Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Entries from March 2012

Note: The entries here are in a basic reverse-chronological order, in which newer entries are posted at the top of the archive.

March 2012

Clear Books

Clear Books – AfD discussion closed as delete and salt.

Clear Books got deleted recently for the second time. At the end of the AfD a user who had voted delete suggested that the article be re-created from the perspective of Clear Books being accounting software as opposed to Clear Books the company. In fact, this user then went on to create the article through the AfC process. And yet again Clear Books has been put up for AfD. Perhaps this time it will be kept! --TimFouracre (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Scotty has unveiled his new admin powers to delete the article. To be honest though, the close was inevitable.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah, this time its obvious. I just remember all the times he went to everything tagged by the ARS and argued to delete, and worry about him leaning in that direction in closures of the future. Dream Focus 18:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Yes, Wikipedia is being badly damaged by a gang who seem to feel that they have editorial powers to delete content, yet lack teh ability to research or create. I will be surprised if Wikipedia lasts too many more years unless someone takes control of the situation. DiverScout (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Yes, Wikipedia is being badly damaged by a gang who seem to feel that overzealous PR efforts by non-notable makers of non-notable accounting software shouldn't be incorporated into an encyclopedia. What nutters. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Restricted randomization

Restricted randomization – AfD discussion closed as keep.

Discussion here. This is a clearly written article about an obligatory topic in statistics. It is "obligatory" in the sense that split-plot designs are a compulsory part of the standard curriculum that everybody gets exposed to. The only reason offered for deletion is that the initial version of the article was copied from a (non-copyrighted) government web site. The WP:NOTMIRROR policy has been cited. But it's a "mirror" only if edits to the site that it "mirrors" are automatically put into it. Many thousands of Wikipedia articles, by explicit policy, began as copies of pages on telecommunications maintained by the Federal Communications Commision, and similarly the U.S. Geographic Names Database. We read things like "In telecommunications, the Atlantic Ocean is an ocean across which the transatlantic cable was laid between Europe and North America[...]" etc. (I think "In telecommuncations..." was prepended on Wikipedia and not found in the software. In 2003, lots of these had not yet been further edited. This article clearly needs work. Simply deleting it is absurd. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC) This listing is highly appropriate.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC) The AfD closed as keep. I was able to add a sentence to lead with a good cite for the origin of the technique, and list other sources for use in the AfD, though the article needs an expert. Its quite possible the AfD would have closed as delete without our scrutiny, which is insane because the topic is clearly quite notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Taboo VI: The Homecoming

Taboo VI: The Homecoming – AfD discussion closed as merge to The Mountain Goats discography

Taboo VI: The Homecoming, AfD here. It's a cassette nominated for lack of notability, I've found a couple of sources through a Google blogs search (they sometimes find reliable sites with an editorial staff) but I didn't have time to add them. There are several related nominations, and I suspect that the sources I found could also provide notability for some of them. Diego (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah, some of these may well be notable (its a mass album nom), as the Mountain Goats are a fairly high profile band.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Telegraphing (entertainment)

Telegraphing (entertainment) – AfD discussion closed as merge/redirect to Foreshadowing#Telegraphing.
Discussion here. The term has been in use for centuries. I've added a couple references, could use some more references and expansion. Diego (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thaindian News

Thaindian News – AfD discussion closed as delete.

AfD discussion. A hard nut to crack. A news service that seems to be used as a reference by lots of other media, but noone seems to have written about it. Can you rescuers use your leet skillz to find something to say about the site? The discussion isn't going anywhere without them; but trivial searches return nothing. Diego (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Hint: using "-site:thaindian.com" in the query seems to help. Diego (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC) This is a tough one. I've seen it cited and run across it before, and it does generate some original content, but it appears to be online only with little written about it.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

David "Noodles" Aaronson

David "Noodles" Aaronson – AfD discussion closed as Keep.

