- Draft:Dominick Lazzara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
It was turn into a draft by another admin, to allow me to work on it. I should be given that opportunity, or at least move it into my user space. BrianRFSU 00:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- comment I did all that, moving to draft and also deleting the page. So it was the same admin. Since the content was copied from a web site, it was deleted as a copyright problem. Even if you prove that you are the copyright holder the text is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. The page was unsuitable as an article. So I suggest that you write the content from scratch in the draft, leaving out promotional text, using independent references to provide information about the content and making it look more like an encyclopedia entry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sir. After you moved it, it was retagged for SD by another admin. BrianRFSU 00:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianRFSU (talk • contribs)
- The page here appears to be Draft:Domenick Lazzara, which was deleted under G12 as a copyright violation of this. After it was restored by Graeme Bartlett User:JJMC89 tagged it for speedy deletion (this user isn't an admin) and then Graeme Bartlett deleted it. We can't have copyright violations anywhere on Wikipedia, including in draft or user space, and the page was indeed a copyright violation of that link, so this was entirely proper. I suggest you follow the above and rewrite the content in your own words using neutral, non-promotional language. The chances of deletion review restoring a promotional copyright violation are basically nil. Hut 8.5 17:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as the name this is filed with is literally the Draft and that will never be restored at all therefore case closed, because I explicitly found it to be copyvio hence my tag; as for the articlespace Domenick Lazzarra, there's nothing substantial there to actually restore either. The best option here is WP:AFC but that will both need actual content and substance for notability and absolutely no copyvio. There's nothing from the opening statement that suggests we need an actual consensus here. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close. Copyvios cannot be on the site. Not negotiable. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation, but do not copy text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
