The author of this article is a friend of mine, and asked if I'd be able to suggest how it could be made compatible with Wikipedia rules. To that end, I'd request undeletion and moving to my userspace. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend userification While requests for undeletion might also be an appropriate place to make this request, I think sending this there would be pointless bureaucracy. Since the deletion 15+ years ago (I didn't realize we had an NCORP back then...) was pretty benign, I see no reason we can't just restore the content for further work. Be aware, however, that coverage requirements for businesses have tightened since then: Wikipedia is pretty clear our job is not to be free advertising, but rather descriptions of businesses that have already made a significant impact that they've been covered by an independent (rather than pay-for-press-release) news source. There's more to it than that, of course, but feel free to ask for help if you're having difficulties meeting the notability threshold. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as it appears WP:RFU is the appropriate forum for this request. Though if it were to remain on deletion review, I would support restoring to user space. Article was deleted in 2006 so a lot has likely changed since then. I would not oppose a good-faith attempt to rewrite this page if the notability is there. FrankAnchor 20:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if this is the incorrect place to ask, I was told this was the correct place to ask. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one that directed Mattbuck here. WP:RFU says that it is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages ... that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria ..., or in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. ... This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, ...—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process but through deletion review instead. In this case the page was not deleted following a PROD or CSD, but as a result of this AfD, so it wasn't uncontroversial. Therefore RFU does not apply and it's a DRV matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While we did have WP:NCORP fifteen years ago, we didn't have WP:G11, and this would absolutely be speedied as such if it were created today. The last sentence, "With over 30 years experience in the business-music industry, GMS has a very well developed customer service capability, offering a customer helpline 9am-9pm 7days, systems advice and general advice on choosing a music provider.", is typical of the content. Can be emailed if someone's feeling particularly merciful, but shouldn't be userfied as-is. —Cryptic 05:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt it'll be bad, but I figured it would be easier if I had an idea of what was originally written. If someone wants to email rather than undelete that's fine, but figured it may break attribution history to do so. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since your goal is to "suggest how it could be made compatible with Wikipedia rules", you don't need attribution. You only need attribution if you want to evolve this into something that can be hosted on enwiki while retaining anything at all copyrightable from the original version, which are almost completely incompatible. It's not an issue, anyway; all edits except adding the afd tag were by Hezza1506. —Cryptic 01:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted version was very promotional and would certainly be deleted under WP:CSD#G11 if created now, probably even in userspace. I think it would be best to start again as it would need a near-complete rewrite anyway. Hut 8.5 18:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allow userfication, which is best requested by asking the deleting admin or at WP:REFUND. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
REFUND would probably decline a request to restore this because it qualifies for G11 (which also applies to user space). Hut 8.5 12:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that REFUND would be responsive to a well worded explanation, such as has been given by User:Mattbuck here. If refused, I would hope there would be an offer to email. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Allow undeletion via email noting that restorations of AfD articles outside mainspace is typically uncontroversial and a purpose RFU is also intended to serve as a central location to request. It would be a bit BURO to move it to RFU now, especially since it's here after a decline by Redrose64 (however procedural), but I wouldn't really consider it a WP:RAAA or G4 issue. Of course, REFUND declines are likely for content meeting G11. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my request - the wikitext has kindly been emailed to me, so there's no need for undeletion anymore. My thanks to everyone who contributed. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
