Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 165

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160←Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167→Archive 170

Qible

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -James Hayden Parkman (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am wondering why the page Qible, for our game application, was deleted immediately, when we just began the process of creating it. The information was factual and relevant. I am a new Wikipedia user so am trying to navigate this process, it was deleted almost instantly.

Not done The article was clearly an advertisement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allama Syed Riaz Hussain Shah

I, Talibmirza, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Talibmirza (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EXIT (Art Magazine)

Medical issues prevented me from completing revisions - I am now again ready to work on it - reason for deletion: insufficient sources - this has been addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPetros1955 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • On a side note, some sections were somewhat too casually written to fit Wikipedia's writing style. It wasn't promotional or anything- it mostly just came across a little bit like a student paper at times. The thing to take into consideration is that while we should try to include as much as possible, less can sometimes be more when it comes to writing articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Xiao Hui Wang Art Museum Front Exterior Lower Res.jpg

More time to verify copyright status. -Piotr (Venezuela) (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion F7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. We don't undelete images where the copyright status is unclear; you need to verify the status first (ideally through WP:OTRS), then come here for undeletion. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Not done the source given was http://www.exhdesign.com/en/projects_detail.php?id=4295, and you can view it there. Claiming that someone cannot visit to take a picture does not look to be sufficient justification for fair use. Your rationale was "A free image may not reasonably be found or created; at least not by me, nor by an internet request. To create one, someone would have to physically go to the building, take it and release it under a GNU license or to the public domain. That is not a reasonable request". Going to Suzhou to photograph is not outside what someone on Wikipedia could do. We may even have people from there. See Category:Wikipedians in Suzhou. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for the feedback. How may I (or someone) contact these users in Suzhou to request a photograph for the article? Is there a general channel for such localized requests? Sincerely, Piotr (Venezuela) (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You can use the talk page of a person who is active, you can also consider the zh.wikpedia.org user activity too. User talk:Makecat is one user who has been active. There is also a requphoto template, but probably not so usefulnas a direct approach. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ari Frankel (composer, producer)

Please undelete as I am finally ready to complete and submit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameralmusic (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 December 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please return article. I would like to make substantial edits. Thank you.

I, Andrewigoss, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Andrewigoss (talk) 21:22, 10 December 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

tyler turkle

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Webmeister1 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reading my appeal… Respected editors, I am appalled at this “synergistic hunt” that I believe was started when Mr/Mrs Revent wrote December 7th on the Proposed Deletions Page; it seems to have missed this page. It has been suggested by Mr/Mrs Revent that Webmeister1 and Tyler Turkle are 1 simply due to the fact that I (Webmeister1) uploaded images and placed into the “Source” category the words “Own Work”. I have just explained to Mr/Mrs Revent on his talk page that I did so because I believed I was to upload accurate information about the producer of the product who is Tyler Turkle - plain and simple. This is why I stated the source as "Own Work" because it is his "Own Work". If I was in error for doing so in this manner then I stand corrected, but to begin from that point to assume Mr. Turkle as a hoax is not right. To use words such as “ ban the Wikipedian globally as chronic hoax-producer” and that you “have been conned” are rather harsh and possibly harassment, especially having justified the words on such a basic user error. I implore you to reconsider this deletion you are proposing and to cease the defamation that seems to be continuing.

Tyler Turkle Wikipedia Page

Earlier I wrote this experience as a “synergistic hunt” because of the snowball that started with my error in uploading to Wiki Commons. Mr. Turkle is an American Contemporary Artist and Filmmaker, and if you please take the time to review the sources and references I have provided on his Wikipedia page you will see that his work has been shown in many notable shows and he has produced many American Contemporary films. Mr. Turkle’s work with plastic is unique. It is a painstaking many hours process of the flowing of multiple layers of plastic. It is this style of art that makes his technique most unique. Respected Editors, I ask you, is it a dollar amount that must be met to make it to Wikipedia. How many pieces must an artist sell before their Wikipedia page is not banned? I dare say, but I must for my own sanity, I feel as though the efforts that have been put forth towards the removal of any and all of Mr. Tyler’s art, and now his Wikipedia page, is a slap to, and an attack on American Contemporary Art and Artists. Banning this artist, as well as others due to some level of socially acceptable level of notoriety will only serve to “leash” future American Contemporary Artist who play such a wonderful and important role in holding us together as a nation.

