteria. It does not contain "substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate" and changes in the content "address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted," In regards to notability, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. (from WP:NOTABILITY). In practice, sustained news coverage of an individual pretty much guarantees notability. There are tons of sources, over 30 from major news orgs. The content is significantly different from what was deleted at AFD, making it ineligible for G4. Stuff has happened since it was deleted in April 2014 and obviously couldnt be included in that article because it was in the future. Sources about the subject are from The Boston Globe, The Providence Journal, Associated Press, Brown University student newspaper, The New Haven Register, NBC news, CBS news affiliates, Politifact, ProPublica, the Omaha world herald, WPRO, WPRI, WJAR and others. Appears to meet GNG since the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and it is "suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:Notability). Perhaps a solution would be to reverse the delete and let the community decide. EricJ1074 (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . It looks to me like the sources are primarily from pre-2013, which are largely what the previuosly-deleted version were relying on. It has an appearance of extensive sourcing, but most of the sources are repeated several times. As such, I don't see that it addresses the concerns in both AFDs, the first being Articles for deletion/Nicholas Alahverdian, therefore G4 may still apply. I suggest you talk to the deleting administrator and ask him to reconsider deletion, or at least restore it to Draft space for further improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Structural-Safety
''I, Gordon Masterton, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Further information and external sources is available to independently validate the significance of the organisation. I would like to update the draft in preparation for a re-submission. -Gordon Masterton (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2015 (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. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ithaca College Police Department
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Jdec46 (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC) I figure since I create a website about those police department they should say up!

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Jdec46 (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC) This is a free website to be able to create a page like I did since I am the original create of both Cornell university police and Ithaca college police!
 * ❌ Being a free website does not allow us to do anything we like. If you are indeed the creator of the police forces then perhaps you ahve a WP:COI. For Ithaca College Police Department talk to user talk:MelanieN, and for Cornell University Police talk to User talk:DGG. I can confirm no claim of importance, and no independent references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

E Studios
I would like to improve the wrongs of this page and bring it up to the guidelines of Wikipedia. -Estudios17 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First off, your name should not represent your company, but is supposed to be that of a person. Secondly you should not write about your own company see WP:COI.  Do you have any independent references to get started on this topic? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Graeme, I'm going to point him towards the policy about youth editing about themselves since it appears that he's extremely young and putting an awful lot of information about himself on the Internet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

AHMED TAOUFIKI
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -DESTINYBOB (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi DESTINYBOB. It may be possible for a reliably sourced article to be written demonstrating that Taoufiki is notable and having verifiable content, though a quick look did not reveal many sources to me. Reliable, secondary sources that are independent of him in French would be acceptable (I found this but little else, and that appears to be a "mere mention" of him, rather than substantive content talking about him in detail). In any event, any article would have to be written from a neutral point of view, and the content you posted read like you were involved with this subject, with a stake in using Wikipedia as an advertizing platform to promote him. I deleted the article mostly on that basis, as "blatant advertizing" under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. This does not mean you could not re-post a proper and neutrally-written article, but I suspect that is not possible at this point in his career. By the way, this page is for seeking undeletion of content already deleted. The page was not deleted when you posted here, and actually drew my attention to it. Of course it is deleted now (and I stand by that deletion). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Way Out (film)
''I, Mike uchitel, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Mike uchitel (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2015 (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 23:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The Way Out (film)
I have additional proves that the film is of artistic value: articles in German newspapers: http://juedischerundschau.de/ausweg-aus-einer-ausweglosen-lage/ http://evrejskaja-panorama.de/v-poiskah-vyhoda-iz-bezvyhodnogo-polozhenija/   and the film was accepted by the Cannes film festival  Der Autritt/The Way Out/Выход at Cannes Festival -Mike uchitel (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not created any pages at Wikipedia that have been deleted. Indeed, your only contributions are to this forum. The page cited above is a redirect created in 2014.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yorkshire Water Authority (Southern) F.C.
Added a quick deletion tag to this article by mistake! -Kivo (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Northern Wrestling Federation
It's A Company That's Semi-Famous And Notable "Save page" button below -Xsefgx5 (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Xsefgx5:  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/Northern Wrestling Federation (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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

NWF Tag Team Championship
Because I Said So And It's Should Not Be Deleted In the First Place "Save page" button below -Xsefgx5 (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol note.svg|16px|link=|alt= ]] Note: The page was deleted as a result of a deletion debate. Admins will not undelete pages that were deleted with discussion here; go to WP:Deletion review or contact the administrator that closed the deletion debate instead. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 05:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Cascadia Composers
I wish to edit the article -Musicwriter 2014 (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done Hello Musicwriter. This page cannot be undeleted as it blatantly infringed on the copyright of those owning the content at this page. Unless you wrote that material at that external site, it was also plagiarism as it presented it as if your own writing. If you are the owner of the text, we could only use it if you or someone else with ownership over the copyright released it to the world under a compatible free copyright license (or into the public domain and did that release in a verifiable way); we could not use it simply with permission for use here. Although some of this material was not suitable in the first place to be in an encyclopedia article, if applicable, some of the the methods for providing a copyright release/freely-licensing are given at Donating copyrighted materials. Please don't copy and paste previously published material again. Thank you--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

