Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 148

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145Archive 146Archive 147Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150→Archive 155

Robbie Daymond

Voice actor recently tweeted he was surprised to find out his wikipedia entry had been deleted and asked if anyone could help him. I would like to have it restored and update it with correct sourcing. It shows deleted for unsourced BLP -TheSkuggi (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the article has already been re-created, this time with a few sources, the lack of which was the reason for the prior deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiWand

I usually nominate commercial pages for deletion, but this time I'd like to nominate this for undeletion. The original page might have been poor - I cannot say as I cannot see it - but it's clear that the company/project has received coverage since enough to make it pass WP:CORP: [1], [2]. -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vizion Interactive

I, Joshuatitsworth, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Joshuatitsworth (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Law_of_One

I would like to merge all past discussions belonging to this topic, into the current article talk page's archive, so that future editors can refrain from discussing the same issues. -Logos (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Kan

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Kan

  • 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) 12:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leah Danielle

Jmoskowitz (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jmoskowitz: 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) 17:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

1-800-Charity Cars

I believe the page was deleted because of the references. Can you please reinstate the page and let me know what needs to be changed so I can fix it? -16:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)71.42.57.9 (talk)

Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1-800-Charity Cars, 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 Tawker (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Have discussed on talk page and explained rationale. Requester has stated they are employee of article subject, for any re-creation of article suggest articles for creation as restore/edit of article in mainspace is a clear WP:COI. Am open to userificaiton, but there isn't much to go off in deleted edits -- Tawker (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Devin Hays

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Tomp55 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Lassy Bouity

People need to know more about the Author -Arnaud Christ at PN Info (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)--Arnaud Christ at PN Info (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ra_(channeled_entity)

I would like to merge all past discussions belonging to this topic, into the current article talk page's archive, so that future editors can refrain from discussing the same issues. -Logos (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • My mistake; however since template does not ask "where we want it restored to", I thought you would restore to my user subpage. Ok, anyway, I fixed it manually, moved to archive1; thanks everyone. Logos (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Akin Adebayo Imoleayo

I, Femie15, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Femie15 (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Femie15: Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Read WP:Your first article for advice, and note that you need references to reliable sources to verify what the article says and to establish WP:Notability, see also WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kazakhstan radio and television corporation

I, 64.134.237.10, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 64.134.237.10 (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - there is no point in undeleting this AfC submission, because there is already an article at Kazakhstan Radio and Television Corporation. You are welcome to improve that, if you have more information with reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Neoperl Group

I, Tulpenfeld, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tulpenfeld (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ralphie Dee D'Agostino

Never finished editing -Ralphiedee (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Done. I'm going to assume you're writing this article about yourself (based on the user name). While I have restored the draft, I need to point out that writing about yourself carries with it a number of problems. It's very likely that your work will persist as a draft without ever becoming an article. Protonk (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Compeed

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -TigerInWoods (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Please don't delete Compeed page. I've just started working on it. The article is not finished yet. I would appreciate your advice on improving the article. Don't see many reasons to treat is as advertising as the brand is quite known and mentioned in many books as a proven solution for curing blisters. Check This link, for instance. -- TigerInWoods (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, nothing to do. This isn't the place to contest proposed deletions. Also, an administrator declined the speedy deletion nomination. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PASACAT

I, Datamonger, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Datamonger (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Done This has already been restored once, with no progress. Please work on it this time, but make an offline copy, as it is unlikely it will be restored if it goes another six months with progress.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Kristoffer Infante

My article is a valid entry and deserves to remain as it is. I am a true and legitimate actor and performer in the entertainment industry. I have included valid and lawful links to articles concerning who I am and my place in the industry and my article should be allowed to remain intact. If anything, I need assistance and guidance in providing the proper syntax in certain places. As I continue to input information and data, I will continue to supply only valid and correct information. -Kristoffer7 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Johncongo

Pls help me restore the page.. I want to create the article properly -Latertinsna 02:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help Latertinsna 00:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latertinsna (talk • contribs)

