Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 167

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160←Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170

Draft:David V. Johnson

I, 50.115.105.62, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 50.115.105.62 (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Would like to revisit the article and revise to resubmit for consideration -50.115.105.62 (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:HB Tune

I, Virginiahalfwolf, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Gualtier Maldè 17:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Article was deleted because I hadn't edited it in 6 months.

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) 18:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Aniket Gupta

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Karateaniket 16:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Article has previously been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aniket Gupta, recreated, and salted. --Finngall talk 16:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
no Declined. @Karateaniket: Please don't write about yourself on Wikipedia. You have already received a warning about this on your talk page. Self-promotion appears to be your sole purpose here. Continued attempts to publish that article here will result in your account being blocked indefinitely for using Wikipedia for promotional purposes.
In any case, the article is ineligible for restoration because it was deleted as a result of community discussion. If you believe there is a strong case, grounded in Wikipedia policy, that the article should be restored, you may request restoration from the administrator who deleted the article, Postdlf. If the administrator's reply doesn't satisfy you, you may take your case to Wikipedia:Deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:AOTULE

I, Jscross-titech, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jscross-titech (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


I was in the process of editing the page Draft:AOTULE when it was deleted by.

@Jscross-titech: 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) 23:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network

This article was not intended to promote an organization any more than what the "World Health Organization" article may have, or any other similar article. This article is significant and worthy of being in a encyclopedia; Arguably, there are several articles on Wikipedia that are less important than this article is. This article was created and intended to be informative about an important non-profit organization, amidst the growing sociological and contemporary issue of AIDS among Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Much like the organization, this article intended to increase the knowledge and awareness about various interconnected issues that play into the continued and developing risk of contracting HIV/AIDS among Aboriginal peoples. I would be more than happy to readjust any problematic areas in this article; In any case, I do believe this article is worthy of having a home at Wikipedia. -Vstan080 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done @Vstan080: The page would have required a substantial rewrite and inclusion of independent reliable sources to be accepted, but the reason it cannot be undeleted is because it was a blatant copyright infringement of various pages such as http://www.caan.ca/about/ caan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/EONS.pdf and so on. 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 over the copyright released it to the world under a compatible free copyright license (or into the public domain and did that release in a verifiable way); we could not use it simply with your permission for our use here. Although some of this material was not suitable in the first place to be in an encyclopedia article, some of the the methods for providing a copyright release/freely-licensing are given at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

TerraBrakes

(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.) Stanza6 03:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Hi Stanza6. There is no possibility whatever that this article will be accepted. It was promotional, included your contact details which should never appear in articles, consisted of original research announcing a new invention of you own devising, that no reliable sources have written about. It might be the best idea ever but Wikipedia is the wrong place to announce it. An encyclopedia is a compendium of mainstream knowledge topics already known to the world. Patent it, design a prototype, wait for the world to beat a path to your door and write about it – then an article can be written here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Gemstar

request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission Draft:Gemstar deleted under G13

(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.) Dubplanet (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dubplanet: Not done Hi Dubplanet. I deleted this under G13 and would undelete it as a matter of course, except that it appears to by a copy and paste of previously written content. I see the same material at Mtv and at Myspace and at numerous other sites. This thus appears to have been a copyright violation that it should have been deleted instead under WP:CSD#G12, and such material cannot be undeleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Irish Car Rentals