Coatrack
There was mention that the Plastic in Art page that I (Webmeister1) edited was a “Coatrack”. Until this day I did not know what “Coatrack” was, but I do now. I understand now that the way I edited could be construed as that. I will work to provide a better product in the future. Thank you for understanding that not all Wikipedia Editors can be as proficient as you, we are learning. I wish to work with you in amicably working toward restoring the pages that have been so unjustly removed. Thank you for this consideration… Webmeister1 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. We will not restore articles deleted via AfD debates. You're wasting your time posting here. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not done This is currently at AfD and any arguments should be made there. However as far as the whole "dollar amount" argument goes, I will say that it is not the amount of pieces sold or cost of said pieces that give an artist notability. Selling a ton of pieces and/or selling them for large sums does make it more likely that someone will gain coverage in reliable sources, but it's not a guarantee and notability can only be given by showing coverage in reliable sources that cover Turkle, his work, or mention how he was the main focus in an exhibit at a notable institution. Also, I would like to ask that you not state or infer that artistic creativity can only be further nurtured by an artist having a Wikipedia page and that not giving a page to one specific person will destructively harm Turkle or other artists. That's just silly and besides, (assuming he won't pass AfD) any given artist will undergo a lot of rejection before they reach Wikipedia's levels of notability. Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. That's the long and short of it and I'll warn you, this argument will not sway the AfD if the artist fails notability guidelines. You must make arguments based on policy, not emotion. That sounds harsh, but it's the way it is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Tokyogirl, duely noted. I am working with them. Webmeister1 (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Lumine Lighting Solutions

The content is relevant due to the reference list of articles around the web and then click the "Save page" button below -SJHKI (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done Hi SJHKI. This was a patent copyright violation of lumine.fi/images/Lumine180EN.pdf and as such cannot be restored. Please do not copy and paste any copyrighted text again. Note that if you are the owner of the text, we could only use it if you or someone else with ownership of over the copyright, released it to the world under a compatible free copyright license (or into the public domain); we could not use it simply with your permission for our use here. If this content was suitable in the first place to be in an encyclopedia article, some of the the methods for doing so are provided at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The New Fly Fisher

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

@Webhayes: 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) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ShiftOS: Game

I am now ready to complete and resubmit the draft which was rejected on 20 March 2014. UltraMario64 (talk) 18:44, 11 December 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.
The draft has been moved to Draft:ShiftOS. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Global Advertisers

Global Advertisers, an outdoor media solutions company that has been creating benchmarks for quality and innovation through its big format hoardings covering the most premium sites of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region for the last 18 years, owns Asia’s largest hoarding.The billboard is front-lit and stands at 120 X140 feet (Total area 16,800 square feet) in Bandra, Mumbai, which connects the two business districts of the city – Fort in South Mumbai and the Bandra-Kurla Complex. -Pareshbhanushali (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done @Pareshbhanushali: Click on the button in the speedy deletion template placed in the article to contest the deletion on its talk page. At that talk page, the best thing you could do is tell people you are about to add citations to reliable sources that are independent of the company, like newspapers, books, etc., that show the company is notable and the text verifiable – then immediately starting doing so at the article. You are in the wrong place to contest the deletion here. This page is for articles that have already been deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It's deleted now (many times) and protected from re-creation. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Codenamed

Ok i don't know that header is not allowed on wikipedia huh its my first article please recover it for me, BABAKhanz (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done, not only because articles deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 are ineligible for restoration by request on this page, but also because it wasn't an article. It was just 5 lines and looked like an advertisement.
@BABAKhanz: You are welcome to start over again, in your user space as User:BABAKhanz/Codenamed, or in draft space as Draft:Codenamed. What you wrote was not ready for publication in main space, and will not be restored there. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Borderline madonna us vinyl.jpg

The PNG version was created by a blocked sockpuppet. Perhaps the JPEG version should be re-added in Borderline (Madonna song). -George Ho (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What, exactly, are you asking here? The existing image File:Borderline Madonna.png doesn't seem to be in any danger of deletion, and looks the same as the deleted JPG version. Unless it is deleted, this request seems like burdening administrators with busy-work.
If anything should be done here, it might be to merge the histories. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:CSD#G5: a work substantially edited by only a sockpuppet may be deleted. Perhaps remove PNG versions and re-insert JPEG versions in articles. If that's not enough, see WP:IUP. --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@George Ho: Yes, a work created/edited by a sockpuppet may be deleted, but there is no requirement to delete such work. What parts of WP:IUP are these images violating? I apologize if I seem obtuse, but I am not understanding the problem with these images, if they are substantially identical to deleted ones. It would seem to me that JPG format is preferable for scans due to being more lightweight in size than PNG. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I realize that, regardless of image loading, servers are slow and buggy at times. Templates sometimes do not load well. I realize that a policy reference is pointless. Still, we can lessen loading problems by deleting PNG versions and restoring JPEG if you or someone else wants. --George Ho (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, here are the options:

  • The least amount of administrative work would be simply for you to upload JPG versions of each image to their existing spots. Nothing else would need be done, the licensing is already there, no articles would need to be changed. You know what the images are, since you provided an incomplete list below.
  • A middling amount of work would be for you to provide a complete list, then an admin would merge the deleted histories (including the original images) into the existing images, and remove the most recent upload so the JPG would appear. This involves some administrator burden, but as with the option above, neither the licensing or the articles would need to be changed.
  • The most work is to delete all the existing images, restore the previously deleted ones, edit all the file pages to remove deletion tags from each one, then edit every single article that pointed to the other images — with the result of having no apparent visible effect. That, I can tell you, is a non-starter given that simpler alternatives exist.

Let me know. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: I have chosen the third option which is exhausting yet preferable. --George Ho (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@George Ho:, no, as I already said, the third option is a non-starter, meaning it is not preferable and won't happen. Another admin might be willing, but I honestly don't have the time to spend 3 hours on a task that has no real benefit to the Wikipedia project. You may update existing files with JPG versions, or we can merge the histories. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Then I'll wait for someone else. --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I created this file actually; perhaps undelete it? --George Ho (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Done by someone else, thankfully. --George Ho (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Santsevi Paramhans

I, Praveshksingh, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Last year I didn't have sufficient time to edit the article I had submitted for approval. I may kindly be given another chance to do so...I will try my best to present the page in a manner that might be acceptable to the review panel. The article had nothing objectionable; only it needed to be formatted to meet the Wikipedia's standards. Humble Regards! -pravesh (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Praveshksingh:  Not done. This cannot be restored, because it is a copyright violation, copied from here. It would not be enough for you to say that you wrote it; before we could accept it a formal copyright release would be required. How to do that is explained at WP:Donating copyrighted materials, but there would be no point, because this material would not be acceptable anyway. It is far too promotional in tone; it is a eulogy, expressing great love and devotion to its subject. That is fine in its place, but not in an encyclopedia article, which requires a WP:Neutral point of view, no opinions, just plain facts, which must all be WP:Verifiable from reliable, published sources. You are welcome to write about Santsevi Paramhans, but I am afraid you need to start again from a clean sheet. Read WP:Your first article for advice. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ronni Sanlo

This page did have some copyright issues when my Wiki students first put it up, however, we worled ot correct these. The page makes a very very important contribution to LGBT history and to information on the history of Higher Education and Commencement traditions. -Dalton D. Hird 10:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC) --Dalton D. Hird 10:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@DaltonHird: checkY Userfied - the deleting admin has restored the page to User:DaltonHird/sandbox2 and given advice on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ravi Shakya

I, RaviShakya87, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Ravi Shakya 10:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@RaviShakya87:  Not done. I will restore this if you insist, but I am afraid you will be wasting your time, because I do not see any chance of it being accepted. Although it is not explained at sign-up time as clearly as it should be, Wikipedia is not another social-networking site for people to write about themselves, see WP:Autobiography. Also, as an encyclopedia, its article subjects need to have WP:Notability, defined as having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. See advice on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darcy J. Watt

I, Cirquesalad, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Cirquesalad (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cirquesalad: 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Catechism of the Catholic Church

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Aroniel2 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This page talks about version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is an extremely important book with hundreds of millions of copies sold all arounf the world. People has the right to know there is another version of the same text.