Brian Giffin

Brian Giffin, also known previously as Brian Fischer-Giffin is a well know Australian journalist and historian. When I search "Brian Giffin" on wikipedia, after telling me that there is no entry there are references below. Of the first 10 listings, 8 of these are the Brian Giffin I am trying to post a page about. When I get the chance I will try to edit these pages to link to Brian Giffin also. I feel that this page was deleted because it is my first post. The bands that mention Brian Giffin in their pages range from The Poor, Uriah Heap, Astenuu, Dungeon, Daysend and many more. 

  and then click the "Save page" button below -Courtney.giffin (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • While there is an assertion of notability, the biggest issue is that the article was very promotional in tone and would merit deletion under that speedy criteria. It also reads as if it was taken directly from a press release or other sort of copyrighted material, so there's that to contend with as well. I do have to warn you though, that being potentially usable as a reliable source doesn't always mean that someone is notable enough for an entry per our notability guidelines. There are actually quite a few people who are cited with somewhat regularity but fail notability guidelines. I also want to point you towards our conflict of interest guidelines, as your last name suggests that you are related to Brian Giffin. I'll post all of this on your talk page as well, with a bit more info. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frederick Shepherd (yacht designer)

I, Pmoxon, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Pmoxon (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Pmoxon: 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) 09:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vinay Sahasrabuddhe

I, Joshijayesh, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Joshijayesh (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Done - @Joshijayesh: 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) 11:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

GoldBug (software)

Although recently deleted in deletion discussion, this subject has very high chances of becoming notable over time. I would like to work on improving this article as a draft, so that it could be returned to main namespace when WP:GNG threshold is met. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC) -— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - no objection in principle, but I would prefer this decision to be made by the deleting admin, Joe Decker, who this message will ping. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
No objections to draftification, I'm on it. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Phillip Supernaw

The subject has now played in one NFL game, he had not when he was deleted -WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: Done Looks like he finally played a (preseason) game with the Ravens, so I restored in good faith under the assumption that he should meet WP:NGRIDIRON going forward. If he doesn't, the deletion should be revisited. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Yes, he now passes WP:NGRIDIRON. Just for clarification, preseason games don't count towards WP:NGRIDIRON. He appeared in a regular season game in December of 2013 after being deleted in September 2013. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see that one (with the Texans I assume). In any case, if he meets the guideline then we're good. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sonic Entity

After looking up the speedy deletion criteria given, i conclude that it is not warranted, since the article created is about creative work of an artist, who is signed by the major labels (IONO Records for instance) of the related music genre, with 11 publications, cited by Discogs. The google search for "sonic entity" contains 165k entries and the facebook page has 5900 followers. -prokaryotes (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC) prokaryotes (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done I grant you that not enough time was given, Restored and changed to prod. The article has now time to be saved, if enough reliable sources are provided to assert notability. -- Alexf(talk) 23:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Mario Despoja

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mario Despoja

I, Tundern, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tundern (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done now at Mario Despoja. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Best Mistake (Song)

This page should not be deleted because the page is in the works and its about a song that people want to know about and is by Ariana Grande who is famous.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jon Stokes

I, 109.158.233.90, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 109.158.233.90 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Mohan

Its the wikipedia of a famous celebrity and then click the "Save page" button below -175.101.67.11 (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • To argue against the article's deletion you have to go to the AfD for the page and show where Mohan has received coverage in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Most of the problems seem to stem that her coverage is almost solely about her performance on a dance show. I would also like to caution you that much of the coverage on the page, such as testimonies from various people who have worked with her, would not be considered to be a reliable source that would show notability. Coverage has to be independent of Mohan, the show, or anyone involved with the show or with Mohan herself. Adding sources or claims that can't be backed up by reliable sources really don't do anything to show notability and in many cases, can actually work against the article rather than for it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Time For Change Foundation

I, ProvenceAntiquities, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. SaintClair (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well what was there was too promotional. So please start again writing in a way suitable for an encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Singapore Bible College

I, Drrickgriffith, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Drrickgriffith (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/maureen lunt

I, Ml3369, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. would like to amend article to meet standards Ml3369 (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearview Mall (Louisiana)

Found a few sources, such as this, to improve the article. -Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer:  Done I have userfied it to User:TenPoundHammer/Clearview Mall (Louisiana). As this was deleted at AfD, best check with the closing admin, Michig, before restoring it. JohnCD (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ThinkingRock

I would like to add external links to review of the product. This software has other competitors which are allowed to have a page on wikipedia so I don't see the difference. We have many users happy with the product and it is the only one which is multi platform with data saved locally -ClaireLem (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Suraj K Shah

Suraj K Shah is a page of Indian actor and artist. I have provided many reference links also. and then click the "Save page" button below -Rajveertouch (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rajveertouch: Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suraj K Shah, 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 Joe Decker (talk · contribs). After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Titus Minucius Vettius

I, 25willp, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 25willp (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@25willp: Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. This page has never been submitted for review: please complete it and submit it as soon as convenient. "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The references are in a bit of a muddle: see Help:Referencing for beginners for advice. JohnCD (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Colours of South Africa

I, 81.145.129.171, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 81.145.129.171 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simply Gluten Free Magazine

I, M.Renae, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. M.Renae (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Done - @M.Renae: 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) 18:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Structure101

I, Robgey, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Robgey (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

 Possible. @Robgey: Hello Robgey. I am declining this request pending further information. You first submitted this in February 20, 2013. It was reviewed and declined on March 7, 2013 and then sat for ten months until deleted on January 14, 2014. Thereafter it was very quickly requested to be undeleted, which it was. It then sat unedited for another seven months. Articles for creation is not an indefinite hosting service for material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia proper. Do you have some immediate plan to improve this draft to meet the decline bases and submit it for further review? What do you plan to do?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1000Bulbs.com

I, Tungstenlightbulb, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tungstenlightbulb (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Kiyoshi Shiina

Removing Request. I will continue to work on the article as a userfied article. -CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/shiina