--Musicwriter 2014 (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Fuhghettaboutit,

I don't know if this is where I respond to your comments. I am the author of the page you mentioned above. I am a member of Cascadia Composers, and I am the chairperson of the Historian committee; I have one other person on that committee. The board of Cascadia asked me to compile our history and post it onto our website and in Wikipedia. The said committee of myself and one other person compiled the information in the article after interviewing all the people mentioned in the article and I wrote the article and submitted the article to Wikipedia. I have not infringed on any copyright laws or plagerized any material. I also gave permission for the article to be printed on the Cascadia Composer website.

Please tell me how to proceed. Cascadia Composer would sincerely like to have this article, which is the history of our organization, on Wilkipedia. After my initial submission, the article was returned to me for editing; I edited it immediately, resubmitted it, and awaited the outcome. In January, 2015 I received notification that "6 months have elapsed and because I had not edited the article, it would be deleted." I had, in fact, edited and submitted the article with the changes recommended afte rmy first draft.

I had virtually given up on this project; however the Cascadia Composers board wanted me to pursue it again to try to get the article on Wikipedia.

I have no expertise in technical writing, but I followed all instructions very closely. I repeat: I have not plagiarized this article. I am the author of the article. In my frustration with trying to follow the technical aspects of proceeding with this project, I asked a Cascadia Composers board member to help. I sent him the article in its entirety, and he is to try to proceed with the project.

Please tell me how to proceed.

Musicwriter 2014
 * Hi again Musicwriter. You can't retain non-free copyright (i.e., state "© 2015 Cascadia Composers" at the external site; a claim of non-free copyright ownership) but also post that same content here, because we require additions here to be irrevocably freely-licensed to the world for reuse under our free licenses. To fix this, make a change at the external site. Replace that copyright notice at the bottom with the following:
 * The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
 * If you do that then there's no problem with undeleting the article (drop a note here saying it's done). Alternatively, you can:
 * Send an email from the domain name of the website (thus presenting a form of verification that the email is from a person with authority over the source of the content) –
 * To [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], containing a copyright release following the form at Declaration of consent for all enquiries;
 * After sending the email, create Draft talk:Cascadia Composers with this content: and I'd also recommend referencing this discussion there.
 * An OTRS volunteer will then reply to your email, indicating whether the content and the license is acceptable and should either undelete the page, or if they are not an administrator, will ask one to undelete it (they sometimes make such requests here).
 * Obviously this alternative option is more involved and less within your control. Of course, that will only take care of the copyright issue allowing undeletion without a problem, but it does not mean the article will be accepted. I can and am willing to help trying to make the article more acceptable for publication once undeleted. That issue always resolves ultimately on whether there are sufficient reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of the topic, that have written about it substantively (such as books published by major publishing houses, newspapers, magazines, peer-reviewed scholarly journals and websites that meet the same requirements as reputable print-based sources), thus demonstrating notability and allowing a verifiable article to be written. If those source don't exist then it's all for naught. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You may want to just re-write the article somewhat anyway, since it does have some sections that come across as slightly promotional. That's kind of the difficulty with taking material "as is" from another website. In most cases the material in question was written to promote its topic (in this case Cascadia Composers) so it will contain WP:PEACOCK terms and buzzwords that are meant to portray the topic in a flattering light. This isn't as bad as some of the others but it does have some phrases like "grown rapidly" and the last paragraph in the article would have to be removed entirely since it contains sentences like "diverse group of women composers that span several generations and honors their differences in compositional style and philosophies". While it doesn't immediately seem like it, it's actually somewhat easier to just re-write things than to file a ticket since it's easier to re-write and get rid of the promotional tones than it is to try to pick out the various terms without chopping up the sentences too much. I also have to say that articles that have content taken "as is" from other places are under almost continual scrutiny from other editors and in the end are almost always re-written. I remember one case (can't remember the article's name) where there was an article about an artist whose management team gave us permission to use content from their website. The content was very neutrally written and I got the impression that they'd always intended it to be placed on Wikipedia, but the content was always under scrutiny and the page was always being accused of being promotional because it had material taken from another website. Eventually a few of us just went through and did a massive re-write because we were tired of the page getting tagged and having to continually explain that it wasn't promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, and should have mentioned that there is no impediment to you creating the draft again right now, so long as you don't use this copyrighted material. What you should be doing is gathering together reliable sources you can use, like this, and using what they say to guide your writing hand (in your own words), while citing such sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Shaquille McDonald
Please restore this article's history prior to it being deleted at AfD, as the subject now passes WP:NFOOTBALL Thanks -JMHamo (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lazy Dog Adventures
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -CricketDesmarais (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Lazy Dog Adventures

I am sorry I haven't had a chance to make the proper edits to this page. We have experienced death, a relocation & subsequent stresses in my family & this has taken a way back seat to which I am now ready to take care of. Please allow me the opportunity to make the corrections & formatting/citations necessary. I appreciate your understanding.