The article is currently at AFD and no, I do not request here that anyone go to the discussion and offer support. It is an article that originally suffered from the valid concern of being all plot and no sources. I have begun addressing that concern, and the result, though not perfect, is looking better.[1] What I AM asking here is that perhaps some editors might be able to assist me in expanding the "Analysis" section though use of the many available sources speaking about the character of Noodles directly and in detail.[2][3] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Plummer v. State

Plummer v. State – AfD discussion closed as No Consensus.

(See Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Plummer v. State (of Indiana) I created this page, and I am now nominating it for deletion and for rescue. Here is why I believe that there is no real contradiction between these two actions. Reasons why I think the page should be retained. (See Reasons why I think the page should be deleted below.) Plummer v. State is a widely quoted court case that supposedly establishes that resisting arrest, even to the point of killing a cop, is legal if the arrest is "unlawful": “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This bogus "quote" keeps coming up again and again on discussion boards such as Reddit, Slashdot, Dogg, etc. and in the comment sections of numerous blogs. Flyers have been passed out at occupy wall street protests (with claims that arresting OWS protesters is unlawful, so you should violently resist arrest). I was surprised that something so commonly referenced did not have a Wikipedia article. A Google search on "Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306" (with the quotes) finds 133,000 hits. How can that not be considered notable? Reasons why I think the page should be deleted. (See Reasons why I think the page should be retained above.) Despite abundant evidence that a large amount of people know the fake version and think it to be real, none of the evidence appears to be usable according to WP:RS. All of this is on blogs, discussion boards, YouTube comments - all worthless for our purposes. It just feels like we should have an article about such a widely held misconception, but I really can't see how to meet our general notability requirements. I am nominating this for rescue in the hopes that someone else can succeed where I have failed. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Do I understand that what you are saying is that it is a myth that the case establishes that resisting arrest, even to the point of killing a cop, is legal? If so, why not simply rename it to "the myth of Plummer v. State" or some such? As far as why you have not received any help on this article, I personally believe that lawyers feel slighted at Wikipedia and as a result we are not getting enough contributions from wikipedians who have legal knowledge. This of course on top of everyone running around needlessly all tryng to save their favorite articles from deletion which is causing general burnout. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Its discussed in a massive number of Google news archive and book search results. So its notable no matter what. And long discussions should be at the AFD not here. Dream Focus 00:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Why create an article on something if you question its notability? And even if you do, but it meets WP:V and seems useful, I don't see why you would self-nominate.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Miller Live

Dennis Miller Live – Dennis Miller Live discussion.

A 2004 wikipedia article facing a wp:PROD. It is currently getting about 1,000 views every month even though it appears its cotributors ave deserted it(?) Ottawahitech (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC) I deprodded it. Anyone reading the first bit about the awards won would know not to prod it. I see the prodder has a bot running to automatically nominate ridiculously large numbers of articles at a time. [4] Unless there was a discussion to just automatically nominate everything not referenced, I don't think this should be tolerated. We need to start a discussion somewhere about this. Dream Focus 00:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC) That was a piss poor sorry prod.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Dream, you're right, this editor has prodded a shitload of articles because he says they don't meet WP:V, just because they don't currently have references. That is far from being actually unverifiable.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC) There are not as many of these as I thought -- maybe 50? -- many have been deprodded already.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Video gaming in the United States

Video gaming in the United States – Video gaming in the United States discussion.

I believe the subject is notable it has sources it clearly needs expansion and but it has WP:POTENTIALDwanyewest (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Since the article was nominated for speedy deletion by an editor who thought it might be worthwhile if improved, which is a bit odd, I removed the speedy notice. Its still subject to a regular PROD or AfD though, because there's not much content at the moment. I can't imagine that template in the article, suggesting separate articles for all those countries, is viable. Consider where else the content can go, if this can't be sufficiently expanded with sources.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC) And then I see we have Category:Video gaming by country, I learn something every day!--Milowent • hasspoken 20:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC) That is something surely talked about in the media a lot. Just find news articles showing how big of an industry it is year by year, and list the amount of money made from American made games and imported games. Be an interesting chart to see. Dream Focus 15:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Apple media events

Apple media events – Apple media events discussion.