Not done The article was deleted under a criteria that is not eligible for refund here. You merely recreated an article previously deleted by consensus under another title. An article whose sole purpose seems to be to advertise a non-notable book. Keeping this up will result in your account being blocked for disruptive editing. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise alternatives to the topics we cover. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Aroniel2: Because I am the administrator who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compendium Traditional Catechism, your first step should have been to present a solid case to me, grounded in Wikipedia policy, explaining why the article should be restored. You have not done so, and your claims above about the "importance" of the book, and people's "right" to know about it, aren't sufficient.
Your next step, then, if you disagree with the rationale I presented in my close of the discussion, is to take your case to Wikipedia:Deletion review to gain consensus for overturning the deletion.
That is the procedure. If you re-create the article in spite of reasoned consensus to delete it, your account will be blocked for disruption. Wikipedia is not a publicity platform. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Npk Twice

I Went Through The Page Deletion Log Indicates that The Page does not have Reliable Source's but I differ The is a Large Amount of source's Wapsite's of Magazine's,NewSpapers And other Media Platforms which have Information About The South African Musician. I again Point Out that the Administrator who deleted the page insisted on that Western Based source's did not cover the Indivisual the Article is about,the reason for this is simple he is NOT from America or Europe is a South African Musician and source's to be taken into Consideration should be ones from in an Around africa. Outlets such As MTV,All Music, Hype Magazine and many more all have Lucrative caverage of the article. I have also noticed a slight Small number of South African based Public figure articles on wikipedia,even though I take into consideration the guidlines and Notabilty I feel that this Article was unfairly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaDuPontonlife (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done And likely won't ever be done. Besides the fact that this was deleted via a discussion and therefore not eligible other than through Deletion Review, there's the sockpuppet investigation, 10 speedy deletions (plus the ones created under other titles) and the obvious indications that you and your associates are here to forcefully shove these "artists" into Wikipedia while blatantly ignoring and violating our policies and guidelines, the most important of which is this one, which none of you probably bothered to read. I'd suggest creating a nice website for your clients and leave Wikipedia alone. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Requester has been blocked as a sockpuppet. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

JPEG versions replaced by sockpuppet's PNG versions

All complete; some files not created by the sockpuppet are not listed, so they won't qualify for speedy deletion

Madonna 1980s songs
Madonna 1990s and thereafter songs
Madonna albums
Mariah Carey albums
Mariah Carey 1990s songs
Mariah Carey 21st-century songs
Other

... and so much more (except the Mariah Carey list, which is ,s>(not yet) completed)

All complete; some files not created by the sockpuppet are not listed, so they won't qualify for speedy deletion

There are more that were removed by a blocked sockpuppet, HorrorGeek (talk · contribs), who replaced them with PNG versions. -George Ho (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

See question above. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Updating more to save this thread. --George Ho (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I (will) have completed the Mariah Carey artwork. I have been able to recover the JPEG versions that haven't been deleted yet, thankfully. --George Ho (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Phew, all done! --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As I stated in my reply above, you may convert each existing image to JPG and upload them to their existing places (the best option), or we can merge the histories of the deleted images to the current ones (requiring you to identify the existing images) — but you seem unwilling to consider those options, preferring instead that an administrator spends hours of time restoring these duplicate images, removing tags from them, changing every link in each article to point at the restored, and tagging the newly-orphaned existing images with orphan tags for deletion.
Bear in mind that Wikipedia has millions of articles, large numbers of spammers and vandals, huge backlogs of administrative work, and a comparative handful of active administrators. Good luck finding an administrator willing to spend hours on this request to fix what isn't actually broken.
I won't tag this request as declined or not done, instead I'll let another administrator make a final judgment. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I would spend hours doing what you describe as well if I chose the first option. Why sounding reluctant as I am? --George Ho (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
You desire someone else to perform massive amounts of work having almost zero benefit to the project, without providing a rationale about why it's worth doing. You want to replace all the PNG images with JPG images. That's fine. However, this can be done without involving an administrator at all. You could have done it yourself without even posting a request here. Therefore, if you want it done, go for it.
To the regulars here, Tokyogirl79, Graeme Bartlett, FreeRangeFrog, JohnCD, Fuhghettaboutit, Jéské Couriano: Feel free to chime in with your thoughts (or volunteer to do the work), after reading the comments in this section and the one immediately above. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not really big on doing stuff with images because I tend to easily mess those up, but offhand I just don't really see where restoring the prior images will really be all that beneficial. The only real reason to replace any of the images is because a sockpuppet created PNGs of them and had the older images deleted, but these are a lot of images and to be honest... I'm not seeing any real reason to do anything at this point in time because like Amatulic said, this could be done a lot easier and faster on your own. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Amatulic, George Ho: I just looked at the first image listed above and its fair use rationale is superior to the FUR that was provides for the deleted JPG, so as to that one, you might say it would be a step backwards to go through the rigmarole of deleting it → restoring JPG → removing speedy template → changing name in article to point to old name (I see no no need for any history merges; were the "third option" undertaken, the png should just go in the dustbin)). I do have some sympathy for the third, exhaustive option, but not for the reason stated. Our time is more valuable than a hypothetical small server load savings. My sympathies rather lie with the fact that these images were uploaded by dint of the original uploaders' labors, and they should be able to expect to list these among their contributions (and many have numerous subsequent edits by others). The sock's activities, in a sense, stole the credit from all involved. So, if I could wave my magic wand, I certainly would perform the third option and do think it's superior were there not hours of labor involved. But am I going to volunteer to do this? No, from a cost–benefit analysis I think everyone's time is better spent elsewhere (including yours, George). But If you feel strongly, and no one else takes on the third option, Amatulic has provided the option for you to act. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
What about File:Madonna vinyl 7 inch dress you up.jpg and other files that I created? You can undelete the ones that I did upload. Fair enough? --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@George Ho: Which ones were uploaded by you? How many are we talking about?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I realized that this file and File:Borderline madonna us vinyl.jpg are the only ones created by me. As for first or second options, if all administrators refuse to do the third option, perhaps I'll do the rest myself. --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@George Ho: Done! After Doing these two, even though I would get it down to a system, and have an offline document with the various edit summaries needed and so on so it would become significantly faster, I can report that it is laborious and would indeed take hours.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
My opinion matches the above, that it is work for no benefit. Socks can't claim any meaningful bebefit for fair use images anyway as they did not make them. I also do not care much to punish sockers, we are working to improve the encyclopedia, and the chances are that this socker is punished enough already (or had their reward removed). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Amatulic, Graeme Bartlett, Fuhghettaboutit, Tokyogirl79: I'll help you restore the JPEG images. I'll upload them with same file names and replace sock's PNG versions, including his possibly fake ones. I noticed slight difference between JPEG and PNG images. Some looked digitally manipulated to me. --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Well if you ask for the png's to be deleted I can get onto it. Particularly if you find some are fake. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I uploaded File:Daydream mariah carey.jpg—I couldn't upload the photo under "File:Daydream.jpg because of Commons file"—to replace File:Daydream Mariah Carey.png, which I may or may not find possibly fake. The PNG looks at first authentic, but compare it to US and JP MiniDisc and JP CD. See the font difference? Or maybe it was copied from Amazon's digital copy. --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: You don't have to upload them with the same file names. It wouldn't really matter since the upload history is available on the image page. You can just go to the existing image page, scroll down to the bottom, click on "Upload a new version of this file", and if necessary rename the page to end in .jpg. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? I can't upload JPEG in PNG file page. --George Ho (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Why not? The system doesn't let you do it? I haven't tried it recently, and I could be mistaken, but as far as I know the "upload a new version" link doesn't restrict the file extension. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I uploaded File:Madonna-Burning-Up-vinyl-single-twelve-inch.jpg; history of File:Madonna Burning Up cd cover.jpg should merge to there. --George Ho (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Same for File:Madonna Holiday first UK vinyl cover art Golden Arrow montage.jpg; history of File:Madonna-2ndholiday-cover.jpg → that file. --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

jawad kazim

This page exists real references and links for given information so there is no reason of deletion.you are requested to review page -Kristofer yogha 1 (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was speedily-deleted under criterion A7. Pages deleted under that criterion are generally not undeleted because they require complete rewrites to be viable encyclopedia articles or because they violate our biographical or fair-use policies. The deletion notification is both a PROD and an A7; of those an A7 is explicitly unactionable. Please read WP:Notability (people); we don't have articles on everyone. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1993 Las Vegas Bowl

I, TrueAggieVic, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it (This user used the preload form for AFC undeletion, but did not specify the name of the AFC draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) TrueAggieVic (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Edward Kane

References added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrkane (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not a suitable one. You will need to provide your references here or to an admin willing to hear you out before an undeletion can be considered, as biographical PRODs cannot be contested without at least one suitable source that can be used to help source the article. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jrkane:, the problem is that both sources appear to be things that were partially or wholly written by Kane himself, making them WP:PRIMARY. A good source would be something that was not written by Kane or anyone involved with him, such as a newspaper article that focuses predominantly on him. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by Kane being involved with notable things- you have to show that he was an exceptionally important person in everything, which translates into coverage in reliable sources that predominantly focuses on him. Brief, WP:TRIVIAL sources cannot show notability in the majority of circumstances. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dwayne and Dwight Bosman