Best, Cricket Desmarais
 * Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request to a new location at Draft:Lazy Dog Adventures. This has already been restored once and left untouched: please edit it to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Black River Films, LLC
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Michiganman1979 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - there is nothing worth restoring: the article as you created it said only "Here is our logo" with a link to a non-existent file, and then you blanked it. If you want to create an article, go ahead, but read WP:Your first article first, to understand what a Wikipedia article needs. I suggest that you use the WP:Article wizard to guide you through the process. That will give you the option to send a draft for review at WP:Articles for creation. You should probably do that anyway, since your use of "our" suggests that you are connected with the company, so you should read Conflict of interest and the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

New Zealand redirects
No reasoning given. -65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC) No reasoning given. -65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC) No reasoning given. -65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Please undelete all the New Zealand stub type redirects. They are impossible to find now. Also undelete all the ones I don't know about but of this form -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If possible, undelete all the stub-type redirects that were deleted at around this time (November 2014) since I can't see how any of it is uncontroversial or just housekeeping. It just makes stub types impossible to use. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅These were created by moves in September 2007. Are you still trying to use these names? They are now called Template:NewZealand-stub, Template:NewZealand-bio-stub and Template:NewZealand-geo-stub. They got this way after this discussion Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/September,  The conclusion here was to reverse redirects with a fairly clear statement not to delete. So I think I will restore. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Others include (from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20141026143436&type=delete&user=Wizardman&page=&tagfilter= etc)


 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Present your case against each of these.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that these look like improper deletions. Redirects are cheap and certainly ones that have existed since 2008 (on average) should not be unilaterally deleted by an admin. One would think an admin of 's experience would know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * seems to have mass deleted another set of redirects 26 October 2014 that restored that Wizardman deleted again. (If I'm extrapolating from the history of NJ-school-stub correctly) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Very simply, stub types should be accessible to editors, so that they can be accessed and found, same as any other redirect use. Redirects make finding that stub types exist much easier, since one would expect the standard abbreviations to be available such as "NZ" or "NJ", since stub-type template names do not follow standard grammar rules. Thus all the UAE, NJ and NZ redirects should be restored ; consider that US-bio-stub exists and UK-stub so one would expect at the very least the country of New Zealand should be available.-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have restored all of these, excluding talk pages, and many others deleted by Wizardman out of process.  He was given ample time to reply here or his talk page and chose not to reply.  I could have taken this to deletion review, but prefer to be BOLD and also not create unnecessary drama.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Young Drivers of Canada
''I, TeeMarek, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' TeeMarek (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The page was to be modified by another user which did not occur. I would like to correct it and publish it. I apologize for the confusion and lack of response. Regards, Tee Marek and then click the "Save page" button below -TeeMarek (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2015 (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. What is needed is references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Discourse of Power
Please userify this to User:Achatani/sandbox (the original location). Was a student draft for a course this term. Thanks. -Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:DuOS-M
''I, 63.147.10.3, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' 63.147.10.3 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol note.svg|16px|link=|alt= ]] Note: This page was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11, indicating an page that was irredeemably promotional or blatant advertising. Note that G11 deletions are more an issue with the tone of the page as opposed to its sources or formatting. As articles deleted under G11 need to be rewritten from scratch, they will not be undeleted here or anywhere else; try contacting the deleting administrator in order to be emailed a copy of the article as it stood at time of deletion. While a G13 can normally be restored, G11s will not be restored here. — Jeremy   v^_^v  Bori! 22:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Its War Image.jpg
Please undelete and insert. Thanks. - Wil ly  Wea zley  23:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, the OTRS record looks OK, although the "sent to me personally" source line doesn't quite jibe with the OTRS communication. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Father Bentley
''I, 98.116.53.122, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' 98.116.53.122 (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2015 (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) 02:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ranjit_Kumar_Das



 * 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 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Tilly with Spiky Hands
''I, Cspoon97, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Cspoon97 (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shigemi Inagaki
''I, Kaarutomuson, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Kaarutomuson (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2015 (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 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Kaarutomuson, the submission has been moved to Draft:Shigemi Inagaki. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)