The page was speedy deleted without facing any arguments from my side by another wikipedia editor who for unknown reasons is continuously tagging all my created pages and nominating for deletion. The page that I created was notable and had enough citations and content to have an individual Wikipedia page on its own but the nominator like before is on rash fire to tag all the pages created by me for deletion -Mr RD 03:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mr RD: I don't see on your user page any disclosure of paid editing or any other conflict of interest you apparently have with the numerous subjects you have written articles about that have been deleted. You are required by Wikimedia:Terms of Use to disclose any association you may have as a condition of editing here, and you agreed to do so when you created an account. If you are unwilling to comply with that very basic requirement, I don't believe other admins will be inclined to assist you. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Amatulić, In some cases like Durga Charan Panigrahi, Gulab Kothari, Internshala, CIMFR, ISM to IIT and ISM Dhanbad, I do have conflict of interest. Because of this therefore I created most of them using Wikipedia:Afc. But most other cases like Rahul Bhatia and this one, I created because of my familiarity with the subject. Nowhere I have any direct or indirect contact with either of them. The sole reason for deletion of the article was on the basis of doubt of paid editing and my past history with the notifier, not on any merit of notability. If the tone of the page is non-encyclopedic or promotional in any manner or in any where I've imparted any wrong information, I request you and other editors to please notify me and even block me if you seem fit! But the deletion of entire page solely on the basis of a doubt and my past edit history is I believe not fair. As per talking about the criteria WP:G11 over which the article was deleted clearly mentions that if the subject is notable and is written in a promotional manner, it should be rewritten in such a way so as to satisfy wp:npov. Nowhere anyone tried to check the notability or edit the page. Here I also want to declare that I once was temporarily blocked for sock puppetry which I did not know about at that time. Since then, I have done no such thing to disrupt the Wiki guidelines and have tried to contribute to Wikipedia in as positive manner as possible for me. So I would be really thankful if you review the page from a neutral point of view again and decide whether it should stay or get deleted. Mr RD 08:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You are required to disclose all cases, not "some cases". I recommend you do so on your user page.
Also it is acceptable to delete articles based on patterns. Your reputation of paid editing and using Wikipedia as a publicity platform, in violation of Wikipedia policy, suggested that the Irish Car Rentals article existed solely for publicity purposes. Notability wasn't the issue here.
In any case, administrators generally won't overturn another administrator's decision without that administrator's involvement. The deleting administrator is Anthony Appleyard, who, hopefully, will see the notification of this thread. I have no objection to restoring an article that was inadvertently deleted as part of a scorched-earth campaign, provided you comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's disclosure requirements as described earlier. @Anthony Appleyard: you have the final say. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. From now onward I will announce all such edits over my user page as well as the talk page. But I would like to know would I be seen differently if I do so from other editors and all my edits be monitored like some criminal? I already try to maintain neutral point of view and take only projects which I see have enough notability and credibility in them. I've faced this issue many times and even my good faith edits in which I am a neutral party are questioned. Many pages that I create are only for informational purpose and have very wide acclaim of notability. Mr RD 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have declared all my WP:COI edits over my user page. Like I've mentioned before, I do not have any direct or indirect contact with Rahul Bhatia or Irish Car Rentals. From now onward I will mention it on all the talk pages of such created pages. Mr RD 18:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Mr RD:! It appears[1][2] that you were paid to work on the Irish Car Rentals article. Why did you say you "do not have any direct or indirect contact with Rahul Bhatia or Irish Car Rentals"? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Unforgettableid, sorry. Mentioning Irish Car Rentals on my user page was a human error on my part. I repeatedly say, I have no connection with them. Mr RD 01:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Mr RD. As to your questions above:
  • If I disclose my COI, would I be seen differently if I do so from other editors and all my edits be monitored like some criminal?

    Transparency is appreciated on Wikipedia. Failure to disclose your COI is regarded as acting in bad faith. And yes, your edits will be closely scrutinized. It goes with the territory. You made the choice to face such scrutiny by becoming a paid editor. Concealing your COI risks your account being blocked forever and your articles deleted.

  • Even my good faith edits in which I am a neutral party are questioned.

    Yes, and rightly so, because your goals to monetize Wikipedia for your personal gain and for the gain of your clients, conflict with Wikipedia's goals. As the saying goes, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Your edits would unlikely be questioned if you didn't write about companies, living people, or any commercial entity that would benefit by having a Wikipedia article.

Hope that helps. We have some good paid editors here, who understand and accept the scrutiny they will inevitably face. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Amatulić, thank you for sharing this with me. I will keep it in mind and will try to make Wikipedia a better place. Mr RD 01:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

LifeLogger

If a competitor of LifeLogger can have a wikipedia, so can LifeLogger, very plain and simple -184.65.114.23 (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There are also tons of articles about LifeLogger... on major tech sites, such as Slashgear.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.114.23 (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was deleted as a result of a deletion debate. Admins will not undelete pages that were deleted with discussion here; go to WP:Deletion review instead. The article has also been deleted twice as an A7 and once as a G11. None of those deletions are eligible for REFUND. Also, you can't use the existence of other articles as an argument for yours, and vice versa. If anything, this article should be protected against re-creation, especially given the AfD. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sooraj Pancholi