March 7 Apple Media Event was nominated for deletion here after WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I've refocused the discusion creating the new Apple media events that expands the focus to all Apple events, thus preserving the original content. It could use lots of help by expanding the new stub to all other Apple media conferences and compiling all specific sources available at Wikipedia for this topic. Diego (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Gawd, Apple media events is a great idea for an article -- every one of these things the past few years gets crazy amounts of press coverage, a timeline type history would be great.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Another service provided by your friendly disruptive (in the good sense) Consensus-man. Saving content with delete !votes, my alignment is true neutral! Diego (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC) WTF just happened? How was this deleted? CallawayRox (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Almost everyone on the discussion talk page agreed that the article was not needed now that Apple media events is up. The closing admin decided that the was no problem hiding the attribution history in the admin-only area, which is the normal status for all red-linked articles. Diego (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC) What part of "March 7 Apple Media Event now serves to provide attribution for that content in Apple media events and must not be deleted so long as Apple media events exists." allows this?? This looks like admin abuse. CallawayRox (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I suppose this could be fixed with a simple deletion review that asked an administrator to undelete the article and blanked it or created a redirect. Diego (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I had bad luck at deletion review previously. CallawayRox (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I think, in fairness, that Diego has inadvertently misrepresented the discussion above. Almost everyone on the discussion talk page agreed that the article should be deleted. Hence, it was deleted, and we now have the far more agreeable Apple media events. I remain extremely uncomfortable with the idea of pursuing any action that undermines what was very (like, very very very) clear consensus in the AFD to delete. Additionally, some workaround to address the attribution issue was effected, as far as I can tell. I am not even remotely familiar with attribution issues, though, so if you ask me to point you to where the workaround was put in place, I'll respond with "uhm...". ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC) This is what happens when you look at AFDs without considering wider site meta-consensuses. Yes there was a consensus to delete but that should have been tempered by our attributation policy and prior practice that clearly mandates that we redirect in these circumstances. It would have been easy to have read the consensus as no article there but close as redirect by referencing the need to keep the history for attributation. It must have happened that way a gazillion times before. If no one else has time I'll raise it with the closing admin and take it to DRV if he doesn't move. The way it has been left is unacceptable. Spartaz Humbug! 02:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC) If you must, but this seems like quite a can of worms. There were several other persons who, not sharing my assumption that Diego wasn't intentionally trying to undermine the AFD, thought his action was an underhanded (I think the word was "slimy" -- and I can't stress enough that I don't share that opinion) way of countermanding what was a pretty lengthy and involved discussion. Personally, I barely care whether there's a redirect there or not, but it is alarming that someone could, intentionally or not, render 7 days of discussion essentially moot through this practice. If I'm missing something here, please say so; I'm less than familiar with issues surrounding attribution, and if I'm missing something it'd be helpful to know about it. Thanks, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC) I've since asked the closing admin to confirm that the current attribution page is indeed what it says it is, a history of the edits to the deleted article. (Still waiting though, but that would be a perfectly valid outcome and my preferred course of action at this point). I've said once and again that the current interpretation of "delete an article" being "make its history inaccessible" is a can of worms, always have been, and it was not even the intended effect when deletion policies were written; removing content behind Admin access was only to protect the Foundation from copyvios and libel at BLPs. This is what you get when current customary practice is against the goals of the well thought consensual guidelines. Diego (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Foot hockey

Foot hockey – AfD discussion closed as no consensus.

I believe Ottawahitech was adding this entry (he pasted in the discussion).--Milowent • hasspoken 04:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC) To followup, I believe Ottawa's basis for listing is that he feels the subject is notable. The article has some references already, but it could use additional sourcing and formatting improvements. Also, since many Canadian newspapers are pay walled, someone with access to those newspapers would probably put this article over the top.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I am just learning how to include discussions in other WikiProjects - I tried to undo the one I inserted here earlier today, but it cannot be reverted. As far as foot hockey is concerned, I am personally not familiar with the topic, however, I noticed that the article has been on Wikipedia for quite some time and has had a ton of contributors - all of whom may feel rejected if this article is deleted. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Monitory Democracy

Monitory Democracy – AfD discussion closed as merge to John Keane (political theorist).