Embryonics Project

The Embryonics Project is our proprietary research (Prof. Daniel Mange and team at the Swiss Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland). The page on wikipedia entitled Embryonics Project which was deleted (by Carlos Suarez under suspicion of copyright infringement) had been initiated by said Prof. Mange. The reference provided by Carlos Suarez as reason to suspect copyright infringement from the University of York website is actually a summary published by G. Tempesti, a former assistant of Prof. Mange and unambiguously refers to Prof. Mange. The other reference is currently dead ("page not found") and must have been as well a reference to Prof. Mange's research. You may look up the article BIOWALL on wikipedia for further information about Prof. Mange's research and explicit reference to the Embryonics Project. Therein is described the collaboration with the University of York, where part of the Biowall from the Swiss Institute of Technology (EPFL)has been placed since Gianluca Tempesti, previously with Prof. Daniel Mange's Laboratory of Logic Systems at the EPFL, is now employed. In short: the Embryonics Project was initiated at the EPFL and is being continuated at the University of York. The York reference is subsequent to any EPFL publication and therefore the Embryonics Project article contains no copyright infringement. Prof. Mange is therefore asking you to reinstate the original article under en.wikipedia.org/Embryonics_Project. -Dmange (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Not done. It is really irrelevant whether something on some other website was published before or after any EFPL publication. Wikipedia cannot re-publish content that has already been published elsewhere without explicit written permission from the copyright holder sent to the Wikimedia Foundation, and we cannot rely on a random user account's claims to have authority over that content. Furthermore, the article as it was written looks more like an organizational brochure than an encyclopedia article, coming across as somewhat promotional, and therefore should be re-written afresh. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The page on Wikipedia entitled Embryonics Project was deleted by Carlos Suarez under suspicion of copyright infringement; the reference provided by Carlos Suarez as reason to suspect copyright infringement is visible on the University of York website at http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~gt512/embryonics.html and concludes with the following statement: "Text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonics_Project CC-By-SA 3.0". The Embryonics Project article contains therefore no copyright infringement and we kindly ask you to reinstate the original article under en.wikipedia.org/Embryonics_Project. As soon as the page will be reinstated we will start with the revision of the article in order to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, in particular by adding relevant internal links, and by improving the article's layout. -Dmange (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that the article was deleted due to a copyvio of a website having content that originated on Wikipedia. OK.
However, Wikipedia isn't the place for documenting research projects. The Wikimedia Foundation does maintain a place for such things, I recall it might be Wikisource or maybe Wikiversity. Probably WikiSource might be a better place to put this. I believe WikiSource is used by other researchers as a site for documenting their work.
Anyone else, feel free to chime in. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Where the text was published first or what license it had would be relevant if the only problem was whether or not we're willing to restore it, but it's not. The real problem is that the material is not really appropriate for Wikipedia, and I agree with Amatulić that this probably belongs in Wikisource, if at all. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Found it. In the past I got involved in a discussion about what to do with the now-deleted article Crisis bonding, because it wasn't really an encyclopedia article about a notable topic, but rather a page that documented the work of a researcher. The talk page consensus determined that Wikiversity:Crisis bonding would be the best home for it.
@Dmange:, would it be acceptable to transwiki the article to Wikiversity? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This does not seem like a valid argument. The page was deleted not due to lack of notability, or it being bad content for wikipedia. It was deleted specifically due to the reason of copyright infringement. If that problem is fixed, the page should logically be restored. If you feel that it should then be deleted for another reason, then it seems you would have to start a new AfD request to delete it for that new reason. I don't know the official route to clearing up copyright infringement issues, but it certainly isn't to redirect the issue into something else. It makes it sound as if you are biased. 66.220.250.160 (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Please answer the question. If it wasn't clear from the commentary above, the article would be speedy-deletable for reasons other than copyvio; specifically WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. The question is: Given that the page does not belong on Wikipedia, should the content be kept somewhere else? Wikiversity might be one place. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you. The concept of the page looks fine. You have to assume good faith, and you can't assume the page will return and be in the same form as before. Nor can you decide new reasons that the page doesn't belong that had nothing to do with the original reason the page was deleted. That's clear, blatant bias, and you should not be participating in these deletion reviews if you cannot hold your bias in check or act in a consistent manner. The page was deleted due to copyright issues. No other issue was listed or discussed, and any other claims on your part as to it being deleted for "other reasons" is pure 100% speculation unless it provably happens.66.220.250.160 (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, please answer the question. For the second time you have failed to do so. No one has claimed that the article was deleted for other reasons, only that it would have been. Do not attribute motives to others that do not exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you aren't displaying consistent logic here. It is not productive to talk about what "would have happened" in some hypothetical alternative universe where the past happened differently, and then use that extremely weak and subjective excuse to dictate that an article should stay deleted. I'm fairly certain that's not how wikipedia is supposed to function. The listed reason for deletion is copyright infringement. If that reason is resolved, the article should be returned. If you feel it should be deleted for some other reason, then you would have to submit it to AfD and follow through the motions.66.220.250.160 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Chiming in here a little late: the problem beyond the whole copyvio concern is that ultimately we have to ask if the topic would survive an AfD (articles for deletion) discussion if it was restored and run through another deletion process. From what I can see above, it looks like the more pressing concern at this point is that the project has not received coverage in sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. There is little point to restoring it to the mainspace on Wikipedia if it looks like it will inevitably be deleted and it is well within the rights of any administrator to decline a restoration request based on this. We absolutely require coverage in order to show notability and back up claims made in any article, regardless of what it discusses. The biggest problem with a lot of things that deal with science, medicine, or scholarly-type articles is that in many cases, the topics tend to not get a lot of coverage unless they become so large and major that they dominate most journals and texts. What we typically run into is that most articles, books, and journal entries are written by people who are involved with the project/group, which makes those into WP:PRIMARY sources rather than sources that are independent. For example, this source looks like it would be usable as a RS since it is published through a RS and is by someone that does not appear to be involved with the EP. However there is an added layer of difficulty here: we need sources to back up all of the information in the article and it's highly preferred that they not be primary, as we need to have everything verified. We can't just take the word of the scientists running the projects for multiple reasons. I don't mean to suggests that your group is doing this, but there have been multiple studies in the past where people slightly fudged or just outright falsified data in order to further their personal goals. The Bogdanov affair is an excellent, excellent example of this. Again, not saying that your group is doing this in the slightest- most scientific groups try to be as honest and transparent as possible, but this is part of the reason we need that coverage. (Other than for notability standards, of course.) I would suggest that the best course of action here is to accept the offer to transwiki everything to Wikiversity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Basically the TL;DNR of this is that an administrator can decline a request if they feel that the page would still ultimately fail notability guidelines, regardless of the original deletion reason. We absolutely must have coverage in reliable sources to show notability and to back up claims made in an article because people can and have manipulated the system (Wikipedia and elsewhere) in the past. Wikiversity is the best course of action here for the time being. If/when you can provide coverage that is not primary and is in a reliable source, then that might sway the discussion in a more favorable light. Stating that an admin's decision is because of a bias and insulting them is not a good way to solve the issue, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
As I can see, if this is the kind of logic being displayed, then this whole system is not working at all. For one, you saying "if they feel that the page would still ultimately fail notability guidelines" is not good enough. I see no rules or policies in place that would allow this sort of behavior, nor do you cite any. For you to say that you "feel the page would ultimately fail guidelines" is really no different than you saying "this page is staying deleted because I said so" -- and bypassing the entire formal system of rules. No justification seems to be required on your part. In fact, the only justification you could make is "there exists a page that was similar that also got deleted" -- but as you should well know, this is not a valid argument. What you are doing is you are assuming bad faith (this is discouraged) and you are preventing people from being bold (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold). It looks more like you're inventing new reasons why an article can't stay, and replacing the purpose of entire groups -- or trying to. I'm not really sure how to step over you guy's heads here, but it looks like it's going to be needed. Again, if the reason the article was deleted is resolved - then the article should be undeleted. Period. If you have some personal bias/vendetta against the article in question, then you would of course be welcome to follow it along, bombard it with AfD requests, and see it through the motions to get it deleted for brand new reasons. That would be the fair, unbiased way to do it.66.220.250.160 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that copyright infringement allowed this page to be deleted under the "Speedy Deletion" criteria. If there was a NPOV problem, or a notability problem, it would not qualify as a "Speedy deletion" candidate. Thus, these justification to keep it deleted is in conflict with the rules, and is basically an administrative power play -- abuse of authority.66.220.250.160 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The next step if you do not agree with the answer you get here is to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. GB fan 14:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I will add, 66.220.250.160, are you going to answer the question posed above, or not? Is Wikiversity or WikiSource an appropriate place to restore then content? Please stop avoiding this. I am ready and willing to restore the content to either of those places immediately. I will not restore it to main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No. The appropriate place to restore the content would be the exact location where the content was deleted from. Assuming the reason for deletion has been resolved, there should be no reason not undelete the article.66.220.250.160 (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Then the way to "step over you guy's heads" is to go to WP:Deletion review. Before you do that, read Wikipedia:No original research carefully, noting particularly the passage: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It's irrelevant. This undeletion process is not supposed to be the playground of administrators exercising their ability to selectively enforce rules. An article was deleted for reason X. No other reason was specified. Reason X is resolved. Article should be restored. Period. If you feel that there are new reasons to delete the article, then it would prompt a deletion discussion. It should not and is not the job of administrators to invent hypotheticals or say things like "well I'm pretty sure it would be deleted anyways." That's simply not good enough, and is no replacement for an actual review. Wikipedia seems to have gone downhill rapidly.66.220.250.160 (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. The page will not be undeleted because it was a copyright violation. Swaths of the text are copied word-for-word for or with very minor changes from here and here – books published in 2001 and 2002. Thus, while the original entry was mistakenly identified as a copyright violation of the website's text, that was actually copied from here, the original text placed here was a copyright violation from inception. Note that in order to use non-free copyrighted text (beyond short quotations identified as quotations by being enclosed in quote marks and cited to an inline citation) we require that the copyright holder irrevocably release the text itself, to the world, under a free license compatible with ours (or into the public domain).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicolas Galpin