The article was deleted via AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sooraj Pancholi. I just request you to restore deleted history 'cause the article is currently passed in WP:GNG, and per "Afd" The result was "Redirect", so why admin deleted the article. Actually i'm not agree with this decision and today's i want to back deleted history becauce history has useful content. -Chander 15:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Admins won't restore whatever was present prior to the AfD here. You need to make your case at WP:Deletion review. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 00:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chuka Eni

I, Revzp84, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Revzp84 (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:BON PHARM

I, Serjarust, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Serjarust (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

ProofHub

ProofHub Reason for Undeletion : I just want to know the reason for deletion of my article as I have mentioned all the resources and I have taken all the measures to make it neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit098 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The claimed reason given is that it was an unrepairable advertisment. This is criterion G11. See Wikipedia:CSD#G11. Myself I think it could be edited to remove the bit about businesses of all sizes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning

PRODded while I was banned and was unable to address the concern (if was any valid; I have no idea now). -M.Altenmann >t 08:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC) --M.Altenmann >t 08:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Fort Mill Magazine

I, Lisamctigue, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Lisamctigue (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

keyvan dehnad

the person was requesting for deletion of page have no knowledge and ability to judge about Judo and Keyvan Dehnad A Referee from International Judo Federation Olympic Sport "Save page" button below -Dehnad (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: The page was deleted as a result of a deletion debate. Admins will not undelete pages that were deleted with discussion here; go to WP:Deletion review instead. Whether or not he had "knowledge and ability to judge" is irrelevant. We require articles to show notability by having multiple reliable sources, and this is especially important for biographies. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 10:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 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/Keyvan Dehnad, 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

keyvan dehnad

this is your require articles to show notability by having multiple reliable sources http://www.intjudo.eu/pictures/calendar/563_1_1.pdf."Save page" button below -Dehnad (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • 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/Keyvan Dehnad, 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. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Dhing!

This is an article I created myself for helping others around the world recognize my contributions to society. I you look up each reference, you will see that I have truly created many new inventions and social movements. None of the article was a hoax whatsoever. The article was true and accurate, as the references will provide more detailed information. There really has been a conspiracy to cover up my fame and I really have donated trillions to the world. There was no dishonesty on my part. -16:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Sozimosy (talk)

Yeah, and I'm really a little blue Bori. We don't tolerate jokesters and are more than happy to remove them if they insist on treating Wikipedia as a liar's bench. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 10:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

XebiaLabs

I've made a copy of the deleted page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fishbones123/sandbox

Page was deleted as "A7. Lack of notability." I'd make a case this is a notable company for the following reasons:

XebiaLabs was written about in the Boston Business Journal [1]

The company was listed on the Deloitte Fast 500 at #15 [2]

XebiaLabs CEO's profile is listed on Bloomberg:[3]

The company was founded in 2008 and has over 80 employees. Customers include General Electric, Expedia and Xerox.

XebiaLabs is already listed as an example company on a Wikipedia page [4]

(I have no idea when that was added as an entry)

XebiaLabs' competitors have Wikipedia pages: [5] [6] [7] [8]

- XebiaLabs is partners with this company: [9]

XebiaLabs' funding history is documented: [10]

The company recently received $12.5 million in funding from this a large equity investor [11]

(the original XebiaLabs' entry included a cross link to this company)

The company's products have been reviewed in both Dr. Dobbs Journal and Network World:[12][13] [14]

I appreciate your consideration. Thank you! -Fishbones123 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

citations

References

  1. ^ http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/startups/2014/06/software-automation-startup-xebialabs-raises-12m.html
  2. ^ http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Technology-Media-Telecommunications/gx-tmt-emea-f500-2014-ranking.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/people/18778887-coert-baart
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_deployment
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chef_(company)
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThoughtWorks
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_Labs
  8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Cloud
  9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CloudBees
  10. ^ http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/xebialabs
  11. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Updata_Partners
  12. ^ http://www.drdobbs.com/tools/tools-for-finding-the-continuous-deliver/240168750
  13. ^ http://www.drdobbs.com/tools/xl-sized-code-drop-to-user-acceleration/240161731
  14. ^ http://www.networkworld.com/article/2189165/infrastructure-management/manage-software-deployments-across-complex-environments.html
@Fishbones123: Hi Fishbones123. I would not have deleted that as an A7 but different admin's mileage may vary. The thing is, it's not as if this was clearly outside A7's ambit. Mostly because the article did not provide obviously reliable sources, and what you did cite (now seen at the draft) are naked URLs which does not make the sourcing look good at all (indeed the Boston Business Journal you flag looks at least from the URL like a blog post, which would usually be a worthless source). Look at any decent article and look at the citations. They provide, for example, the reference's title, date, publisher, author, page, etc. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners#Information to include.