I, Pr1775, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Pr1775 (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It was restored once before without improvement. What do you want to do to work on this page? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Virtuosic

I, 117.239.187.250, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 117.239.187.250 (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Virtuosic

The article page for creation was deleted due to inactivity and I wish to contribute edition for it and hence I require that it be opened again. -117.239.187.250 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Vandalism-only accounts

It's a good faith category. -Benfxmth (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Benfxmth: 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:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 14#Category:Vandalism-only accounts, 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 Good Olfactory (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) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DC Current (MLU)

I, 2620:72:0:B2F:E098:675F:FA0A:D8F4, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 2620:72:0:B2F:E098:675F:FA0A:D8F4 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 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!". Check out WP:Notability (organizations and companies). JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DC Current (MLU)

I, DarrenShultz, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. C (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@DarrenShultz: 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!". Check out WP:Notability (organizations and companies). JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hum_Jharkhandi_Hai_(film)

after promotion of this film i will put the all releted link, till i requested you please remove speedy deletion from this page -Manojnmims (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. We will not restore A7 deletions on request. Please use {{holdon|reason}} instead of the template you did use (which is a user talk page notice). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
And as another aside, we don't accept promotional material or press releases as usable sources. See WP:Identifying reliable sources. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
PROD was removed, page is now at WP:Articles for deletion/Hum Jharkhandi Hai (film). JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Networked Fitness

I, Andrewigoss, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Andrewigoss (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Centre for Learning

I want to work on it, can it be emailed/userfied? It was deleted originally under speedy deletion criteria G11(Unambiguous advertising) and A7(No indication of importance). There was no BLP or Copyrights violation. -AmritasyaPutraT 01:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It can be emailed, but not userfied. G11s and A7s are not restored unilaterally here. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano: Sure, can an admin email it to me? Thank you! --AmritasyaPutraT 05:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
As the user who originally created this page, could I request that it not be undeleted? There was no referenced content on it (it was my very first edit, I believe, and I was essentially trying to do a favor for a friend by publicizing an institution he was affiliated with). There is no material of worth there, but there are concerns over privacy, again, because I was new to this place and didn't know what I was doing. I am also slightly concerned when an editor that I have had numerous disputes with, who has never to my knowledge edited the specific topic area that this would fall under, makes an undeletion request for my very first article creation that got promptly and deservedly speedied. It smells to me of an attempt at outing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The article will not be undeleted on-wiki. At best, a copy of the most recent revision (at time of deletion) will be emailed to the user, and that's at the actioning administrator's discretion. As I said above, admins will not unilaterally undelete A7s or G11s, on the grounds that articles deleted under those criteria need rewritten from scratch to be brought into compliance with policy. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 07:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. What if, as with an oversight request, there is information that I don't want available to anybody but the actioning admin? Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra:  Not done. I have read the deleted article, and I do not think it would be of any help to you. It read like an extract from the school's website rather than an encyclopedia article, and there was nothing there that you could not get from http://cfl.in/. If you want to write an article about the school, go ahead, making sure to cite references to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The title has been protected from creation by Jimfbleak, so you will need to make a draft at Draft:Centre for Learning, and ask him to unprotect the title if the draft is accepted. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@AmritasyaPutra:@Vanamonde93: I protected the article to flag up the privacy issue, but I'll be happy to unprotect when a suitable draft is available. I've made the previous history of the page inaccessible to non-admins to prevent access to the private data even when the article is created Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak and JohnCD: Thank you for writing. Jimfbleak it is rightly protected as per users' request. I had come to it via Krishnamurti, I actively edit in the area of Indian philosophy and religious teachers. I was hoping to find references apart from the website. --AmritasyaPutraT 18:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No. there were none. JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Mark Velasco

I, Markv68, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. The article is notable and should be considered for undeletion due to the fact the person has community recognition and has met with or participated in events with other notable world figures and historical elements. I also had just received feedback on this article ONE day prior to its deletion offering suggestions on how to improve the content. -Markv68 (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Markv68: Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request to a new location at Draft:Mark Velasco. 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; note that WP:Notability is not acquired by contact with famous people, but requires references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See also WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ENTERTAINER and, if you are Mark Velasco, WP:Autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_165&oldid=1083424666"