Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions or rejected Articles for creation drafts), or in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all.

This page is only for requesting undeletion of articles or files which have already been deleted. If the article you are concerned about is still visible, but has a warning message (template) at the top, please do not post here, but follow the instructions in the template or on your talk page. Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 or G11 be undeleted here.

Note that requests for undeletion are not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.

Instructions for special cases

• G13. Abandoned Articles for creation submissions – see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 for instructions.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• File:Cheezburger Cat may has - drawing.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Image is my own work and I agree to its use by anyone, etc., under Wikipedia's copyleft requirements —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if you drew the image yourself you were clearly copying a very well known image [1], meaning this is a derivative work. Derivative works have the same copyright status as the original, so you would need to show that the original image has an appropriate licence. Hut 8.5 19:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Saurabh Kumar Shah (IPS) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Please donot delete this page. he is IPS of Siwan Bihar. http://siwan.bih.nic.in/GAD.asp please belive me view this official website —— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giteshs78 (talk • contribs) date (UTC) 02:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Notability, not existence, is our inclusion criteria. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Alan Laney · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —Apicker (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Alan Laney This page should be Undeleted as it may have unjustly been deleted due to prejudice and or personal vendetta.[reply]

@Apicker:  Not done. Take it up with the deleting admin Jo-Jo Eumerus and if you are not satisfied, you can have the AFD decision reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review to determine if the AFD close was proper. However, I'll point out that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Laney (2nd nomination) was unanimous in its consensus to delete, so seemed that closing as 'delete' was the proper action, and as such, it cannot be restored by request on this page.

Also, if you are Alan Laney, or associated with him, you have a conflict of interest that must be disclosed publicly. From your contributions, you are what we call a Wikipedia:Single purpose account because 100% of your contributions have been related to Alan Laney. If you have a conflict of interest, the only viable venue available for you to publish and article is Wikipedia:Articles for creation where you would have your article reviewed by an uninvolved third party prior to acceptance into main article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that Alan Laney would have to meet at least one of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO before he would merit an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Golden rule gives a good overview of what is expected in an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Laney (2nd nomination) offers a number of legit arguments that the topic is not suitable for inclusion; there is no evidence that it may have unjustly been deleted due to prejudice and or personal vendetta. I'll pre-emptively say "no" to any undeletion request unless the notability concerns are addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Melissa McLawhorn Houston · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Danielle at Ok Labor, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Danielle at Ok Labor (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hot Octopuss · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I was called out by Onel5969 for the page being too promotional. To that end, I made edits that removed the controversial tone and statements. I included what I was doing in my Talk Page as well as his. Then Randykitty said my photo (which was a free-use logo) was no good and deleted the whole page. I didn't even get a chance to have a discussion with either of them. It is better to make further edits than to delete the whole page, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllenZoe (talk • contribs) 17:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done by Randykitty at User:EllenZoe/Hot Octopuss. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Suiteness · ( talk | logs | links | watch | mfd ) · [revisions]

I, Dmulan123, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Dmulan123 (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

• REDIRECT · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Redirect to Redirect —78.95.69.28 (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not.  Done. And protected against future unintentional vandalism. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cognateness · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

wikt:cognateness —78.95.69.28 (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done, it's a Wiktionary redirect. Create an account and you could have done it yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Amīrah · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

—78.95.69.28 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, because it is not clear what is being requested. Restoring it would create a double redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_(mobile_game) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (video game) —78.95.69.28 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Implausible redirect, unlikely anyone would type all that; the article is discoverable without the disambiguator. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Doomsday (Sonic the Hedgehog) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

[2] —78.95.69.28 (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, there is no actionable request here. The target is not an article, it's a redirect. Feel free to create a new article. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something strikes me as odd about all the requests by this IP today (yesterday UTC). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Hales · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