Most of what you've said above is frankly irrelevant to an assessment of notability. The issue is whether the topic has been written about in detail in reliable sources that we can actually find and cite (and from which the factual statements in the article can thus be verified). Full stop. But the article was not deleted on notability grounds, as you said it was. Rather, it was not "A7. Lack of notability"; it was "A7 no indication of importance..." You might think I'm just playing a semantic game but I'm not at all. A7 is a speedy deletion criterion – a line in the sand that regards what's currently present in the article. Notability, by contrast, is about the topic and if it is notable regardless of what's currently present in the article.

We don't decide notability at speedy deletion but only after an advertized discussion, such as at articles for discussion, where the topic is regarded. What that also means is that there is no precedent set by speedy deletion, whereas there is by a deletion discussion. You are thus free to recreate the article, just as you have at the sandbox, and there's no need to undelete the article. Or if you want, I can undelete it and move it to your sandbox so the edit history is retained, though it doesn't much matter since you're the sole substantive author. But it should not be in the article mainspace not just because the sourcing is meager, but because it reads rather promotionally, oh, not with the full scale puffery we often see, but it still reads in the world of "ad-speak". Anyway, go find some better sourcing and cite those sources more transparently. If there are no other sources, Wikipedia should not have an article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the thoughtful reply! I will work on getting more documentation and taking the steps you recommended. If you could undelete it and move it to my sandbox, I would appreciate it. I'm still rather new to this and appreciate your help.

Fishbones123 (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fishbones123: You're welcome. Though you might have already noticed, I undeleted and history merged the page with your draft a few days ago and forgot to inform you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Donald K Stewart

(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.) Maud2013 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This page has been deleted multiple times as an abandoned draft article. As Articles for creation, the Draft space, and user subpages are not to be used to indefinitely host material inappropriate for the encyclopedia, what exactly would you do to help make the draft get accepted as an article? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Maud2013: Declined pending further information. This is your second undeletion request for this page and you did not make a single edit after you requested its undeletion over six months ago, on March 1, 2014. As above, we are not an indefinite hosting service. I am willing to restore it again, but only if you provide some definite assurance that you actually intend to work on it (i.e., by providing citations to better secondary and independent reliable sources and to cite them using inline citations for basic transparency and verifiability). Please advise. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wild Ones Natural Landscapers

I, Janeta-401, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Janeta-401 (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Janeta-401: 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) 00:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ashik mahinabad

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Maneger007 (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Not done I'm sorry, but the page didn't have anything on it and looked like it was a test page. Even the re-created page didn't really have any content in it. Offhand a search for this person doesn't really bring up anything to show that he's notable enough to warrant an entry. I found his blogs, but having a blog and existing as a person aren't enough to really qualify for an article on Wikipedia per WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

brexelant

This article is not for pormotion or advertising, I will also improve this article -Sajal1010 (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Not done I'd prefer that you re-wrote the article from scratch. While it wasn't over the top promotional, it was just promotional sounding enough to where I can see where it was tagged and speedied as such. Since the page was only a few sentences long and you'd have to essentially re-write the page in order to make it fit NPOV guidelines, there's really no reason for this to be restored. On a side note, I would probably recommend that you include this information in the overall article for Zee Laboratories, which is up for deletion due to notability issues. Individual products are rarely notable outside of their parent companies and I'm not really bringing up a whole lot to show that this product line is particularly noteworthy enough to merit an article. Here are the news reports used in the article ([3], [4]), but I will caution you that both articles are essentially saying the same thing- that a notable person is hawking the products. This doesn't really show a depth of coverage for the product line and an association with a notable person does not automatically grant notability for a product line. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Punjab Rural Support Programme

I, Dr.faizanali, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Dr.faizanali (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Various file information pages

