Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 62

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 ← Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65

Words without vowels

Useful page with inherently verifiable information (words without vowels). Good case for WP:IAR with respect to WP:NOR applying to this article - the encyclopedia is better and no worse with it than without it. -Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

SceneAround

I would like to recover this article and replace it in the encyclopedia. I have three reliable sources about it, an article in the Dutch Metro and in the Trouw and Het Parool newspapers, from the Dutch Wikipedia [1]. -SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 04:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC) SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 04:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Squirrel4.jpg

Image was deleted as copyvio of the Flickr account of Philip N. Cohen, though other edits by the user identify them as Philip N. Cohen. The Flickr uploads are copyrighted so this image can't be replaced that way. No reason not to believe this user is Philip N. Cohen. Also requesting a review of any other deleted images from this user. -▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, the user identifies themselves by name when uploading File:Red-tailed-hawk-nyc-oct-2010.jpg. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
And just in case it isn't obvious, I'm talking about the local WP image, not the Commons image with the same name, which is actually a different picture. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

 Question: It's been 4 days; I assume that people are passing this by because of the blue link? That is due to the Commons image of the same name, which is not the subject of this request. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am enjoying your conversation, yes. My concern is why you're asking - the person who uploaded the files could/should perhaps be making the request, if they are indeed the content owner. Perhaps they reconsidered their decision to re-license their work? Perhaps they realized we have lots of lovely squirrel pictures? There are many reasons why someone would not object to their upload being deleted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I came across the picture when moving images to Commons. It made sense to delete that image based only on the information on the file page, but not if the rest of the uploader's contributions are looked at. If I don't post here then the image is lost to us forever. I don't know what were the uploader's intentions, but just because the uploader wasn't around when the image was deleted doesn't mean that they changed their mind about uploading (remember that the software only recently started emailing people about talk page messages). Unless we intend to harass the uploader about it. "Remember that high-quality photo that you uploaded to Wikipedia and gave away certain rights to? We deleted it, because we didn't believe that it was yours. Now please give it back to us on the same terms. We will try our best not to delete it again. Maybe." Even if the uploader has different feelings now, they never requested deletion, they weren't active when it was deleted. This is the only copy of that image under a free license, so please undelete it so I can move it to Commons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I deleted this image, but I don't remember anything about it; all I can say is what I can see now, as if I'd previously been uninvolved. Looks to me as if we have an unsubstantiated claim that the Wikipedia uploader and the Flickr uploader are the same person; I've checked the Flickr uploader's profile and the blog to which his profile links, but I can't see any statement that he's the same person as the Wikipedia editor. If you can find proof from Flickr that they're the same, please present that evidence, but without that evidence, the dangers of permitting impersonation are substantial enough that we can't 100% trust the uploader's statement alone. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Spane buildings

reasoning -JimSpane (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please undelete Spane buildings. I believe it was considered not "Notable". As additional support for the Notability of Spane buildings I offer the following information: This company is very significant historically as the owner of two patents which changed the way their structures were used in farming. Most notably the US patend 4,285,300. As Follows: United States Patent 4,285,300

(Extended text moved from collapse-box to User:JimSpane/Patent, because collapsed text on this page interferes with wikilinks to sections below. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

Additionally Spane invented and patented US patent#3414300 which simplified barn construction and provided greater working space within the structure.

Both of these patented techniques continue in use today and helped revolutionize the Dairy Industry.

(Non-administrator comment) I've collapsed the text of your patent per WP:TL;DR and will let the admin reviewer explain why that doesn't really address Wikipedia's notability requirements. Kilopi (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll explain: Wikipedia articles must be about demonstrably notable subjects, meaning that they need to have been written about by several reliable sources (newspapers, news agencies, trade publications, etc.). A patent only proves existence, not notability. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry of John Seymour of Sawbridgeworth

the debate during the proposed deletion process did not produce any viable reason, under wikipedia guidelines to delete the article. There appears to be a vendetta against this article for some strange reason -Pablocombiano (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's why I need a further review. I can't believe that the most likely fact that John of Sawbridgeworth was the son of Sir John Seymour and Katherine Fillol, and therefore the half brother of Edward the Protector and uncle to Edward VI doesn't qualify as notable. The story itself of the cover up, etc qualify as notable. How does Wikipedia define notable? At any rate I'll accept that you're not the right person for this task, and move along — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.99.150.194 (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. You have been provided a heck of a lot of links to what notability includes, such as the general notability guidelines. Anything that is on your talkpage or in this sentence that is blue is a LINK to the relevant policies. If you are going to take this to WP:DRV, then click here and read the deletion policy, and the arguments you should use/avoid (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, for at least the eighth time, the article IS NOT ABOUT JOHN SEYMOUR OF SAWBRIDGEWROTH alone. It is about his ancestry. HENCE THE TITLE. His ancestry, and manner of conception, etc are clearly notable. Maybe I'll do a quick scan of articles and find several examples of articles which are clearly less notable. Probably some that you've authored yourself. Therefore John's inability to gain notariety may or mat not be relevant. The relevant point is that the story of his conception is very notable.

Many of Wikipedia's 3,800,000 articles are not up to standard, but that is not a reason for admitting more, so What about article x? is not an argument that gets listened to. Each article is considered on its own merits. Don't waste your time looking for bad articles to compare: find evidence that your subject has had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Pointing out an article to support your argument the article should be kept is not only not going to work, it's also apt to lead to the article being deleted if it's not up to snuff. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of CECB units

Could you userfy this article which was deleted under AfD? I swear; I will not have it moved to main namespace! Nevertheless, PLEASE DO NOT MOVE TO MY USER PAGE, "USER:GEORGE HO"!! Instead, have an administrator, like you, to carry it into an administrator's user page just for historic purposes. I'm capable of handling it, yet it requires a lot of protection, and I mean full protection, so no one edits it, not even I. -George Ho (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done If the intent is for it to never be edited, then it should not be even in userspace anywhere. We don't keep things around for "historical purposes" (in fact, the edit history IS permanent, so it is around historically). If it's not going to be improved, then it has no place in userspace anywhere (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Orthodox Christian Psychotherapy

The term is not a Neologism, it exists for many years now, secondary sources can be found just by googling it, e.g. this book . My opinion is that there is no reason to delete it, it could rather be progressively refined. It can be discussed if it would be better to change the article title to "Orthodox Psychotherapy" (which is the actual term) rather than "Orthodox Christian Psychotherapy" (which is better for clarity and so it is not mistaken for the mainline secular psychotherapeutic techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.16.104 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 February 2012‎

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. I will notify user Novaseminary (talk), who proposed it, in case he wishes to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. That would start a debate, normally lasting seven days, to which you would be welcome to contribute. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:SoFdover.jpeg

reasoning -2013harry 16:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - it was deleted as a copyright violation of http://www.doverferryphotos.co.uk/image2012/P1030729.jpg. JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RichadDenny

The page was deleted becuase I did not add a source for the article. I have a number of sources and i am ready to start editing. -Suzannebridges (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done and will not be done This was not an article; this was a shameless advertisement, full of smarmy bilge like "Richard has impressive credentials and enjoyed a fascinating career. He passionately believes in the importance of a positive attitude backed and supported with practical usable skills and behaviours." Wikipedia is not a venue for your $^%(*&! spam!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_62&oldid=1138664678"