There was no objection at that time but I requested for speedy deletion, the article was stable enough. —Mjbmr (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:-Users-admin-Downloads-Murnane3-page-001.jpg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I need the old revision so that I can crop the whitespace and upload a usable version. ——Guanaco 10:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done You could also give the image a more meaningful name! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• DoThink Group · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The company is a major player in international real estate with a growing presence in the US —Wikipietime (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Have moved to Draft:DoThink Group as the OP asked on my talk page. Hut 8.5 20:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Baltic International Bank · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Significant bank with appropriate sources —Wikipietime (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11, indicating an page that was irredeemably promotional or blatant advertising. Note that G11 deletions are more an issue with the tone of the page as opposed to its sources or formatting. As articles deleted under G11 need to be rewritten from scratch, they will not be undeleted as-is here; try contacting the deleting administrator (Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)). Alternatively, you may request the page be restored as a draft or to have the contents of its last known revision emailed to you provided you have email enabled in your account's preferences. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done But you may recreate the page. Do not copy text from the bank web site. That is what is giving the promotional tone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Language of Business (TV program) · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —Bbear2001 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC) no one ever contacted editors to discuss. can a copy of page be restored so its content can be discussed in pieces?[reply]

• Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ping User:Deli nk as PROD tagger. Hut 8.5 21:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Whitney Reynolds · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Chicago TV host's page was suddenly deleted for no apparent reason. —Llavsa (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done The reason for deletion was that the writer wanted to get rid of the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Morty C-137/SPI-Case · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I was not notified or given any option to contest this deletion, and the deletion was done by someone who has been involved in protecting the harasser who tried to drive me off wikipedia. —Morty C-137 (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done by Anachronist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Morty C-137: It was apparently deleted as miscellany that hadn't been edited in over 3 months. The deleting admin wrote in the log that it could be restored by request. I have restored it. I recall there's a page in Wikipedia space (other than SPI) for keeping records of problematic sock farm users, but I can't remember what it's called. If you find it, you might consider moving your page there. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tekfusion · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

I was working on updating credible links to this article, it seemed to be created in good faith and did not appear promotional in any sense, and the company is a noteworthy audio brand in India from 2011. If any concerns arise, I would suggest to raise them in the article's talk page, rather than just deleting the whole page. I would request it to be undeleted —RaviKumar86 (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You should ask user talk:DGG about this speedy delete. Perhaps this could be made into a draft to clean up the marketing of products tone. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: We need your help over here. I totally agree with @Bartlett on this regard. We could make it into a draft and clean it up a little. What are your thoughts?

• Draft:Engelo Rumora · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, EmaTeraf, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. EmaTeraf (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Stanislovas Tomas · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The Isle of Sark is 0 % tax jurisdiction recognised by the UN as an independent country for the purposes of tax and company law. Stanislovas Tomas is a leader of political opposition in Sark, founder of Sark Company Registry, organiser of the first referendum on the island. There are 17 articles about him in the Sark Newspaper, BBC and Guernsey Press. The issue is very important for tge economy of Sark. —Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should talk to the deleting admin User:Renata3 about this, as it was a speedy deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the admin has deleted the article about the politician because of admin's personal political opinion. Is there any procedure when the admin refuses to undelete for his personal political bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceknowledge88 (talk • contribs)

I see you have added a talk page request. Renata3 has not rejected your request. There is no need to fear anything. Renata3 is not very active, and so may take a week to do anything about your message. We expect admin's to be independent of their personal opinion and to follow the policy. So just wait for a response first. If there is no response after a week then come back here. Depending on a negative response from the admin there are other avenues of appeal too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I would encourage you to back off on the claims of political bias. I do not see anything immediately obvious that suggests personal bias by the deleting admin. I do see you've left a message at User talk:Renata3; I also see that the user is semi-retired and not frequently active. I'd say to wait a week, and if there's no response, you can raise the issue at WP:DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of the subject until just now. I can see a case being made for notability of the Sark Company Registry, but not Stanislovas Tomas; and as we all know, notability is not inherited and cannot be conferred by association with something notable. There's nothing in that article that confers notability to him; in fact most of the sources cited appear to be self-published, and those that aren't don't provide significant coverage of the subject. I'd probably have deleted it as A7 myself, or at the very least proposed it at AFD, where it would likely be deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist, the only self-referring source is the website of the Sark Company Registry. Other sources are independent: the Sark Newspaper, BBC (2 articles), and Guernsey Press. The issue is wider than the Sark Company Registry. It also involves the first referendum is the history of the island, and the activity of the opposition party Sark First. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceknowledge88 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC) As you might see, in most articles on the Sark Company Registry end with personal perspective on Stanislovas Tomas. The Sark Newspaper is the only weekly newspaper on the island. Thus, the subject fully qualifies under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Even more so, given the fact that Sark is at the same international level as the US in the field of company law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceknowledge88 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Yes, you might not to hear about this, but you do not live in the Channel islands. The story is of interest for people who run their businesses via offshore jurisdictions like Sark.[reply]