The files all exist on Wikipedia, but the textual file information pages have somehow been deleted. Please undelete the textual file information pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: All done where I can act.
  1. File:Lizard Range, near Fernie, BC, Canada.jpg has no deleted edits so it does not look like there was ever any text information other than the comments attached to past versions which you can see.
  2. File:Iza 143.pg.jpg is a mystery. It has no deleted edits and has the "create" button like it's a file from the Commons but it doesn't exist there and is local. I'm stumped.
  3. File:Roxanne, Roxanne excerpt.ogg is used in two places neither of which are the plac mentioned in the FUR I undeleted, so that needs to be fixed.
  4. File:Polyneuridine-Aldehyde Esterase Reaction.png is unused, and needs to be used to remain as a fair use file.
  5. I'm not sure what to do with File:Zeynep Ucbasaran 01.jpg which was deleted at commons under the free licenses provided as lacking permission.
  6. File:Membersfrance.jpg and File:Triomillais1.jpg were unused and were actually meant to be deleted entirely as licensed only for Wikipedia use, but instead only one revision was deleted, now deleted entirely.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. File:Lizard Range, near Fernie, BC, Canada.jpg: As the file information page seems to be lost, I have created a new one, using information from the upload log summaries. As this information doesn't contain sufficient source information, I have added some "no source" and "no licence" tags.
  2. File:Iza 143.pg.jpg: As the upload log summary doesn't contain sufficient source and licensing information, I have tagged the file with {{subst:nsdnld}}. Hopefully, the uploader can provide the missing information.
  3. File:Roxanne, Roxanne excerpt.ogg: The fair use rationale is for Roxanne, Roxanne, which is a redirect to one of the articles containing the file. As far as I know, a redirect is accepted in fair use rationales, so the file seems to have a fair use rationale for one of the articles. The file currently doesn't have any fair use rationale for the other article.
  4. File:Polyneuridine-Aldehyde Esterase Reaction.png: This is not listed as a fair use file, so the file does not need to be used.
  5. File:Zeynep Ucbasaran 01.jpg: This should be deleted per WP:CSD#F11. Since something strange has happened, I deleted the old "no permission" tag from 2012 and added a new one, for deletion in one week.
  6. If the two files you mentioned have a Wikipedia-only licence, then they should indeed be deleted as they currently are. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Shivam_Sai_Gupta

Shivam Sai Gupta is a notable public speaker and software developer who has been featured in hundreds of articles in prestigious publications including The Times of India. He was considered the "youngest programmer" in 2010 by some magazines. -27.106.46.23 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A. Z. M. Iftikhar-ul-Awwal

I have created this page a few years ago and the page was deleted stating that it should have at least one source that directly support the content. If you see that page there are many references that supports the contents. Moreover, I can also provide new references for this page and make some edits to the page in accordance with the references. The page is regarding a person who is an eminent historian and academic in Bangladesh. These are some admins in wikipedia who are maliciously deleting relevent academic references regarding the highly cited academic works by this professor as reference spam, and has also deleted this page. As a former student of this distinguished historian, I would easrnestly request to restore the page. The academic website of the person is: http://www.du.ac.bd/department/common/facultymemberdetail.php?memberid=FMHIS73034&bodyid=HIS -Locomotive999 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Locomotive999: Not done. Hi Locomotive999. You are incorrect as the basis for the deletion. A user tagged it for deletion as a biography of a living person with no sources early in its history. which lasted just a few edits. You made numerous edits to the page after it was removed. It was then found to be a copyright violation more than a month later (from the edit summary "entire page seems to have been lifted from Open Library (where the page was created in 2008, years before this page)". You should know this as the entire page was replaced by the large notice listing it as a copyright violation, stating where the source was that was alleged to have been copied from, directing anyone looking to where the listing was at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and – you removed the tag and replaced the prior content two hours after that happened (and were rightly reverted). It was then deleted as a copyright violation after a seven day holding period. We do not undelete copyright violations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review of my request. The Openlibrary information was written by me, and is based on the information available on the the information link I have provided you before. Reproduction of my own written article cannot be called copyright infringement. Furthermore, I personally know the person and I have created the page with his permission. So could you please advise me what I can do about restoring the page by aligning to the wikipedia policy? If you kindly restore the page, I can edit the article with other new references available. Thanks, User:Locomotive999 27 December, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Locomotive999: You'd have to file a ticket through WP:ORTS that gives Wikipedia permission to use the text. However there are still two problems with the page. The first is that you would still have to show reliable sources (WP:RS) that are independent of the subject himself to show that he passes notability guidelines. The second is that some parts of the article are somewhat promotional in tone and would have to be re-written to meet NPOV guidelines. This is sort of a double edged sword when it comes to copyrighted material, as you can give permission but in most cases the material would still require a re-write to fit other policies. In this particular instance the article comes across a lot like a CV/resume, complete with words like "renowned" and other terms that could be considered WP:PUFFERY. It's not the worst I've seen, but you'd probably still be asked to re-write it eventually even if you do file a ticket through ORTS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Locomotive999: Hi Locomotive999. Further on from what Tokyogirl79 said, a copyright problem is raised even if you are the author, and copyright can be violated by you even if you own the content. This is because you are putatively attempting to retain non-free copyright ownership over your content, but give a license to Wikipedia for its one-time use. We cannot accept such a limited license.