Many available sources are primary, with John Keane using the term (who introduced the term in his book The Life and Death of Democracy in 2009). Here's some examples other than the references currently in the article (as of this post), all written by John Keane: Monitory democracy and media-saturated societies, (John Keane) Monitory democracy resides in the China labyrinth, The China Labyrinth. However, significant coverage in reliable sources does exist, including this article from The Nation (Sri Lanka): Monitory democracy for better governance. Perhaps other editors can find additional reliable sources that cover this topic significantly? Northamerica1000(talk) 13:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Clearly the content can be moved into John Keane (political theorist) if the concept is not independently notable. E.g., a while back I did some work on the notable sociologist Daniel Bell, whose work gets referenced all the time in the media but his article didn't even explain the basic concepts of some of his most-cited books. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the nominator did not consider that option here.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

List of most highly populated countries

List of most highly populated countries – AfD discussion closed as delete.

The article mainly seems to need some high-level editing to tighten its focus - maybe a move to a new title or merger. Anyway, the topic has great notability and so would be easy to improve in many ways. Warden (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC) I have done some work on the article and have identified some other related articles which need work too and so suggest bringing them together. But the AFD discussion is not yet very edifying; here's a sample: "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DON'T DELETE THIS!". Warden (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox castrum

Template:Infobox castrum – TFD discussion closed as keep.
There is a request for deletion on Template:Infobox castrum, currently used in a series of articles on Roman castra. For example Porolissum.----Codrin.B (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Franklin's Island

Dr. Franklin's Island – AfD discussion closed as keep.

Sources for this 2001 book exist, and clearly constitute multiple, non-trivial, independent RS coverage. However, the current article is unsourced and clearly does need attention. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I've sourced all statements in the article and have added a "Reception" section. Also, I found that this book is extensively discussed in "When Science Blurs the Boundaries: The Commodification of the Animal in Young Adult Science Fiction" from the academic journal Science Fiction Studies. Goodvac (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thelma Harper

Thelma Harper – AfD discussion closed as Merge some. Keep Thelma and Eunice, and merge the rest to List of Mama's Family characters.

AFD The second AFD for character articles from a notable show. The first one I check does have enough to be considered notable. Some of the others might as well. Dream Focus 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Ah, Dream, I hadn't seen that this was listed here, I found it independently. The Thelma character is so notable its beyond ridiculous. The nomination made no attempt to determine which of the other listed characters are notable, or even the Thelma character (which has a total history outside of the TV show). This is a shame; I mean, I don't care about these characters but there are people who do. Yet we get a mass nomination like this. With participation at AfD so low these days, the majority of the content is likely to be deleted (well, copied into a "list of characters" article) because no one who cares about the content is going to intervene. What happened to the days when Wikipedia used to be about building an encyclopedia? Sometimes I think every editor should be required to create one article before they can nominate one for deletion. There are so many pre-20th century historical figures we don't have articles on yet, though sources are readily available.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I am pretty sure I've improved the Thelma article enough to rescue it, but the tone of the discussion in that AfD is disturbing to me. (NOTE TO DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: THIS IS NOT A REQUEST TO CANVASS KEEP VOTES.) Multiple editors seem to think its good practice to opine delete and leave all the burden on determining notability only on those who think it should be kept. This turns AfD into a mandatory rescue operation unless you want information destroyed without even vetting its potential notablity. One could nominate super notable topics, like a small foreign country article that is poorly sourced, for example, and it could be deleted under these !voters' rationale. I don't understand why people like these even participate in Wikipedia.--Milowent • hasspoken 06:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Tyrida

Tyrida – Discussion regarding placement of CSD tag.

