Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

This page is not for challenging the outcome of deletion discussions or to address the pending deletion of any page.

Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in two cases:

Restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions (G6) or stale Articles for creation drafts (G13) or abandoned user subpages of non-contributors (U6)), or in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator.
Requesting that deleted content be "userfied", i.e., restored as a draft, to userspace or emailed to you; this way, 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). Be clear as to which namespace is intended, when requesting the restoration of a deleted article.

Content deleted after discussion in a deletion process may in some cases be provided to you. However, if you want to dispute the outcome of that discussion and restore the content to its original location, you'll need to open a deletion review instead. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided.

Do not request that pages or media deleted under speedy deletion criteria F7, F9, F11, U5, U7, A7, A9, A11, G3, G4, G10, G11, G12, or G15 be undeleted here.

Instructions for special cases:

G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions and U6. Abandoned user subpages of non-contributors – see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Abandoned pages.
For JavaScript .js or .css pages, please request on the Wikipedia:Interface administrators' noticeboard.

Enter the page's title:

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 4 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III.

File:Digital currency group logo 2026.png

File:Digital currency group logo 2026.png · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

This logo file was uploaded as non-free content in March 2026, reduced by a bot, and then the orphaned revisions were then deleted per WP:F5. The logo, however, seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO US; so, I've coverted the file's licensing to {{PD-logo}}. Can an admin check the originally uploaded but deleted version to see whether it's the same as the current version. If it is, it can probably be restored. Thanks in advance. —Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:

Done BD2412 T 15:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you BD2412. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Rakuten Mobile Park Miyagi.jpg

File:Rakuten Mobile Park Miyagi.jpg · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

File was originally uploaded as non-free content but seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per both c:COM:TOO US and c:COM:TOO Japan. Can an admin check the originally uploaded version to see if it's the same as the currently version? It probably can be restored if it is. Thanks in advance. —Marchjuly (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:

Done BD2412 T 15:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you BD2412. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Hermann Stuppner

Draft:Hermann Stuppner · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Hi, I'm Mkleox, and I would like to request the undeletion of this draft deleted under CSD G13 or U6. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. Thank you. Mkleox (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mkleox:

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. BD2412 T 19:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Metal Gear Solid (film)

Draft:Metal Gear Solid (film) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Hi, I'm Rusted AutoParts, and I would like to request the undeletion of this draft deleted under CSD G13 or U6. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. New reporting on the topic has emerged, and the draft can again be updated. Thank you. Rusted AutoParts 19:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm KingArti, and I would like to request the undeletion of this draft deleted under CSD G13 or U6. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. Thank you. KingArti (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts and KingArti:

Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. They are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion, prior to another six months elapsing. BD2412 T 19:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Rust monster.JPG

File:Rust monster.JPG · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Please restore this image and its talk page so that it can be used on Rust monster. Thank you! —BOZ (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

BOZ, Done. KylieTastic (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you @KylieTastic! :) BOZ (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Farhad Farassat

Draft:Farhad Farassat · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

Hi, I'm Mkleox, and I would like to request the undeletion of this draft deleted under CSD G13 or U6. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it. Thank you. Mkleox (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mkleox:

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. BD2412 T 22:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

rod carrillo

Rod Carrillo · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Rod Carrillo has established professional involvement in the music industry, including work connected to Grammy Award–recognized artists. While association alone is not sufficient to establish notability, such collaborations indicate a level of industry participation that may warrant closer evaluation when considered these artists he has produced and help develop Ralphi Rosario Terri B! Kissy Sell out Eric redd Julissa veloz Ron Carroll and other house music legendary artists.

There are multiple verifiable production credits and professional contributions attributed to Carrillo. With further development, the article could be supported by reliable, independent secondary sources that provide more in-depth coverage of his work and role in the industry.

It is possible that the original article did not adequately demonstrate notability due to limited sourcing or reliance on primary references. However, this appears to be an issue of incomplete citation rather than a lack of qualifying material.

