Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 245

ICCG
ICCG Wiki Article was just for Information purpose and i wrote that Article and was trying to add more information and references there but admin delete that Article so please undelete that Article -Prikunj Sharma (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done and will not be done You were already given an answer to this above, as the article was deleted because it was unambiguously promotional. You already have a copy at AfC that you can work on cleaning up and sourcing. Asking repeatedly will not change anything, nor will it change if a different account asks, which is fairly suspicious given that they posted shortly after you did. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

ICCG
i searched for ICCG on Wikipedia but got to know that Article got deleted due to some issues and there is a Draft of ICCG, i dont think that there should be some problem to Wikipedia so keeping that Article -Missalishasharma (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done and will not be done This was already declined earlier and there was a second request posted by the same person only moments before. A third request by a different account will not change this. The article is very promotional, which is why it was deleted, and the draft needs a lot of work before it could even remotely be considered appropriate for Wikipedia. Since you came on only moments after the last account, I have to assume that you are someone that asked to make a request, especially given that you both have the same last name. This is not really a good idea and Sharma has already been told that if he wants to have the article restored he needs to improve the draft article by removing the promotional prose and showing where the company has received coverage in independent, reliable sources (WP:RS) to where it'd meet WP:NCORP. Press releases and anything released by the company or its affiliates (WP:PRIMARY) will not establish notability, nor will most business awards or recognition. This is because there are so many types of business awards/recognitions that they tend to be non-notable and routine on here. I must warn you both, most businesses do not pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia, regardless of the company's size, success, or longevity. A particularly long running and successful company can be more likely to gain coverage, but it's never a guarantee and there are multi-million dollar companies that routinely fail notability guidelines on Wikipedia. In any case, repeatedly trying to seek the article's restoration before you have remedied the issues will make it far less likely that the article will be restored. It can also be seen as disruptive, which could end with one or more accounts getting blocked. This is especially something I need to emphasize, since it looks like there has been at least one account opened in an attempt to get the article restored, which can be seen as a violation of WP:MTPPT. I'm sorry if this is harsh, but I need to emphasize that only working on the article and improving it to meet guidelines will be effective here. Posting the article "as is", which is effectively what you are all requesting, is not an option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It actually looks like this account was opened a few years ago, however the concerns of you creating multiple accounts in order to promote a specific business and person (you created an article for an employee of ICCG) is still something that needs to be addressed. Cleaning up the draft is really your best/only option here.
 * It looks like you both have received several warnings about writing about things related to you to the point where you should be aware of at least the basics of editing with a conflict of interest (in particular shows an awareness that he should be disclosing his COI via this edit so I have to assume that you are aware of this given the timing of your edits, meaning that he had to have asked you), so please work on the draft and go through AfC. You must do this properly. Too many attempts to circumvent the work that must be done, especially to restore a promotional article, will only make it harder for any potential recreation of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I took a closer look at the draft and it looks like it's actually a copyright violation from this source and this one, among others., , I'm nominating the draft for speedy deletion due to copyright concerns because Wikipedia cannot retain copyrighted material per WP:COPYVIO, as the site takes copyrights seriously. You can still create a new draft via AfC, but it must be written in your own words and in a non-promotional tone. You cannot use material that has previously been published elsewhere since the content is automatically assumed to be copyrighted unless clearly marked as released under a compatible creative commons license. You can get ICCG to release the content as fair use but it must still be re-written in order to be non-promotional and as the company does not own the rights to the content released by the WBENC, this content would need to be re-written for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 
 * No opinion on the merits of this, but I don't think asking the ICCG for permission is a worthwhile effort; promotional text is something we can usually do without. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Yoshi24517/AWB-settings.js
That was my AWB script settings page. I have my settings set to find and replace the Db-afc template, and that's why it's showing up there. Could you please restore it? Thanks! - Yoshi24517 Chat Online 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, but you need to exclude the  template in some way - otherwise the page will show up in the speedy deletion category and be deleted if an admin batch processes the category (in my opinion that is very bad practice, unless you have vetted each item in the cat before the deletion individually). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

user:desigennulliah
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Desi Alvio 18:07, 14 September 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Niyi Akinmolayan
I would like for this page to be userfied or emailed to me so it can be modified for use on wikipedia.