Scienceknowledge88 (talk •  —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

I was referring to the Sark newspaper, which is not independent. Or at least, it constitutes only local coverage. And you'll have a hard time convincing me that a tiny fiefdom is "the same international level as the US in the field of company law." No, it isn't, it has zero company laws. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist, the Sark Newspaper is independent from Stanislovas Tomas. In their very first articles they are very critical about his activity. This newspaper is independent from the Government of Sark. Why do you think that if the newspaper supports opposition, and not the Government, it looses its independence? This is your political point of view. As I mentioned in the article and supported with a source, the UN gave Sark country code 680. Yes, there is no company law, because the Government of Sark refuses to legislate it - however whatever you think about it, this your political opinion. This should not be admin's motivation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienceknowledge88 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of each article subject is judged independently. You might have a claim that Sark Company Register is notable based on BBC coverage. However, notability is not attributed and not inherited. I.e. you need to show that Stanislovas Tomas was a subject of significant, independent, reliable press coverage. Significant does not mean "mentioned once as founder of this" "mentioned once as a lawyer of that", but where he, his life and his work are discussed in detail. Independent means not published by him, his friends, his companies, or coworkers. Reliable means accurate and non-biased. Sark Newspaper, spouting about vendettas, feudal lords, and conspiracies, is a long shot from a reliable source. In Lithuanian press, Stanislovas Tomas earned a few mentions here and there as a lawyer of Rolandas Paksas, but the most extensive article by 15 min [3] shows that most of biographical claims by Tomas do not stand up against scrutiny. Thus using independent reliable press coverage, you could only come up with five or six biographical sentences. That is not enough to establish notability. Renata (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renata3, there are over 100 articles and TV shows in the Lithuanian language about the political activity of Stanislovas Tomas, and you have picked up the defamatory one from 15min, which is a subject to a litigation. It proves that you are a Lithuanian, and you are politically biased. The subject of this article is his political activity on the Isle of Sark (company registry, referendum, leadership in the Sark First political party, and as a millionaire he is one of the largest job providers on the island). As you should know Sark is not a part of the UK, neither of the States of Guernsey. The People of Sark does not elect the Parliament of the UK or Guernsey. Sark has its own Parliament, Government, and laws. Sark is a micronation, and its only press is the Sark Newspaper. This newspaper is not controlled by Stanislovas Tomas, and it is fully independent. Moreover, there are critical articles about Stanislovas Tomas in the Sark Newspaper. Why do you think that if the newspaper criticises the Government, it is unreliable? Officially Sark is the last feudal State in Europe, since feudalism was abolished only in 2008, and from 2013 there are no elections in Sark. When you call the Sark Newspaper "unreliable", you express your political vision, and this is a breach of the neutrality policy. The Sark Newspaper is issued weekly since 2008. There are also articles about him in Guernsey Press, but they are for a fee. Thus, I suggest that you abandon your Lithuanian hostility against Lithuanian political opposition, as well as understand that any newspaper has the right to criticise the Government, and it does not make the newspaper unreliable. The article is on Sark politics, and it shall be undeleted.Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, your responce, if anything, proves *you* are biased. I see a lot above that is puffery and superlatives, but nothing that actually rebuts the claims Renata3 or Anachronist have made. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My only political agenda is to make Wikipedia a reliable source. I did not pick the 15 min article. It is the first Google search result for Stanislovas Tomas. Renata (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jéské Couriano, it seems you accept as "reliable" only the information from the Government of Sark, which is also your political position, and goes against Wikipedia policy. The issue of writing on political opposition is always political. Yes, the Sark Newspaper has a particular political agenda of opposing the Sark Government. However, calling the newspaper "unreliable" for this reason is a political opinion. Renata3, we talk about his activity in Sark, not in Lithuania. And his contribution in Sark is historic for the island. Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I speak without looking at the article or the sources in question, and am only going off whatever you are saying and providing - and while you talk a good argument, you haven't provided any sources as proof to back up your statements or rebut anyone else's. I also have no dog in this fight politically and in fact do not edit about politics if I can help it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Wikipedia articles on Sark politics, you get an impression that the Sark Government is always right, and the opposition (including Lords Barclay) are always wrong. Lords Barclay are also wrong because they are billionaires, Stanislovas Tomas is a bad man, because he is a millionaire. I am a resident of Sark. There is no neutral attitude towards Stanislovas Tomas on the island. So if my article is partial, then correct the facts I describe. However, the attitude of the admins is to block whatever information on any political opposition in Sark, because they are supported by the opposition newspaper. Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about a biographical article and its place on Wikipedia, not about politics of Sark. That means that the article should cover all notable events in a person's life between birth and death, and even after death ("legacy"). So his activities in Lithuania and elsewhere are very relevant. I hope you realize that if Wikipedia had an article about him, its major source would be the article in 15 min which calls him a fake. That article is truly reliable, independent, significant coverage of him. Wikipedia would have to include the doubts on his educational credentials, use of "lawyer" title, etc. Given the multitude of issues with WP:BPL and general lack of notability, I deleted the article. If you want to concentrate on Sark-only issues, feel free to improve Sark article. Renata (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Renata, in fact, the very fact that there are many biographies of Stanislovas Tomas online in the Lithuanian language, already shows that he is notable. On one hand, your advantage is that you are Lithuanian and can get extra data. On the other hand, it makes you partial and biased. In fact, Guernsey Press also raised a question about his qualification (their article is online for a fee), and the Sark Newspaper replied to Guernsey Press in publishing copies of his PhD and professorship diplomas, as well as links to the places confirming his other qualifications. Thus, both in Lithuania, and in Guernsey there were attacks against his qualifications, and both attacks were dismissed as defamation. If I am not wrong, the article in the Lithuanian language is this http://komentaras.lt/advokatas-stanislovas-tomas-ne-apsisaukelis/ However, the very fact that there are many biographies online, some of which are defamatory, proves the notability. I have access to Guernsey Press, BBC and Sark Newspaper. If there is something useful in Lithuanian, you may add it. You are adult, Renata3, and should understand that there is always contradictory information on politicians. Such things as being a PhD holder, professor, and lawyer are easily verifiable online, however some journalists like Guernsey Press and 15min do not do this for political reasons. This issue is perfectly covered by the Sark Newspaper, and he is not the owner of this newspaper. Yes, this is a newspaper supporting opposition, and this does not make it unreliable. The Government of Sark is unreliable. Even Putin organises elections, contrary to the Government of Sark. Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC) By the way, Renata3, I wrote only once that he was the LAWYER of Paksas, and I made a link to the United Nations document. Whom shall we believe, the United Nations website, or unknown, politically biased and defamatory Lithuanian language website as you propose? Now I've googled, and I see that his status as a lawyer is also present on the website of Council of Europe, and the Ministry of Justice of Russia. As a Lithuanian, you must hate Russians, mustn't you?:))) By the way, the Russian Abramovich family had a house on the Isle of Sark, because it allowed them to pay 0 % tax, and everyone loved them on our island:)) Right now, they pay 0 % tax on other islands. Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure here on this page is to decline restoration requests if an article was deleted in accordance with WP:A7 and refer the requester to the deleting administrator. That has been done. The deleting administrator has declined to restore the article, and has explained why, in detail. There is really nothing more to be said in the context of this undeletion request page. Your next step, if you feel the deletion decision was improper, is to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. As far as this request goes, the process has been followed, and further discussion is off-topic here.

Therefore, this request is  Declined. You may request that the deletion decision be reviewed, and if the deletion decision isn't overturned, then your next option is to start over in draft space writing a new article, that addresses the concerns described above. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:DAT-Solutions-Logo.svg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

New logo for Dial-a-Truck while page was under construction in my user space. —— RossO : talk 20:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Can you please add a source, so that we know this is the genuine logo? This is public domain due to simplicity anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Graeme Bartlett. The updated template content has been added. — RossO : talk 06:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:C4: The Choral Composer/Conductor Collective · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

(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.) ComposerJules (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Omar Hanoune · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

Iam not trying to create it now, it was there for 5 years and for some political reasons, someone deleted it, it's very complicated, but let me tell you that egyptian gov is deleting all activists from interen, it's a huge story, and this page wasn't new, it was there for 5 years, then as u an see they r deleting evry1 from the internet. it's a political reasons. as for Omar Hanoune he is well known, and you an check the ref urself my friend. —Ne.pas12 (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what is being requested. The article exists and is currently under review at AFD. There is nothing to do here. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What they seem to be arguing is that the AfD is politically-motivated (specifically, an agent of the Egyptian government is the one who sent it to AfD). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Continuous quantum computation · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

This page was deleted back in May. The consensus was to merge some of the material to another article, but that was never done, and the page history is now lost. I have since created Continuous-variable quantum information, which despite the similar name is on a different and much less niche topic. (Scientific terminology can be confusing like that.) The new article mentions the topic of the old one and briefly explains how the two subjects are different. Consequently, it carries over a few references from the old article. I would like to have the old article restored, so that its edit history is available, and then made into a redirect to the new page. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC) —XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Redirect created. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Teramind · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —77.139.183.161 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC) It seems that someone trolled this page and wrote something about sock puppets but it is important that people understand what employee monitoring software can do.[reply]

Please be aware that it isn't the job of an encyclopedia to educate people about employee monitoring software. Wikipedia's purpose is to have articles on notable subjects, with notability evidenced by significant independent coverage in reliable sources. We have policies here, and one of those policies prohibits operating sockpuppet accounts. If a trusted high-volume editor makes the request, I'd consider it, but I'm reluctant to restore an article created by a sockfarm in response to an anonymous request whose only other edit was to spamlink the company's website and who may well be another sockpuppet. Because it was deleted as a prod, I have no objection if another administrator restores it. Feel free to start the article yourself using Wikipedia:Articles for creation. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Electronic music festival · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Unfairly deleted only because of association with a blocked/banned user. What exactly is the problem? —ViperSnake151  Talk  16:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So? It was just a redirect to List of electronic music festivals with no other edits in the contribution history. Feel free to recreate it. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Serbiscan · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

What I need is the page content markup so I can improve it so it can go live because a lot have happened since then —Iflo1221 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That page has never existed, which page are you referring to here? Hut 8.5 20:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hut 8.5: The requester transposed some characters. The one in the section title works: Serbsican · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 ) · [revisions]

  @Iflo1221: Because this was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbsican (2nd nomination) you will have to ask the deleting administrator. I see you did that, but you failed to follow his reply, which instructed you to take it to WP:DRV. Also, that article was created by an account blocked for being an undisclosed paid editor. If you are a paid editor, you need to disclose that first. See WP:PAID for details. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jamai Raja (Bengali TV series) · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —Adnan5895 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Please don't delete Jamai Raja (Bengali Tv Series)[reply]

• Not done – this page is a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 20:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• James R. Fitzgerald · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Speedy deletion bot mindlessly detected identical text from a legal document pertaining to a case wherein the subject of the page (James R. Fitzgerald) testified as an expert witness. The text was James Fitzgerald's CV, as CVs and other information pertaining to the qualifications of expert witnesses are a matter of record. The court document cited as the source is also *not* the origin of the text in question, but rather includes it as a reference. In other words, the supposed 'source' is itself a copy-paste of the CV provided by James Fitzgerald to the court in order to establish his credentials as an expert witness, as is standard practice. In sum, the page seems to have been deleted for 'infringing' on a 'source' that was in reality just a reference to a document that is not subject to copyright in the first place. There is simply no copyright violation here because there is (a) no copyright in question, and (b) the supposed source detected by the bot *is not the source*. Furthermore, content from the CV is used with clear, verifiable permission from James R. Fitzgerald. If this article is to be deleted, I would like to know what the specific source is that is being infringed as well as how it is a copyright issue in the first place. —Jlw280 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Jlw280 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some points:

• I don't know of any instance where a CV is considered a public domain document.
• While federal court rulings are considered public domain, it isn't clear to me that this applies to civil district court rulings, which is what this is.
• Fitzgerald may have given the court permission to reproduce that document, but I see no evidence that he released it into the public domain or under an acceptable free license.
• As such, Fitzgerald has not given the Wikimedia Foundation permission to reproduce the material.
• The website it's hosted on claims in the footer a copyright "2017 NOLA Media Group" with a very clear notice that "The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of NOLA Media Group." Has this permission been granted to the Wikimedia Foundation?

Sorry, while I agree with the logic of your argument, I cannot agree that deleting as a copyvio was a clear-cut error. Maybe restoring it without the CV material? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of these points are covered by the fact that (a) any claim to copyright ownership of Mr. Fitzgerald's CV by "NOLA Media Group" or the Civil District Court of Orleans, Louisiana would be preposterous, because (b) neither the website nor the court document is the source. The CV is not the property of that Website or the aforementioned civil court. The CV exists independent of both the court record and "NOLA Media Group". It was given to me by the subject himself as personal correspondence.

If anything, "NOLA Media Group" is violating Mr. Fitzgerald's IP rights by reproducing his CV and making it available to the public without his permission. A website can't just claim rights to someone's CV or resume by publishing a document including it as a reference. Speedy deletion bot did its job, but what it detected in this instance is clearly not a copyright violation.

Thanks for getting back to me on this! (Sorry for all of the edits to this. I'm new :/)

Jlw280 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't write the text yourself we would need evidence that the copyright holder has made the text available under the licence that Wikipedia uses. Otherwise we'll have to assume you are violating copyright. You said above that you have permission from the copyright holder, but I'm afraid that just saying that isn't sufficient as evidence, as you could be anybody and you haven't supplied any evidence. To use the content you would have to follow these instructions to prove you have permission. I suggest you just rewrite the article without using the copyrighted material, as it would need substantial rewriting anyway. (Wikipedia articles aren't CVs, so content copied verbatim from CVs doesn't fit very well.) Hut 8.5 06:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Inkspired · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Gavcnet, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Gavcnet (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jordan Brady (basketball) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

He became head coach of Wisconsin Herd —Syracusestorm (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You should be asking the deleting admin user talk:Joe Decker as he closed off Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Brady (basketball). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KoSesha · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Deleted and then realised I could use the "move" function insteadMeghasridhar (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC) and then click the "Save page" button below —Meghasridhar (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Already done It was restored by Mojo Hand, but now there is also a page called Draft:Ko Sesha which is further edited with a redirect from Ko Sesha. The KoSesha really is insufficiently referenced at the moment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Grabs, Snatches & Takes · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Meets Wikipedia's guidelines for album articles —Qlazarus (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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/Grabs, Snatches & Takes, 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 Ron Ritzman (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. Has something changed since the AFD 5 years ago? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Hotel-Dom-Pedro-Lisboa.jpg
• File:Hotel-Dom-Pedro-Laguna-Brazil-Fortaleza-Ceara.jpg
• File:Dom_Pedro_Portobelo.jpg
• File:Hotel-Dom-Pedro-Lagos.jpg
• File:Dom-Pedro-Victoria-Golf-Course.jpg
• File:Dom-Pedro-Old-Golf-Course-Vilamoura.jpg
• File:Dom-Pedro-Millenium-Golf-Course-Algarve-Vilamoura.jpg
• File:Dom-Pedro-Marina-Vilamoura-Algarve-Portugal.jpg
• File:Dom-Pedro-Pinhal-Golf-Course-Algarve-Portugal.jpg

Permission received Ticket:2017072610012626 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @4nn1l2:  Done can you tag these pages with the template saying they have the correct permission (and linking to the ticket). Hut 8.5 21:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: Thank you, and please restore these two files from the same "customer" but with different ticket number: Ticket:2017072810015503

• File:Dom-Pedro-Millenium-Golf-Course-algarve-portugal.jpg
• File:Dom-Pedro-Logotipo-image.png

4nn1l2 (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @4nn1l2:  Done can you tag as well please. Hut 8.5 06:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:RFID Global Solution · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Ribowall (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Lightbox Ventures · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below —Trm5y (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trm5y:  Not done for now. You are an employee of Lightbox. You agreed to comply with Wikimedia Terms of Use when you created your account here. You must disclose your paid editing status. Please see WP:PAID for details. Please get into compliance, then contact me or re-request here, and we can restore the article to draft space, not main space. Editors with a conflict of interest, like you have, should be using Wikipedia:Articles for creation to submit draft articles for review, not creating them directly in main article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lexicon · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

There was no advertising material present on the page at all. The page was based on a shopping centre. I didn't include any advertising at all. This is the first Wikipedia page I have made, and so would appreciate any advise on how to ensure this no longer happens. —BracknellSince85 (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BracknellSince85: Not done – this page was deleted as a blatant advertisement under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. This does not necessarily mean a suitable article on this topic cannot be created. If it is a notable topic, e.g., multiple reliable, secondary, published sources that are entirely independent of the subject have written about it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), then a neutrally written article may be possible. This one was written like a commercial.

More specifically, your use of unsubstantiated puffery words like "excellent" and "state of the art", and the overall presentation that reads like a company brochure, clearly indicates that the article was created for the purpose of publicity or promotion. Also, please see WP:PAID and comply with it, if you are associated with The Lexicon, you must disclose it.

Furthermore, if you have an association with The Lexicon, you have a conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more guidance. As an editor with a conflict of interest, you shouldn't create and edit articles in the main article space directly. It is preferable for you to create the article in your sandbox or in draft space, and submit it for review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation before it can be published in main space.

Once you publicly disclose your association per WP:PAID (or if you are not receiving compensation, disclose your conflict of interest), we can restore the article to draft space for you to work on. You may contact me once you've made that disclosure. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Tempest (festival) · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

User:Ant1924/sandbox to Draft:Tempest (festival)

Ant1924 (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ant1924: Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Gandang Filipina · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

De-merged by author please retrieve and merge here to Wowowin Thanks. —38.96.9.224 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The merge proposal has zero discussion; in fact the author of Gandang Filipina, who requested its deletion, also requested specifically not to merge it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Treves Hotel · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

PROD, would like it restored to my userspace so I can work on it. Thanks. —Conifer (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done see User:Conifer/Treves Hotel. Hut 8.5 18:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Micronesian Empire · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

There are many references of the island empire in available online and in libraries —Chuukesenei (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This appears to be a copyright violation of the book e-Study Guide for: Diversity amid Globalization by Lester Rowntree, according to the deleting admin's rationale. I recommend you start over from scratch. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Technical_Club_of_Madison · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

It looks like this was PROD a few years back and accepted. The Technical Club of Madison is a nearly 100 year old organization in Madison and a number of important people in Madison's history have been members. I haven't looked at the page in a number of years but I remember coming across it when doing research on some work on city planning history, and tracking down people who were involved - the page had a list of people involved with the club. I remember it wasn't a particularly well-sourced page but maybe if we bring it back we can add some more details/citations. Thanks for considering this request. —Erik s paulson (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik s paulson: I restored it to draft space at Draft:Technical Club of Madison because it's a ripe candidate for WP:A7 speedy deletion if it stays in main article space in its current state. Work on improving the draft, then move it back to main space when you're done, or ask an admin for help if you can't move it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:International Union of Electrical Workers · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I, Kurt20008, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Kurt20008 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurt20008: Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• UCD Dramsoc · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Reason for initial deletion: "article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject."