I respectfully request that the deletion be reconsidered, or that the subject be allowed to be recreated in draft space so that it can be improved with stronger sourcing and adherence to Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

updated references for rod carrillo

^[1] —Dancegeek0118 (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

^[2]

^[3]

^[4]

^[5]

^[6]

^[7]

we are asking for the undeletion of rod carrillo from wikipedia

Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

References

[1]
"Rod Carrillo Song Credits All Music". All Music.
[2]
"Chicago house DJ and vocalist Ron Carroll has died aged 57". Mixmag.
[3]
"Rod Carrillo at Beatport". Beatport.
[4]
"Talking Soulful House with Rod Carrillo and Ron Carroll Alongside 'Get Up'". That Drop.
[5]
"Rod Carrillo at Traxsource". Traxsource.
[6]
"ADE 2025 Women Of House: The 10th Anniversary Interview". Electro Wow.
[7]
"Rod Carrillo House Crunch Mix". iheart.

File:I Hate Boys (Christina Aguilera song - sample).ogg

File:I Hate Boys (Christina Aguilera song - sample).ogg · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The file was deleted by former admin Fastily as per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 January 15#File:I Hate Boys (Christina Aguilera song - sample).ogg, where it was claimed by User:Lil-unique1: The song sample is not used to demonstrate critical commentary of the song structure within the target article and therefore fails WP:NFCC.

The file was, however, still referenced by its old name File:16 - I Hate Boys.ogg in I Hate Boys#Composition in a hidden invocation of Template:Listen, which was added in 2012 in Special:Diff/503124975 by User:FanofPopMusic. File was renamed in 2014: 56146760, and I have just adjusted the article: Special:Diff/1347994172. I stumbled upon this by accident while editing Category:Articles with empty listen template. ——⁠andrybak (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Andrybak has missed the point. I was not talking phsyically about the name of the file not matching the article. Per WP:NFCC, song samples/non-free media can only be used where it sufficiently adds to the reader's understanding of the topic. The sample would have to support narrative/critical commentary. That was the significant NFCC failure. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I should have been more careful with my quoting of the 2023 discussion. I'm not talking about filename matching anything, only about the claim that "The song sample not used".

To make sure we're on the same page, let's clarify the part following "not used", namely "to demonstrate critical commentary ..." Does A 30 second sample of "I Hate Boys", an electro-glam song, featuring a gang chants in the background, where Aguilera sings about hating all men.<ref name=scotsman/><ref name=idolator/><ref name=mtvbuzz/> On the chorus, she sings: " I hate boys, but boys love me, I think they suck and my friends agree."<ref name=neon/> from Special:Diff/503124975 not count as "critical commentary of the song structure within the target article"? I have <nowiki>'ed the refs here, all four of which are still used in the article. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Koun Yamamoto

Draft:Theological model

Draft:Antonio Fernández del Riego

Heavenly Puss

Draft:Wilmot Raceway

Draft:Chris Boswell (real estate broker)

Draft:Bavarian campaign (1632)

Category:American people of English descent

2020s American renouncement of allies

Draft:Alexander Omar Vargas Milne

Draft:Abhishek Verma

Draft:Sumit Singh

Draft:Android 17

Draft:J. L. Hyde

Draft:Dr. Ashutosh Sharma (Botanist)

Draft:No Choice (2025 Film)

File:Honda_Element_logo.jpg

Draft:Danielle Lussier

Draft:Ride Along (film series)

Draft:Van Darkholme

Draft:James E. Slaton House

Draft:Libelluli Rugby Football Club

Draft:Willis Ball

Draft:Lodge at Wakulla Springs

Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party of the Soviet Union · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