Thank you -Diva inc (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since it is also promotional and only contained one sentence, I think it best if you start again from scratch in your user sandbox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Children's Book Council of Iran
''I, Ssharafva, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Ssharafva (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2016 (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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brian O'Connor (actor)
''I, Ddlfan, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Ddlfan (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:Brian O'Connor (actor). 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) 19:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Goddard
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -31.6.195.189 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2016 (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/Neville Goddard, 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. JohnCD (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Eric Paley
No reasoning given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startups101 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (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) 19:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Davis
''I, Grettadawn, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Grettadawn (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2016 (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 (｡◕‿◕｡)  02:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Blueair
Unfortunately the person responsible for editing the Blueair wikipedia article stopped handling the project and did not inform us that there was a proposed deletion in process. we are more than happy to work with your administrators to resolve this issue so we do not in any infringe Wikipedia's guidelines. thank you -Noblewriter (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Noblewriter (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion G11. 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Zimbabwe $1 billion 2008 Obverse.jpg
The file was deleted as F8 - a copy on commons. However that has been deleted as of 8 Sep 2016 throwing up a missing file error on Banknotes of Zimbabwe -KylieTastic (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, but I trust that there won't be any WP:NFGALLERY complaints if the file is restored as non-free? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a bit odd that they singled out that one file in many - I'm wondering if it was just tagged wrong? Maybe it was left as Non Free from EN:WP and not re tagged like the rest i.e. its other side File:Zimbabwe $1 billion 2008 Reverse.jpg is marked as public domain. KylieTastic (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was tagged as free PD-ZW-currency. Commons has such a template as well but commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zimbabwe $1 billion 2008 Obverse.jpg sounds like this wasn't considered at all - pinging to get their input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Commons template mentions the need of the note to have been demonetized. Has this 2008 banknote already been demonetized? If so, I can easily restore the commons image and tag it with PD-ZW-currency.  INeverCry   22:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a claim in the edit history here that it was: "06:11, 21 June 2010 . . Marianian (talk | contribs | block) (461 bytes) (→‎Licensing:: Licence change: Banknote demonetised in April 2009)" No source or anything else beyond the edit summary, though. —Cryptic 23:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All we have in the Commons history is a fair-use rationale that somehow lasted from Nov 2010 till it was tagged for deletion last week... But a note being printed and demonetized within a year or less sounds a bit off, though admittedly currency is an area I've never touched (currency-related DRs are pretty rare at COM:DR). I'd have to see a source for that 2009 claim to restore it on Commons myself though.  INeverCry   06:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this revolves arround Marianian's comment pinging them to see if they have a source for the statement. KylieTastic (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * this document covers the demonetizeation of the 2008 Trillion dollar notes with 10 Trillion being valued at USD$0.04 so making this 1 Billion worth USD$0.000004 so allthough I cant find an explicit statement of this note it seams clear that all these notes issued in 2008 were demonetized. KylieTastic (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So any comment on the above? Looking at the actual article and doing some googling it appears the hyper-inflation did end in the demonetisation of all these old notes that became valueless. . Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * commons:User talk:INeverCry is where the discussion happened, it's held up by a technicality it seems. Do you want a preliminary local restoration? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, sorry I wasn't aware the discussion had moved. I don't 'want' anything as I have no interest in the subject per se, I was just flagging as it was an inconsistency I noticed as part of my 'work' I do here. It would seam that either all of the notes are valid or invalid, just picking on one side of one is just weird. These sort of copyright issues confuse me, so I'll leave it to those better suited. I only added this as it seamed things had just stalled. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I nominated only one to get the discussion going in hopes we could get it all fixed at Commons. You might have been really upset if all of them were nominated simultaneously.  So one was picked on which to have the discussion, and we're working on it.  Sorry that it's seemed to go slowly; it's fire season out here and I was without power/internet off and on for five days. I am certain that the discussion will be resolved shortly and most likely this one file will be restored.  Thanking you again for your patience.   Cheers!  Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/B2Brazil
''I, Gardinerjd, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Gardinerjd (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2016 (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 (｡◕‿◕｡)  00:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

File:DOORN Records.png


This image was upload by TheCorrectorr as non-free back on March 9, and I have converted into the public domain, because I see the five letters D, double O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text, all look like a square and are a simple geometric rectangle and seems therefore unlikely to be complex and dubious in terms of meeting the threshold of originality in my mind and therefore and  would apply here. That is why the simple geometric rectangle consisting of five letters D, O, O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text that all look like a square certainly does seem dubious in terms of meeting the threshold of originality. However, on August 20, this image was transferred to Wikimedia Commons as it was checked and is okay to move to Commons, but one day later, Natuur12 nominated this image (along with other logos, which only consist of simple geometric shapes and/or text) for deletion and said that this logo is "complex logo" and this image was deleted on August 28. But it seems highly unlikely to me that this is copyrightable, complex enough, not simple to be copyrighted, a copyright violation, that this does not only consist of simple geometric shapes and/or text, that there are bite out of the side of these "dice" (both in size and location), or that there are creative elements on this logo, who have have mistakenly assumed anything (which I see are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of shapes and/or text) uploaded here he finds on Commons can be nominated for deletion as "complex logo". And also, it seems highly unlikely to me that I certainly did upload copyvios or "file in violation of COM:L after warnings ans previous blocks" (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.) in that same day after Magog the Ogre (who extended the expiration time for an indefinite amount of time by changing the block settings, with no more any rights to do something to get unblocked, such as requesting unblock on the own talk page and using email to get unblocked in Wikimedia Commons) unblocked me on August 20th in Wikimedia Commons. I have only uploaded images, which are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text on August 20 and 21. And also, I have failed to see how much complex this logo is. It's just text and five squares that look like the letters D, O, O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text and the five squares that look like the letters D, O, O, R and N that look like a square are a simple geometric rectangle. I think that this logo was submitted for copyright registration at the U.S. Copyright Office, appealed twice, and was denied all three times on grounds that there was not sufficient artistic creativity in the design. Pinging, who deleted this image on August 28, despite I have failed to see how much complex this logo is and despite I see the five letters D, double O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text, all look like a square and are a simple geometric rectangle. XPanettaa (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That image is surely complex enough that it could be copyrighted, it ain't just geometry but trying to replicate the apparel of dices. If the US copyright office denied copyright registration, we'd need evidence of this - or rather, the folks at commons:Commons:Requests for undeletion would need it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * First I would note that the above editor XPanettaa is indefinitely blocked at Commons for copyvios and sockpuppetry by, an experienced admin and CU. As regards the logo, the design seems above COM:TOO to me, but I'm a bit strict on that sometimes. XPanettaa can't make a request at COM:UDEL though. If Magog has time, he can look at this here or at Commons. I would certainly go with his judgement if he wanted to restore this on Commons.  INeverCry   00:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I think it is below TOO. If it is nominated for deletion again, I left a courtesy note to inform me so I can undelete as fair use on English Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that the threshold of originality is low in the Netherlands, but I see the five letters D, O, O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text, are all squares. And also, I have verified this file and I'm afraid we disagree on the complexity of this logo. This is clearly PD-textlogo and PD-shape. By the way, it seems highly unlikely to me that I certainly and recently did things in Commons, including copyright violations, sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, and so on. And also, it is very unlikely that I necessarily have two, three or more sock puppet accounts or that my account is a confirmed sock puppet account. I only have one account and my account is a confirmed main account and no sock puppet. And also, I have only uploaded images, which are too simple to be copyrighted as it only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text on August 20 and 21 and therefore not copyvios or "file in violation of COM:L after warnings ans previous blocks" (such as attack files, stupid, offensive, blatant and/or rough things, file with a name that would be a violation of Commons' policies and guidelines, or reproductions of other inappropriate works, etc.) after Magog the Ogre (who extended the expiration time for an indefinite amount of time by changing the block settings, with no more any rights to do something to get unblocked, such as requesting unblock on the own talk page and using email to get unblocked in Wikimedia Commons) unblocked me on August 20th in Wikimedia Commons. XPanettaa (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree that this is "clearly" PD-shape. Maybe you have a court or copyright office ruling to back you up, but until then it's not a "clear" case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be true, but all the five letters D, O, O, R and N above the "Doorn Records" text, are considered clearly squares in my opinion. However, it seems that the copyright holder of this work is allowing anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification. XPanettaa (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is such a thing as "selection and arrangement" copyright that could apply to such a logo containing elements that individually are simple. Do we have proof that the copyright holder of this work is allowing anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. We do have a proof that "the copyright holder of this work is allowing anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification", in which case it should be relicensed to on Commons. XPanettaa (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is that proof? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but it seems likely to me that the copyright holder of this work certainly does allow anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification. I have chosen, in which case this work should be relicensed to on Commons. XPanettaa (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Polymerase chain reaction
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -96.232.88.42 (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC) I was going to add something on to the list that I learned from other sites, but I accidently highlighted and pressed space, and I pressed save changes by mistake. I'm sorry for this mistake.
 * Not a proper undeletion request, but I've reverted the edit anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Holograf
One of the most famous Romanian bands, nominated multiple times for Romanian Music Award pentru Best Group, Romanian Music Award pentru Best Song. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media from Romania. Has had more than a hit on a national music chart in at least one medium-sized country. Has released two or more albums on the most important Romanian label before the '90, Electrecord	 and after the 90's Mediapro Music, Roton Also mentioned in Music of Romania article -Ionutzmovie (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Deki
''I, HelenBoardman1512, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' HelenBoardman1512 (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Handled in the query below. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Deki
Have received significant independent news coverage which will address previous 'notability' feedback -HelenBoardman1512 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters
It isn't fair that the National Hockey League's premiere championship event doesn't have its own individual article for its broadcasters while other sports do. That article took a really long, extensive time to set up and put together to just let it go by the waste-side. And just because they aren't fully sourced on the proper article itself, doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't non the less, more thoroughly sourced on the respective articles for said television networks (American, Canadian and French Canadian). -BornonJune8 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you mean the article rather than your redirect, 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/List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward Laborio
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Elaboriosr (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2016 (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. Check out WP:NBASE for Wikipedia's notability standard for baseball players. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Gabrielle Kurlander
This article for Gabrielle L. Kurlander, President and CEO of All Stars Project, Inc. was submitted in May after making a number of refinements per Wikipedia’s editorial recommendations. We were told to wait for approval, but it appears that the draft was deleted in July. We had been in conversation with Wikipedia over the last 6 months in order to revise the draft to adhere to Wikipedia standards. I do not have the username of the original submission. Please let me know if there is any additional information that you need in order to process this request. -100.12.162.139 (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2016 (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'm not aware of any activity in May. The draft was submitted on 22 January, and declined the next day, for reasons explained in the box at the top; but nothing more was done, it was not resubmitted, the IP that submitted it never edited again. so after six months it was deleted as abandoned. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