    The reason why is that content displayed on Wikipedia (with some exceptions) bears a free copyright license that allows our readers to take the content and re-use it (even for commercial purposes). That is the explicit promise to readers: "this content you're reading is freely-licensed". See the bottom of every Wikipedia page where it says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License..." This is quite different from when you see content at some random website where someone who owns the copyright of material is allowing its use there, with no such promise to the readers.

    Thus, for us to use this copied and pasted content here (even were it appropriate to make up the body of an article), you would have to release the copyright to the world under a free copyright license compatible with our licenses (or into the public domain), and you would have to do that in a verifiable way, such as by changing the external site to show its release, or sending a missive through the OTRS system (as mentioned above) in a manner that shows you are actually the owner of the content with authority to release it, and do so in a suitable manner (see WP:DCM for some specifics). By the way, I look at your desire to aggrandize yourself here with great distaste. It is not forbidden, but it is in my view a misuse of Wikipedia and one I would be greatly embarrassed to undertake. That's just me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

List of bus routes in Tallinn

Restoration of a SOFTDELETEd article. -Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

  • This shouldn't be done as the user simply has a pathetic issue with me and my nominations and is only requesting to make some WP:POINT, He probably won't touch the article whatsoever, Also in other discussions consensus has been to delete these articles as most are unsourced and can never really be sourced, and then they fail NOTDIRECTORY,CHeers, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the article was only deleted a second time because nobody noticed you propose it, hence the SOFTDELETE. If you want it to stay deleted, I think some explanation as to why the previous decision Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Tallinn was wrong would be needed. Some honesty about the consensus to delete these lists wouldn't go amiss, either. The truth of the matter is that many of these lists currently exist on Wikipedia, including several (like this one) that have explicitly survived even after you've tried to make the various NOTthis or NOTthat arguments, or otherwise claim they have this issue or that issue. If anyone is trying to push some point, it's the person who keeps saying things about these lists which don't turn out to be true when properly investigated. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
In 2009 AFDs were a lot less stricter, These days It's a lot more stricter, Most AFDs have to be relisted 2 or three times if no one !votes - This never occurred with this AFD which leads me to believe the "deleter" agreed with me in that the article failed NOTTRAVEL & all that, I will admit hands up some of my AFDs haven't gone so well but whose does?.... Not everyone on this place agrees with each other (and there's been more than once where I've disagreed with Charles and vice versa}, Back in 2013 A discussion took place between quite alot of editors and it was decided these all failed WP:NOTDIR & all that (I for the life of me can't remember where the discussion happened since between then and now I've had rather alot of discussions ), All of what I've said on AFDs have been true and other than you everyone agrees with me (I'm sure if they didn't someone would've been said something back in 2012/2013.), Personally I see no real benefit to un-deleting this and I'd no doubt it'll only be re-nominated and then deleted again, Cheers, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not done Notforlackofeffort, I have to agree with Davey on this one. Bus routes are not automatically notable and multiple similar articles on bus routes have been brought to AfD and deleted. Even if it was restored it would very likely be deleted via AfD (See these precedents for example). I think that in this instance deletion review is really the only way to go, so your best bet is to open up a case there and provide plenty of sources to show that this particular set of bus routes is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. However again, I have to caution you that there is a large precedent for list articles of bus routes to be deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're using those examples as precedents? OK then, let's take them in order:

Downham Market is a tiny place, it is in no way comparable to a European capital city like Tallin. The person deleting it even said, "Comparing Brooklyn and London to Downham Market does not add up". Also note there was considerable disagreement on the issues of NOT and NOTE, and the entire discussion involved only 6? people.
Illawarra appears to be a suburb of Sydney, so again, not really comparable to an entire city. Also note that this 'discussion' attracted comment from precisely two people, and involved zero actual back-and-forth debate (meaning that Davey's extremely poor reasoning - "We ain't a directory of bus routes." - which is provably false if taken at face value to mean Wikipedia doesn't have any lists of bus routes, could not be challenged. This is little better than the outcome of a proposal by Davey which nobody else even notices, which is what happened in this case
See Downham Market. Also note this 'discussion' was as poor as the Illawarra one, and involved only one more person (making it a whopping three!)
Jesus Christ. This discussion happened in 2005!!!!! Also note that Wikipedia has lists of bus routes for every New York Borough, including the Bronx - see Lists of bus routes in New York City
Based on the title, I don't think the contents of these 'bus corridor' articles would have looked at all like the content of the typical Wikipedia bus route lists. If they did, at best, they were attempts to list all the bus routes that go down one particular road, which I think you can appreciate is about as far removed as listing all the bus routes in a capital city as you could get.

Also, please note that every one of those recent discussions is either being started by, or commented on by, one of either Davey or Charles, and more often than not, attracts very little comment from anyone else, let alone any proper discussion.

Tokyogirl79, I hope you understand why, given the above, I do not think there is any reason why I should be taking at face value this claim that "multiple similar articles on bus routes have been brought to AfD and deleted". You have in fact not provided a single example of a list of bus routes of a major city ever being deleted, and the examples you used to show this is the case for lists for smaller places is hardly convincing, given the lack of participation/poor quality of discussion.

By contrast, and despite the repeated claims of Davy that this is supposedly a consensus now that there's been some kind of awakening in understanding of NOT, as of right now, as 2014 draws to a close, Wikipedia has several such lists (London, New York, Toronto, Bangkok etc etc), many of which have even survived attempts to delete them. I can see no evidence in the above examples or in your general reasoning, that the Tallin list would in all likelihood not survive AFD, and I see no reason why the choice to SOFTDELETE it, which explicitly says can be reversed for any reason, should be ignored just because Davey is making all sorts of wild and unsupportable claims about how the debate would have gone if people had noticed it.

That Downham Market page did at least point me to [[5]]. And as you can see, the only thing it actually says about routes lists, is that "Articles about individual bus routes are rarely notable, recommendations to merge into a suitable list article are common." Which seems to me to fly in the face of this claim that such lists are usually deleted.

If Davey wants to say things like "All of what I've said on AFDs have been true and other than you everyone agrees with me", I guess he's entitled to, even though it's clearly a total lie based on the evidence. As the links you provided show, quite a lot of people dispute his logic, even for smaller places. As such, I don't think it's all surprising that he apparently can't remember where this huge discussion that occurred in 2013 that decided bus routes lists violate NOT (notice how he can't even consistently remember which rule it was decided they do violate, sometimes it's NOTDIR, sometimes it's NOTRAVEL, other times it's something completely different). In my experience, I would say it's a fair bet that such a discussion either never took place at all, or it perhaps involved at most 5 people, two of which will have been him and Charles no doubt. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I can still make a judgement call and not restore a soft delete if I think that there is a very valid chance that this would be deleted via AfD- and I can guarantee that Davey would take this back to AfD if I restore it. For every one bus line that makes it through AfD there are dozens that don't and it's very, very rare that a list article about bus lines passes notability guidelines. Now if you can give me some sort of proof that this bus line would pass notability guidelines (which again, is fairly rare) then I'll restore it and open the AfD up again, but I'd like some proof that this would actually pass an AfD. I still think that deletion review would be a better option because while this was a soft delete, Davey is going to contest it and that can sometimes move a lot faster than an AfD would. However if another admin wants to restore it, I won't overly contest it- I just think that it would be restoring it just to have it deleted again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll ping some other admins in for their opinion. (@Fuhghettaboutit:, @Graeme Bartlett:, @Amatulic:) I just really have to stress that my rationale here is based on the fact that the majority of bus list type articles (and similar list articles for other transportation routes) have closed as delete recently and I don't know that this would turn out any differently since I have no reason to believe it would be otherwise. I really hate to use the term "waste of time" when discussing things like this because it is often used in a very negative context, but I just can't see where this wouldn't end up with a delete if it was restored. Other than the argument that soft deletes should be restored, you haven't really given me anything to show that this particular bus route would be one of the rare exception to the transportation routes list rule. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • My opinion would be to restore a soft deleted article. However since it is declined once I would not go from this point and restore it. Instead I would support a deletion review, especially since there has been a couple of stron opinions presented here. To support the existence of the page I would recommend that contributors look for book or independent web pages that cover the topic, as these are likely to exist. In my opinion WP:NOT does not directly apply to this topic, and so a local consensus at AFD or deletion review should be able to completely establish if this topic is suitable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm very slightly torn, but overall I come down pretty strongly on undeleting. I am only torn, because I would have strongly favored deletion had I participated in the AfD in 2009 and think they got it quite wrong there. I won't go into that in detail as beyond the scope and mostly irrelevant here. While I believe in WP:BURO and WP:IAR and will defend their use when a real goal is served, I don't see much here to warrant application and I also think that process is important if there is no overriding reason to invoke them. The second nomination was a soft delete which has a very specific meaning and promise ("the article can be restored for any reason on request"). Despite my feelings about the 2009 discussion, by not undeleting we are essentially deleting out of process, because we should see this as little different when reversing a softdelete is purely ministerial. To put it another way, you would agree that had there been no second AfD and the article was live right now, you wouldn't delete it if tagged with {{db|first AfD got it wrong and recent precedent is to delete these types of articles}} would you? Let it go to AfD again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79: "Other than the argument that soft deletes should be restored, you haven't really given me anything to show that this particular bus route would be one of the rare exception to the transportation routes list rule." I ran through every single one of your examples, showing how it's not reasonable to consider any of them a precedent. You haven't come up with any better examples, so I can only presume they don't exist. That presumably explains why I have not yet found any evidence of any rule prohibiting such lists (indeed such a claim flies in the face of all available evidence).

