User:Susan Schneegans – Overturn There's clear consensus here that WP:U5 didn't apply. Less clear is whether the actual page content was acceptable, but the general feeling here is that it probably was OK for a user page. But, beyond that, it's not clear what the right way forward is. So, for the moment, I'm going to leave the page deleted, and ask @Susan Schneegans: to let us know what she wants to happen. We can restore the entire page with the full history, or just some specific version, or even leave it deleted. Your call. You could respond on my talk page, or make a request at WP:REFUND if you prefer. – -- RoySmith(talk) 13:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The user was telling people about themselves by including their CV, which led to the page being deleted. I don't think this is a very good way to help new users to feel welcome. The admin suggested I come here to ask for the page to be undeleted. John Cummings (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this clearly wasn't a valid U5. That criterion only applies if "the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages". This user has over a thousand edits, mostly to mainspace. Users are allowed to have limited autobiographical content on their user page. And yes, deleting this page can't have been a great welcome for a new enthusiastic editor. Hut 8.5 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn if and only if the user in question actually wants it back. I don't see anything that would be considered a misuse of userspace in the deleted version. A prior version had a section that was arguably less apropros, including among other things the names of her kids. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slow overturn. I agree with both of the other users; this person clearly is beyond a "few" non-userspace edits, and since Susan herself removed (link for admins) a whole section with the edit summary "personal life deleted", we shouldn't be undeleting anything of that content unless she asks for it. So basically, undelete the most recent Susan-edited version of the page only, and tell her to go to WP:REFUND if she wants the rest of it. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. U5 is not ever for pages of genuine contributors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Bad U5. Send to MfD if desired... Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline review request for lack of standing. Yes, nobody owns Wikipedia pages, including user pages, but I propose we don't act on userspace undeletion requests unless they are by the user at issue themselves, or the requesting editor provides a reason why the content of the page is important to them, personally. Otherwise we are just undeleting for the sake of undeleting, rather because there is actual content that somebody wants to have back. Sandstein 08:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you really mean is "CSD should be rewritten to say: Any admin may summarily delete any page that should be deleted"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I mean is, if there is a problem with an userspace deletion, it should be the user themselves who complains about it, not somebody else. Sandstein 11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. What I mean is that if admins misunderstand deletion policies, this review process exists to highlight issues, and to re-educate. I guess, considering your point, the conclusion better be WP:SLAP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Gray Routes – No consensus. For lack of discussion, the outcome of the deletion discussion is maintained by default. – Sandstein 08:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I follow news about upcoming startups in the media as a hobby and I recently came across this company called "Gray Routes" which I found noteworthy. However, when I searched on Wikipedia, I realized that the company didnt have a page so I thought of creating one myself. I was not aware that there was already a page created earlier which got deleted due to not having sufficient references.
I wish to highlight the fact that in the last one year, the company gained very good coverage in the media with respect to its growth and expansion. I have mentioned notable references such as Bloomberg, The Silicon Review & TechCircle as well which posit this fact.
I request you to reconsider your decision of speedy deletion. However, if you feel that the information published is some kind of advertisement, do let me know so that I can re-edit the page.
I have gone through all the guidelines of Wikipedia and I am certain that the references which I have mentioned satisfy the criteria of Wikipedia's policies.