American Association of Young People - Young Americans United
''I, David Trane, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' David Trane (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2016 (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) 09:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Brytiago
This page is completely real, and it is MUST exist on Wikipedia. This person is a singer from Puerto Rico, read the page (if possible) I've realized that many people are searching for his biography while his biography is only available in Latin sites that many can't find and don't understand. I still don't understand the reason that someone requested to delete my page, I checked out the Wikipedia help to find a way to verify that this page is real but I couldn't find anything helpful, plus, I am Spanish and my English may not be so good, but it is enough to create a page or to start an article. Please read the page, search on other sites about him as well and you will know that everything is real. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Era.lmtwgr (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * there is no MUST about it - there will be a page only if it meets Wikipedia's standards. It has not yet been deleted; it has been proposed for deletion because it has no references. The Verifiability policy is that "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources". So what you have to do first is, provide references to verify what the article says. They do not need to be in English, but they should be from sources independent of the artist himself.


 * Even with references, I am not sure that an article will be kept. Wikipedia is quite selective about subjects for articles: please check out WP:Notability (music) which explains what a musical performer needs to have achieved before having an article. If he has only just released his first official single, it is probably WP:Too soon for an article.


 * You might consider trying to create a page in the Spanish Wikipedia, where you could get experience of Wikipedia and get advice in your own language. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

JohnCD Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Era.lmtwgr (talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Geordie Robinson
''I, Summers86, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Summers86 (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2016 (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) 11:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

DJ EmicVee
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Emicvee (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

DJ EmicVee is a living person, am not DJ EmicVee. I used his name to open this account thinking that is how it's done here not until i found out that i don't need to write about the person who owns the account. Am sorry, but i want to change the account name cause of next time and my name is James Adams. Thank You.
 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Cafe Junczion
I am not a promotor of the mentioned cafe. I have visited this cafe recently and thought that I would list them in Wikipedia. There is two mor more reasons for that, one is this is the first cafe which offers a executive business lounge in Kollam, which would be great help for the business people in and around Kollam. Second thing is they provide complimentary Wi-Fi which is also unique to themselves. They have won the Kerala Financial Corporation's best project young entrepreneurs loan award to start up this venture. There CSR activity is to recruit low class women's in society and provide them training in order to earn for their living in service industry. When they said me about this while my visit in the cafe last week I thought to create an article about them. It is not clearly with any business goals. Please trust me. -Issacpanicker007 (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC) I do not know why they have put a speedy deletion tag for this simple article, might be they thiking that I am prmoting this business. If you see I am just a beginner in Wikipedia I might have done mistakes while creating an article but they as a senior and most respected people should guide me if I have written or updated anything wrong.

I kindly request the admin to please hear my request and please suggest me if any changes required in the article.

Thanks and Regards,

Issacpanicker007 (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Issac
 * ❌. There were two problems with that article:
 * You may not be a promoter of the cafe, but it certainly read as if you were its advertising agent. It was extremely promotional in tone: "provides premium bakery products... no compromise in quality and which is completely affordable by any customers... best in class service, pastries, cakes and more... executive business lounge which will cater all the business needs... " That was not an encyclopedia article, it was an advertisement, and anything like that is speedily deleted from Wikipedia. We are not here to sell anything.
 * It did not give any references to verify what it said. An article will be speedily deleted if it does not give some idea why its subject is important or significant (that is not the same as ad-speak); and if it is to be kept, it needs references that show significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish Notability.
 * If you want to try again, you need to start with a clean sheet. Read WP:Your first article and then use WP:Articles for creation to guide you through the process. Don't rely on what the cafe says about itself: collect references about it from independent sources, and base the article on them. Read WP:PEACOCK and maintain a WP:Neutral point of view. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

User:JwarrenVo/sandbox
''I, JwarrenVo, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' JwarrenVo (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2016 (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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Amber Fox
Amberfox399 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2016 (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 (｡◕‿◕｡)  02:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ajay Verekar
''I, Sangeeta verekar, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Sangeeta verekar (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2016 (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 colored button in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft for review!" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

NANI KRISH
NANI KRISH is a very notable person in india and he is proved prodigy who worked on vfx at the age of 8 years and he is also directing the film named as The-Oppera and he is popular known for eega spoof by kids and he is also a producer asa well as director

i dont want NANI KRISH page to be deleted these are his following references if u can hepl in improving article u can do it but pls remove the deletion tag from page

1.http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/Prodigy-by-birth.Creative-by-choice/2016/06/21/article3491862.ece 2.http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Hyderabad-Tab/2016-08-23/My-mothers-work-inspired-me/249961 3.http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/life-travels-in-a-way/article8982484.ece 4.http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/I-never-bonded-with-my-dad-but-hes-always-in-my-heart/articleshow/54295224.cms - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conquer192 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 September 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Low Zheng Yu
I will be improving the page and it is really a public figure that can bring more audience to wikipedia. -GNS1999 (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like the speedy deletion tag was already removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Federico Pistono
This article was deleted as per a deletion discussion in November 2013. A draft is being reviewed at Draft:Federico Pistono. Two contributors say that the draft addresses the notability issues, but, as a reviewer, I think that a burden is on the author to establish that they haven't just re-created the equivalent of the deleted article. Can the deleted article be restored to my user space, or to someone's user space? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC) -Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See the deleted article at http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Federico_Pistono. You should be able to compare the draft to that page which has identical content to last useful revision of Federico Pistono. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

https://nl.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jacky_Mathijssen&action=edit&redlink=1
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -81.165.90.21 (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry we cannot help you on a different Wiki such as the Dutch Wikiquote you linked in the header. You would have to find an administrator on nl.wikiquote.org and ask them about it. The English language article here Jacky Mathijssen is not deleted. The Dutch language article at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacky_Mathijssen also exists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

helpchat
It is a growing Bangalore startup with enough coverage and offices in Delhi & Mumbai also. It has 300+ employees. and the company is still growing with over 2.5 Million app downloads and then click the "Save page" button below -Himanshi 010 (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2016 (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/Helpchat, 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 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned that you might be a Itsmukeshhere sockpuppet, given that this article is one of the things that this user kept trying to add to Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hazrat Syed Safdar Bukhari, (Kakyaan wali sarkar)
''I, Bilalsarfrazaca, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Bilalsarfrazaca (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done This is pretty promotional in tone, enough to where you'd need to re-write it completely to meet NPOV and style guidelines. It was also completely sourced to Wikipedia, which cannot be used as a source on here to verify content and show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:22, 22 September 2016 (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. Your page is actually in your sandbox at User:Bilalsarfrazaca/sandbox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Vine_Balakrishnan_Kakkarezhathu
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Roshan154 (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

hi, Reasons for why the article was deleted. Most probably because the name of the person was spelled wrongly instead of Vinu its written as Vine. Below given are the other websites which can help.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7261109/ https://www.facebook.com/vinnybellack https://plus.google.com/100872368629951581486 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFPPB05bFT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqZFvQvUc4k https://twitter.com/VinnyBellack

and also it said like

this article uses material from the Wikipedia article Vine Balakrishnan Kakkarezhathu, that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Author(s): Mr Potto	Search for "Vine Balakrishnan Kakkarezhathu" on Google View Wikipedia's deletion log of "Vine Balakrishnan Kakkarezhathu"