Reason for proposed undeletion: The article is about a very active drama society, where a number of renowned performers began their careers, including Frank Kelly, Chris O'Dowd, and Dermot Morgan, to name a few. The society is nearly 100 years old and, together with Trinity College's DU Players, serves as a major talent pool for Irish theatre (something that this article did assert). The society alone is the reason why some people choose to study at UCD, and it's recruitment value for the largest university in Ireland cannot be overlooked. The significance of the subject rests in the dynamism and product of the society, which I believe more than warrants a wikipedia page. —Baldr191 (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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/UCD Dramsoc, 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 MBisanz (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. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:6d Technologies · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Romichugh (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done – as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. Please edit the page to address any issues raised, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jovian Mandagie · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

I would like to request to unblock this title as I would like to re-write a new article about this person, which is valid person and a famous Fashion Designer in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. We understood maybe the previous article was wrong due to advertising and promotion, but as for this new version, we would like to re-write it in a neutral way and not biased but to write the truth about the man named Jovian Mandagie. You may google his accomplishments in his career and as proof of his existence. Thank you."Save page" button below —Jammygie6686 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case since you appear to be connected to the subject you should be using the WP:AFC process and start writing at Draft:Jovian Mandagie. The page was deleted 3 times already, so the chances are slim that it would be good a fourth time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Elias Andra · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Move to user space, until today, I did not see that the page was recommended for deletion, so I would like to redirect the article with history —Jax 0677 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: Because this already went through AFD, please contact the deleting administrator Mojo Hand and ask if it's OK to userfy that article. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @Mojo Hand:, may we? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I restored and moved the page to User:Jax 0677/sandbox2. Let me know if you need anything else.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kid Lunch · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Hi, wondering why this page was deleted when its a legitimate musical artist with a pending 2017 record release. Thanks. —99.254.166.21 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was properly deleted as an unreferenced BLP. All biographies of living persons require references. And Kid Lunch doesn't seem to meet any of the inclusion criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. A "pending release" doesn't confer notability; it's what happens after a release that matters.

However, I have restored the article to Draft:Kid Lunch so that it can be improved before moving it back to main article space.

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Christopher Freeze · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Could you please undelete, or move my draft space, the just-deleted Christopher Freeze article. I put a lot of work into improving the content and referencing of the original deleted version I found, and would like to continue developing it some more, as it was my first article and the guy seems to be notable. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mrg00dbar (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrg00dbar: because the most recent deletion constituted an agreement by an administrator that your version probably wasn't different enough from the previously deleted version, I'm reluctant to override the deletion decision without a response from the deleting administrator. Please contact the deleting admin Spinningspark (talk · contribs) and ask if he's OK with restoring the article to draft space for further improvement. I can see that you did a good amount of work on it, so I think you have a good case. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already have reached out with no response. I would be content with restoration to a draft space, and am glad you recognize the improvements. Mrg00dbar (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• List of alderpersons of Carrboro, North Carolina · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Offered factual list of elected board members for the Town of Carrboro, NC. A list of Mayor's is maintained on a separate page. Carrboro is governed by a Mayor and six Aldermen. The name is interchangeable with Council, Board, Government —198.85.222.157 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Morty_C-137/SPI-Case · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Deletion was inappropriate and done in a manner calculated to harass. I was CURRENTLY working on that material. —Morty C-137 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot work on that type of material over the course of months. It's usually allowed only over the course of 1-2 weeks. I tried to blank it, so you had temporary access to the history, but you reverted that. I'll undelete temporarily, for a few minutes, so you can copy everything offline. But then I'm redeleting. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I provided you the diff of an admin saying otherwise, but you'd prefer to beat me up. Now I see why admins are considered suck stuck up jerks on wikipedia. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]