It seems this article got deleted due to a problem with citations. If possible, I would like to work on it as a draft version to improve its citations and then resubmit it when it comes to a higher quality. —The Account 2 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Ping BusterD as deleting admin and Gurkubondinn as tagger to see if they think this is salvageable or too many LLM issues? The original tag only pointed at 2 out of 41 sources as non-existing, however 14 had a valid archived link to this and 26 also appears to be valid - it just only exists as http not https. So BusterD/Gurkubondinn was their other issues other than the incorrect claims that 14 and 26 were non-existing sources? KylieTastic (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I still maintain that the problem is not the citations themselves having incorrect URLs, but that this is just a symptom of the actual problem. This demonstrates that the editor did not read the sources that they used, and therefore has no idea if they actually support them claims sourced to them. With nearly 80 references, it is unreasonable to expect other editors to go through everything, and we should be able to trust editors to have done their due diligence before publishing something in article space (this also does not touch on my opinions that machine generated text does not belong in the encyclopedia). They told me on my talk page that this was produced by Google Translate, and is thus confirmed as not being written by a human but generated by a machine.

My opinion in LLM-generated articles in general is that a TNT is needed, since the only way to salvage them is to start from scratch, but I will refrain from giving any sort of comment on this specific case. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

But neither url was incorrect so it was not actually a symptom so the given reason is invalid for a G15. Also on your talk page yes they said they used Google Translate but per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION that is allowed if the editor is skilled in both the origin and target languages. The question to @The Account 2 and maybe to @Czarking0 as also interested, is do they read Chinese to a proficient level enough to be able to use a machine translation as a base? If either has a good level of Chinese then restoring to draft for more work should be fine, but if they don't then it has no real use. KylieTastic (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: I did a rough google translate of the original myself and it is close enough to be a concern, but also different enough to dismiss the really minimal translate and dump. As I speak almost no Chinese I am totally unqualified to judge further. KylieTastic (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I have enough Chinese skills to cross-check accuracy. The Account 2 (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not an LLM generated article. not being written by a human but generated by a machine G15 does not apply to all machine translated articles. It applies only to LLM generated articles. Czarking0 (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I also would like to edit this article starting from the deleted content. I agree with the deleters that it is not ready for the mainspace however I think the deleted content should be restored in draft form. Czarking0 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The Account 2 and Czarking0, this article began as a translation of zh:九评苏共, and the only succeeding edit was when it was tagged for speed deletion. I don't see there being any significant differences between using one translator and using another — unless you're doing a project to compare the quality of different translations — so you can just read the Chinese article or get an auto-translation of it. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like it is not a straight translation dump but a translation and some amount of work before creation here. @Toadspike, feel free to ignore, but as the only admin I could think of that fluent in Chinese maybe you could venture an opinion if this looks like a valid translation attempt or Machine translation junk? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@KylieTastic There are small differences between the two versions. It's obvious some manual work was done here beyond simply a Google Translate cut/paste job, as suggested above. The lead has no citations; wikilinks to enwiki articles were added; the Infobox Chinese was added; the last two sentences of the zhwiki lead were removed; "repudated" is misspelled; "the 1956 Hungarian revolution events" is not at all the literal translation that Google Translate produces, but it is also too awkward for an LLM in my view – presumably the year was added when The Account 2 added the wikilink; there's no translation of 等 wrt de-Stalinization. These aspects convince me some manual review and editing took place. On the other hand, I found a translation error that was most likely introduced by a machine: "proposing to oppose Stalinism and anti-Stalinist elements" should be "oppose Stalinism and Stalinist elements". Interestingly, in my testing Google Translate made exactly this mistake, but Claude and Gemini did not. So, my conclusion is that this was in fact machine-translated and edited by a human (though they didn't catch all the issues) and that the claim it was done with Google Translate is plausible and far more likely than it being done with an LLM chatbot. I think restoration to draftspace makes sense here. This is what I got from the first two paragraphs of the article; I'd be happy to continue tomorrow if needed, but I'm hoping this is enough for your purposes. Toadspike [Talk] 21:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Cheers @Toadspike, that goes with my thinking and thanks for taking the time to dig into the details that us non multi-linguals would miss. I'll restore to draft for further polishing and checking by those interested. Thanks again KylieTastic (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The Account 2 and Czarking0, refunded to Draft:Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for continued review and polishing of machine translation. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles