Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Hallaula

I stand ready just as much as the next editor to punch those 'old deletionists and give 'em a black eye for Jesus. Yet, I remain curious as to why many of the articles currently tagged with {{rescue}} are religious in nature. Any thoughts? -- Suntag ☼ 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Coincidence? They weren't tagged by the same person. [1] [2] [3] And the AfDs weren't started by the same person either. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Which might indicate that there's a systemic conflict over notability of religion-related articles: Some have started or left them without appropriate references, and other editors aren't taking their notability for granted and challenging it through the AfD process. I follow religion-related AfD discussions, personally. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a systematic AfDing of articles that don't have references. I don't follow reliogon articles, but I've seen it as a general trend. On the other side, there are lots of articles about almost every church in every town. Their notabiltiy can be proven, but it only happens one AfD at a time. It's the same issue with all wikpedia articles pre-2007 when references weren't needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of list-articles is much more like deletion of categories: proposed fixes (why you're asked to rescue so many lists)

In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Wikipedia, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.

When somebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article (list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).

All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.

  • I propose that a separte page be created for proposed deletions of list-articles.

Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. SBHarris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with XfDs other than AfD is that they get to little attention. I check AfD every day--I check CfD every once in a while, maybe--and similarly with the others. Perhaps if they were combined all of them into MfD they would get some proper attention, and hen what you suggest would make be a much better idea. The good thing about AfD , after all, is that a wide variety of people do watch it. As for locus of debate, I think the VP is the place. DGG (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC).
What's "VP"? --Orlady (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Never mind: Village Pump. --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it is a good idea to consider, the merging of lists and cats in to one discussion for deletion (plus yes, it is problem that the other xfds don't get much attention compared to AfD). Mathmo Talk 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of moving list AfDs out of the AfD area. Lists are geberally either articles in development or extension of articles with similar standards of policies whereas templates, categories, etc seem to be more navigational ways to get to articles and organize them. Lists, in other words, are still articles whereas categories are organizing tools. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored essays which were deleted 07:08, 16 August 2008

Essays, etc.

69.138.166.170 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Zoids and Transformers

Fellow members, I have tagged a number of articles that should be salvaged by being merged and redirected to lists as the "reasons" for deletion in those discussions, i.e. rather than merging and redirecting are generally nonsensical. But I suggest our efforts in rescuing these ones be focused on getting them merged and redirected to appropriate lists and welcome any ideas and help in doing so. Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

—== SCOTT WALTERSCHIED ==

Resolved
 – Article speedied as a copyvio. -- Banjeboi 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH PPRICE. I LOOKED AT THE INTERNET MOVIE DATA BASE CITE AND THE WONDERLAND SITE AND ALL THE FACTS STATED ARE TRUE. ALSO I AM IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY AND SCOTT IS WELL KNOWN SO I DO NOT SEE A LEGITIMATE REASON WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE POSTED. THE ARGUMENTS FOR DELETION ARE NOT STRONG AND ARE IN FACT REFUTED BY THE WEBSITES LISTED BY THE WRITER.

LAUREN WEST

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Walterschied . -- Banjeboi 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As the person who deleted the article on Walterschied was banned from Wilkipedia then I believe the editors should re-visit this submission.

Wikipedia bullying ever since I added link to law school newspaper article on Patriot Act

Dear everyone...I realize this may not be the way to comment, but ever since I added a link to a cover page article on the page Pete Kovacs that was about the Patriot Act written in 2001 for the Santa Clara University School of Law SCU Advocate, a student newspaper that is widely distributed and read by attorneys in Silicon Valley - I believe it goes out to alumni of SCU Law every page that links to Pete Kovacs has gone up for deletion. The article in question, "The Patriot Act: Noble Ends, Questionable Means" was a synthesis of opinions of law professors at Santa Clara University School of Law in the fall of 2001 shortly after 9/11. They were critical of the Patriot Act - not the ends, to secure the national security of the USA and by inference the global community - but the means, that it was too quickly drafted and left the average citizen vulnerable to abuse at the hands of the intelligence community. The professors expressed this and I recorded it and wrote the article. Ever since I posted the link to the PDF of this article at the SCU Advocate website on the page for Pete Kovacs, the author (myself)...every page that links to Pete Kovacs and potentially this article has been scheduled for delete, including Humble King Returning King which has been up on the Wikipedia for quite some time, was edited by multiple authors, not just myself, etc and Pete Kovacs which was created because a Wikipedia editor created the link to Pete Kovacs and I filled in the data, and MJZine.com which is about a webzine that links to Pete Kovacs and several other pages of individuals yet to be created (and then subsequently deleted???). Please help keep these pages alive. I believe this is discrimination. Relgious, or perhaps some do not like or agree with the content of my article on the Patriot Act. Thank you. Hkp-avniel (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Have there been any newspaper or magazine articles written about you? Not by, but about. Any reviews of your book from mildly famous publications? I see it's a lulu.com book. Is it self-published? That's what we need to easily satisfy WP:NOTE and save the articles. -
Stop acting like this is because of discrimination. It's because of WP:NOTABILITY. Also, calling people anti-seminists on two AFDs is a big time personal attack which you should have been blocked for. Schuym1 (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

HelpMaticProHTML is being considered for deletion and I am seeking assistance

I have entered basic information on HelpMaticProHTML because I believe that it is a little-known tool for creation of CHM and webhelp pages and has a different architecture from other help generators. So far, I have entered just basic information, plus a link to the vendor's website. I know the entry needs more information and I'm not sure what is needed to prevent deletion. Thank you for any help. --Dskirk (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You need reliable sources to show that this product is notable. It may simply be too new. -- Banjeboi 03:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons

Dear Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 19, you should mention what to do about articles on commons, like commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:General_Fan_Hanjie.jpg, which I am now being forced to launch lengthy legal queries about. Help. Jidanni (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Short answer, nothing (As in things on commons are outside the remit of this wikiproject)? Long answer: the same thing we do for articles here. Search for possible source information and attempt to resolve the deletion debate by making it moot. Protonk (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, the general's son today confirms it is a personal family photograph (that the son, in his 80s, gave to me with the wish it be placed on Wikipedia.) We'll see if that will end the argument. Thanks. Jidanni (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Image deletion, and some other media deletion does crossover from Wikipedia to Commons. One very frustrating image issue is an image being migrated to Commons then deleted from there as well. In a perfect world our image policies and uploading helper bits would be much more user friendly but there is a lot of garbage that is also uploaded so it's a process still being worked out. It may be a good idea to offer some helpful links for non-articles being deleted for those seeking help. -- Banjeboi 03:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Jidanni sure seems passionate about this issue, spending several pages writing about this photo. It is such a shame that editors have to waste so much time defending their contributions. I personally will no longer upload photos. travb (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes it's a matter to understand what the issues are and how to resolve them for future reference as well. Plus people learn in different ways and we also could be dealing with cultural issues. I am much slower to tussle with image drama as it is a system in need of help and I see too many who seem downright gleeful about deleting hundreds of images. Many which are perfectly fine. -- Banjeboi 14:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
And not one in a hundred of these image deletors are attorneys, so they have no understanding of copyright or free use law. travb (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The whole china copyright discussion was probably good for them to have, though. I doubt many people had looked into it before that discussion. Someone may be able to find a bunch of free chinese images now that they know about the laws. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Please add a link to this discussion, I would be interested. travb (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It's just the same link as above. Jidanni (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Braves-Mets rivalry

Hi guys, this article is down at AfD, and it needs some help. It was just a lonely rivalry template about to be deleted when I stumbled on it, but I added a minimal amount of text and some good references to try and keep it alive. I was wondering if y'all would go take a look at it? I'd put the rescue template on it myself if the little bit of text I added hadn't constituted almost the whole of the article. People are trying to delete it because of things that can be fixed about this notable article. I'd do it myself, but happen to be busy at the moment and thought i'd call in the calvary. Thanks! SMSpivey (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag added. Even if you don't add them find and drop in the AfD a good article or two that talk about this rivalry so other editors see what it's referred to if nothing else. -- Banjeboi 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Myra (film) Page Up For Deletion

Hey everybody, the Wikipedia page for the University of Akron's student film organization (The 2380 Project) newest feature film, Myra is up for deletion. The page is no different, as you'll see when you visit it, than any other yet-to-be-released major motion picture, just on a smaller scale. Please post on the discussion page to help save our page and keep the information available to those curious about the film! Thank you. Camper2207 (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Mike Campanizzi (Director)

Sorry, it's just too soon for this film. See the deletion discussion for more on this. If you want to userfy a copy we can help before it's deleted or you can ask an admin to if it has already been removed. -- Banjeboi 15:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Please help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callum_Baillie
I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for this musician and the page is likely to be deleted soon as they incorrectly believe it to be a vanity article. Please help Ego-defence-mechanic (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ego, as I wrote on your talk page:
Finding sources which mention the topic of your article are the very best way to keep an article.
Find sources for Callum Baillie: google books, google news recent, google news old, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.
There are absolutely no sources found for this article, with those search engines.
The links and the photo seem to suggest that this person is not "notable" (although I cringe using this word, the number one word used in deleting articles).
If you can't find media articles about this person, the article will be deleted. There is nothing anyone can do about it.
I would suggest cutting and pasting the article into your main userpage: User:Ego-defence-mechanic, immediately before it is deleted.
Alternatively, you can ask an administrator to "userfy" the article, so all of the edit history is kept, and the page is moved to a new page: User:Ego-defence-mechanic/Callum_Baillie.
But it is better to cut and paste the article onto your user page yourself, because editors cannot come back later and delete your main user page (at least I have never heard this happen). User:Ego-defence-mechanic/Callum_Baillie maybe deleted later, or the admin you ask may refuse to "userfy" your article.
I hope this helped!
Mr./Ms. Ben, please let me know if I advised this person contrary to WP:ARS rules, if I have, I will retract anything I need to. travb (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Article was merged. :) My first official WP:ARS semi-success. Yeah. travb (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help preserving article - July Systems

July Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Systems has been tagged for deletion.

This article has been edited to remove promotional sounding content, per an editor's note in Oct. However it's been commented on again.

Need guidance on keeping this article. It's about the mobile web, mobile 2.0 technologies and a company that's the forefront of this field.

There are several references to the company's work in the article. Not an expert on Wiki articles - so need help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiven (talk • contribs) 09:26, 15 January 2009

Does this help?: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Just type: {{Findsources3|name of article}} travb (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we saved the article. It is obvious a good faith effort to improve the article before it was put up for deletion was never tried. In addition, there are several hundred articles on the company. travb (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Den Schliker

I did not create the Den Schliker article, but I've helped the creator somewhat, and it has been put up for deletion. The discussion can be found here. I believe the subject has the potential to meet notability criteria, the only problem is that he is Ukranian and it seems that some untapped references could be in Cyrillic writing (Ukranian or Russian). The artist's own website gives some references to prove his notability, but unfortunately I can't find online references elsewhere (and per WP:SPS, I didn't want to cite those in the article). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Killiondude (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL does this help? Just type: {{Findsources3|name of article}} travb (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is now up for rereview today: "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached." Ikip (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Articles for Userfication

Resolved
 – Proposal withdrawn. -- Banjeboi 11:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I made the following proposal:

I welcome all of your comments. travb (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged articles

Rod Evans (photographer)

Resolved
 – Deleted. -- Banjeboi 07:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Bamburian

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 07:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Energo sword

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 07:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fatima (FSS)

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 07:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gustav (Zoids)

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 07:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hydra-Cannon

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 07:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Salamander (Zoids)

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 07:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Fairly Oddparents (pilot)

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 07:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

King Cold

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 07:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gezora

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 07:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lord Howe Monster

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 08:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Smunday

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 08:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fuzor (Zoids)

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 08:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gravity Ptera

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 08:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Voices of the Gods

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 08:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Daiki Niwa

Resolved
 – Merged and redirected. -- Banjeboi 08:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Archive_19&oldid=1136425171"