Hello, I wish to make a request for the restoration of the page Nicolas Galpin because when I created for the first time was a draft that I'm beginning because I did not quite understand the features of Wikipedia. Thereby legitimize page was deleted. Then I created another page in the name of Nicolas Galpin that has been deleted I do not really know why, I later re-created the page was deleted each time to legitimize "Creating page previously deleted ". I definitely wish I could create a page that is in any way false and that meets the conditions for a sports (football), he is a professional footballer who plays in a professional league, I can give sources and references to prove all the content (article about his signature in the club, his profile on the basis of global transfermarkt.co.uk given his profile on the website of the football club in question, articles on tests that it could be as mentioned in the page). Content is right and I am in good faith, however I have certainly sinned in how to make the launch of the page and it is to repair this mistake I make this request. I hope I explained well enough so that the motion to succeed. Thank you, Regards. -Impomus (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a topic-relevant reliable source stating that he has appeared on the pitch during a match for a fully professional club. Once you've given us a link or a citation to a print source with this information, we should have no reason to object to undeletion. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

miro tomarkin

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Atlamecho (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC) articles: Official (verified page) : https://www.facebook.com/pages/Miro-Tomarkin/248834578531534 other pages: http://www.saatchiart.com/mirotomarkin Interview during Vienna artshow in the Palace Schoenborn, Museum fuer Junge Kunst, 1010 Vienna Google : just put Miro Tomarkin into google search. I am planning to write an article as it is a contempory happening and impacts the artworld. Besides his own art, he's also Panel member and cultural connector in a project, funded by the British arts council (£ 830'000 and boosted with the arts budget of the London Borough 3120'000) to change a low performing area into an art destination. I would like to undo the deletion of a previously written one, in order to write a new article under the same title. (Miro Tomarkin contemporary Artist)

  • I can't find any deleted pages under this name in either the mainspace or in AfC. If you can show us the page name specifically we can do something, but offhand I can't find anything. On a side note, I'd like to say that official pages and anything released by the artist himself would be seen as a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used to show notability. I'd also like to add that since you stated that you were authorized to create the page by Tomarkin, you have a WP:COI. You can still edit with a conflict of interest, but you will need to read over all of the applicable policies and make sure to follow them very closely. I'll leave a comment on your talk page as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not doneFound it. There was nothing there to restore, really. The whole article is only a few sentences long and is comprised of "Miro Tomarkin Artist currently living in London. Born 23rd of August 1963. Most recent works : meet the Chernobyl Family, or when people play with atoms...". That's not really enough to warrant restoring, so the best bet here is to just start afresh at AfC. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Tivo's Media File System

This article was deleted as an expired PROD, so undeletion should be automatic. The rationale alleged that the topic failed GNG. In fact this topic clearly passes GNG. There is extensive coverage of this topic in GBooks. It is discussed on 39 separate pages of "TiVo Hacks" by Krikorian (O'Reilly Media, 2003) and on 88 separate pages of "Hacking TiVo" by Keegan (Wiley, 2004). (It is referred to by the abbreviation MFS). The rationale also alleged that the article was OR. I was not able to inspect the article for long enough to determine whether that was in fact the case, but I do not think it is safe to assume that it was. -James500 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@James500: Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Wikipedical (talk), 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. You are welcome to improve the article: at present, as you will see, it is referenced entirely to a FAQ on a user-group site, and statements like "The primary reason Tivo devised such a system is because... " do indeed smack of OR. JohnCD (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ritch Gaiti

I, Rgaiti, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Rgaiti (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  •  Not done This G13 has now been deleted at least twice, and was undeleted once before with the understanding that it either had to be finished, or deleted. As such, undeletion is not possible at this time. Keep in mind WP:COI and the fact that you agreed not to write about yourself when you joined the project the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete Freeland

I, 157.127.124.151, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 157.127.124.151 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete Freeland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelapl (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Freelapl: 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) 17:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_148&oldid=1138663749"