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. In Template:Multiple issues, found parameter #1 as " Edit-clear.svg This article may have too many links, and could require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Per the Wikipedia style guidelines, please remove duplicate links, and any links that are not relevant to the context. (June 2015) Wiki letter w This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (June 2015)
 * 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/Vine Balakrishnan Kakkarezhathu, 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. -- GB fan 11:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Qassim Abdulkareem Qassim
The article should not be deleted because"
 * There are many sources
 * The article took more than 15 minutes to write
 * There is a page on the Imdb

It should be the reference for the decision to deletion. with all gratitude and appreciation -Ali.saed123 (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done and will not be done. None of the reasons you've given address the reasons for deletion, and we do not overturn deletion discussions here (as noted at the top of the page). The first deletion was because the content was blatantly promotional. The second was because there was a deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Qassim Abdulkarem, which addressed the merits of the subject's notability, i.e., whether there are sufficient reliable, secondary and independent sources to warrant an encyclopedia article. The third was because the re-post of the article does not look like it added any new sources to address the deletion basis at that discussion. And the other was because User:Ahmed maher saddam is blocked (and is probably you), and we do not allow articles to be re-posted by people in violation of their block or ban.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Empires (video game)
Stated reason for deletion: Expired PROD, concern was: No evidence of notability - all refs to download and directory pages, no third-party RSes at all since creation in 2008. There is at least a reference to a third party source from 2013. - Thexa4 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Parker M. Gamage

 * W2qob (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2016 (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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Blossom Ozurumba
I wish to ask that this page be reviewed again as the deletion is still quite not the best decision in my estimation. -Nwankwochi (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2016 (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/Blossom Ozurumba, 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. In this case the close is not outrageous, and one admin here will not unilaterally override the deletion debate closure. You can ask for a review at WP:DRV.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Shitpost
To be redirected to the new stub on Shitposting phenomenon --- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a little new to this process myself. I told you on my talk page to post your request here after the page was deleted at Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 27#Shitpost. Not sure how this is going to go.  But, just in case, the person who closed the RFD was .  So, if it is decided this is not the place for you to post the request, they are probably going to tell you to ask the person who closed the RFD. — Maile  (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Requests for Undeletion only applies to pages that have undergone deletion debates such as RFD if those discussions aren't well frequented, which was not the case here. Per the Deletion Review instructions, the proper procedure would be to post on my talk page here. That being said, it's technically not undeletion being requested here, it's unsalting, and WP:SALT says that the preferable admin to contact is one who salts the page. As the deleting admin, I would be okay with retargeting it to the new article, so if you're okay with unsalting, I'm leaving this in your hands. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - since neither the deleting nor the protecting admin objects, I have created the redirect. JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

cbr250
Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -129.15.64.241 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC) This page was very usefull in finding information about the old 1986-1992 cbr250rr and I see no reason for this page to be deleted.| Many people still ride this motorcycle and would like to find information about it. It is a very popular choice (one of the best begginer bikes and a part of history) just because a new one came out shouldn't meen that the previous one is irrelevant even tho its specifications are better and make the new one look worse it is still part of the histrory of this motorcycle
 * X mark.svg Please repair your request - we cannot process malformed requests. Please use the code (replacing   with the name of the page you wish to have restored and   with the reason for your request). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The requester means . Which was deleted via AFD. So....
 * 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/Yamaha FZR250, 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Clinical Human Factors Group
''I, FluffyTwit, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' FluffyTwit (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, draft restored. There wasn't really any content there, but it's back anyway. Please work on it. If it gets deleted again and there have been no improvements toward getting this acceptable for publication in main article space, it likely won't be restored again. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete Draft:Aishwarya Trust
''I, 49.207.53.49, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' 49.207.53.49 (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2016 (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) 08:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Marine Aquarium Conference of North America
''I, Hawaii4485, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it.'' Have time now to fix the suggestions that the ebay mods suggested. -Hawaii4485 (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2016 (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) 08:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)