As to whether or not the 2009 outcome was correct or not, looking closely, except for the notability argument, I'm not actually seeing any significant difference between what happened then, and what has been happening recently. A tiny amount of people claimed the list violates NOTthis and NOTthat, and when asked to explain how or why, they give no answer. One person claimed it should be deleted because it was a bus timetable, and when it was pointed out was not, they somehow turned that into the reason to delete! I've seen all that sort of nonsense in recent cases. The keep side, by contrast, gave detailed explanations why such a list was appropriate, reasons which appear to be as valid today as they were then. I've certainly seen no evidence that any particular NOT rule has been developed or expanded in the time between 2009 and 2014 which would mean a re-run of the 2009 discussion wouldn't end up as keep.

Which brings us to notability, which is a completely different kettle of fish to NOT type arguments, and which wasn't really addressed in 2009. Would the list be deleted this time around if nobody can find sources to establish notability? Perhaps. The point is that such an argument has not been had for this particular list. Indeed, the very fact that such lists are apparently supposed to be judged on a case by case basis for notability (which seems to me to be a complete waste of time when pretty accurate predictions can be made for the general class, given the right pre-conditions such as size of area/operator), shows that by definition there mustn't even be any Wikipedia rule which says these lists are not appropriate (which brings us back to the point that several already exist on Wikipedia, as listed many times already).

It should be noted that the person who wanted to delete this list in 2009 was a self-confessed purger of 'listcruft' (which makes me think of Charles and his aversion to 'buscruft'). Note that his reason was "As was decided by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taichung bus routes this is indiscriminate information." Note that Wikipedia has the list List of bus routes in Taichung. So, this idea that these lists are indiscriminate information can't be all that robust or solidified, as this is now the second time I've seen a list that someone says was previously deleted for good reason, has actually been recreated, without apparently anyone noticing. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Suneris, Inc.

Suneris, Inc. was nominated for speedy deletion under A7 and G11 and was deleted very quickly (within 5 hours), leaving no time for discussion. (See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Suneris.2C_Inc.) Suneris is a corporation that has been the subject of much media attention over the last four years and has been producing interesting medical technologies. I don't see why A7 or G11 would apply. The subject of the article is significant and there are substantial references that support it. -Freemanscott1123 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's sourced doesn't mean G11 doesn't apply (G11 is more an issue with the article's tone and content, as opposed to its sources). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony White

I, Creativeforrest, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Creativeforrest (talk) 10:37, 29 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. -- GB fan 12:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_167&oldid=1252061036"