This article was marked for WP:CSD A1 I believed incorrectly and prematurely. It is part of a series on ancient Dacian cities and fortresses, all notable. The context is set in the lead and sourced. Many articles on these cities/fortresses are in a stub form at this point, but the goal for all articles is to reach a much more detailed form, similar to Ziridava, Argedava, Sarmizegetusa Regia etc. It is one of the main projects of WP:DACIA. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC) It looks like this one is safe from deletion at the moment, though it needs further expansion. I can't believe someone would tag this for speedy deletion, what is wrong with people?--Milowent • hasspoken 13:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review and feedback. Indeed, it would need more work. And yes, you are right about the tag. It seems like an inexperienced editor.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rocky Hill School

Rocky Hill School – AfD discussion closed as keep.
Already saved this one myself, didn't have to list it more broadly. Wanted to note it because without ARS I would never have gained the skills to note saveable articles so easily.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Solo (Norwegian soft drink)

Solo (Norwegian soft drink) – AfD discussion closed as keep.

Already saved this one too. Where do these horrible nominators come from? These people don't even know how to work google -- they are killing wikipedia. Something must be done!--Milowent • hasspoken 00:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Yes, I agree. Some of those nominating articles for deletion either have never created any new articles, or have created articles that would have been deleted if subjected to the same strrict criteria they are demanding from others. It seems that many are complaining about bad content at Wikipedia, not recognizing that most of the deletions are not really BAD, just questionable. See for example User:Martijn Hoekstra: "The greatest problem I think we face at the moment is that we are caught in a downward spiral of bad content and unwelcoming community..." My $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC) The unwelcoming community is definitely a *huge* problem. But I'd disagree with Martijn's comment about "a downward spiral of bad content." New articles from new editors are just as "bad" as they've always been--but in 2005 they were welcomed with open arms. Articles regularly had no references, and the amount of pop culture content (e.g., articles on individual characters in TV shows, individual episodes of TV shows, etc.) was tolerated much more. Wouldn't it be awesome if there was a rule in AfD that you couldn't nominate more than 5 articles for deletion a week unless you had (1) created at least one-start class article or (2) done at least 250 mainspace edits?--Milowent • hasspoken 13:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox dava

Template:Infobox dava – TFD discussion closed as keep.

There is a request for deletion on Template:Infobox dava, currently used in 91 articles about Dacian cities/fortresses.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Codrinb, how do you expect the ARS can help in these template discussions? There doesn't seem to be any concern about sourcing, and I don't see how lending a hand at reworking their contents would help to keep them. Do you have something in mind? Diego (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC) He/she wanted some keep votes, and he/she got 'em. No comment. Actually, I will make a comment. At the ARS talk page. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC) I am looking for your expertise/experience in this situation. I reject the accusations regarding votes. That is a very cheap comment. Maybe ARS members should not be allowed to vote if this opened a can of worms. I am not very accustomed with ARS but I thought would be the right place to ask for help. The requester for the deletion of this template, requested also the removal of a plethora of templates. For example {{Infobox architect}}. It is a more complex problem. Someone has an extreme view on generalization vs specialization, treating WP as a database schema with normalized tables. This is a systemic issue requiring depth and expertise. Not votes. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Maybe you should create a Request for Comment or some other dispute resolution. The ARS works best when there is some clear direction for improvement, and that requires some previous consensus on what is the good direction to take. Diego (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

SCOUT eh!

SCOUT eh! – AfD discussion closed as keep.

AFD Was nominated AfD in 2005, with a pretty clear keep decision. Now up for nomination again - with comments suggecting that this is more due to PoV than clear policy (but that is just my PoV, of course). As I'm not in Canada I'm not best-placed to contribute much to the debate or find local sources, but the history suggests that this is an ARS candidate. The provided AfD link also does not work, which does not help the debate! Listed 2nd March. DiverScout (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC) The first AfD was closed as "no consensus," with a number of merge suggestions. If you're asking for our help, please be honest!--Milowent • hasspoken 12:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Erm, I am suggesting an article that is a candidate for rescue and pointing out that the article has been listed before and kept. You might also note that I have currently opted for merge (unless I come on additional references). For the record most comments last time were supporting retention or merge of information (not deletion) - and the article was retained. Thank you. DiverScout (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Sources were found and the article improved, some changing their opinions to keep because of it. It was thus a good candidate for tagging, since Rescuing it was possible. I fixed the link above to the proper AFD. Dream Focus 18:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)