Catpowerzzz (talk | contribs) →It Must be Nice: response to anonymous user 99.136.255.180 |
Dream Focus (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
<!--- Place a {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} tag at the corresponding deletion discussion. --> |
<!--- Place a {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} tag at the corresponding deletion discussion. --> |
||
==[[SCOUT eh!]]== |
==[[SCOUT eh!]]== |
||
* {{On AFD|SCOUT eh!}} |
* {{On AFD|SCOUT eh! (2nd nomination)}} |
||
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. [[User:DiverScout|DiverScout]] ([[User talk:DiverScout|talk]]) 09:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC) |
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. [[User:DiverScout|DiverScout]] ([[User talk: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!--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 12:17, 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!--'''[[User:Milowent|Milowent]]''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">[[Special:Contributions/Milowent|has]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">[[User talk:Milowent|spoken]]</span></sup></small> 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. [[User:DiverScout|DiverScout]] ([[User talk:DiverScout|talk]]) 12:38, 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. [[User:DiverScout|DiverScout]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>''']] 18:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=February 2012= |
=February 2012= |
Revision as of 18:09, 4 March 2012
ARS Code of Conduct
|
- For more information about article rescue, please refer to ARS Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Rescue guide
The following is a list and discussion of Wikipedia content for rescue consideration. Please be sure to:
- Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for topic notability and identifying reliable sources prior to posting here.
- Include specific rationale in your post why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia.
- Tag the AfD discussion for the article being posted here by adding {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}}, to inform editors at AfD about the listing here. The tag can be placed below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
|
March 2012
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)
February 2012
Hi. I believe another user Dennis Brown has used vexation as a reason to submit this article for deletion, as he "got tired" of discussing the article on the article's talk page. Prior to submitting the article, the user had made statements on the talk page inferring that the article was worth improving and outright admitting that it was worth keeping or he would have submitted it for Afd previously. Here is the quote: "As for the tags, it was tagged to encourage others to find more references, not to get it deleted. If I wanted to send it to AFD I would have. Once the movie comes out, there is a chance that better references will come along, and the tag is there to tell people they need to be added." Then he proceeded to strip the article down to a stub and then submit it for deletion as a stub without references. This was because he claims he "got tired" of discussing it on the talk page and after not even remotely trying to reach any kind of compromise on his scorched earth, delete everything mentality. He and one other user (Ckatz) have questioned the article's notability, even though the article has met that criteria on many levels, in that the filmmaker is a recent Academy Award winner and an Academy Award nominee and other notable actors are in the film, including a famous cult film actor. The article also had several independent sources. The sources were all independent media interviews and or print articles on the filmmakers and cast in which the film was discussed. The article has met all the criteria for inclusion both in film notability per WP:ENT and general notability as well as all requirements for for inclusion as an "upcoming film" (where the bar is set at having two independent sources and evidence that the film is past the stage of "principal photography"). Furthermore, after Dennis Brown and Ckatz together stripped the article down to a stub and removed all the references, and then one submitted it for deletion (to hide the evidence)... after I tried to restore the souces so Afd users would see the source, user Dennis Brown then reverted those sources again stating that the sources were deleted because they "were not there when it was submitted by him for Afd" and therefore should not be there, inferring that the article is "frozen" once submitted to Afd. One of the people commenting on the Afd said that it was wrong for him to say that. I think it is more than wrong. I think it is malicious. I think it proves the point that this user and the other one who wrangled him into doing this Ckatz are working as a tag team who are using vexation as a reason for deletion and not common sense or good faith. They are creating false levels of notability and false levels of criteria's for inclusion which simply don't exist and which no film could meet. If a filmmaker being a recent Academy Award winner is not enough notability, I don't know what is. If they want to rewrite the standards for notability for film and exclude Academy Award winners then they should be consistent and not just attack one article. Delete all the films that are made by Academy Award winners then. That would make sense. ; ) - Catpowerzzz (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Catpowerzzz, I know how frustrating this can be, the nominating statement doesn't take you, the creator, and your good faith efforts into account here. That being said, I'm not seeing any reliable news sources reporting on this film (not a shock for a future short film). You may be able to preserve some of the content, however, by moving some of this to Chris Innis. Hopefully in the future the short film will get more coverage and the article can be recreated. Maybe others can find better sourcing, I was unable to at this point.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for your consideration. Unfortunately when I try to link independent sources to the page, a user keeps deleting them. So I don't know if you saw the sources that I put on there. If you revert the article back to where I had it earlier today you can see it. The person or person's who are trying to delete it keep removing the information since they want to game the Afd. I think if they had true faith in their argument, they would leave it in its entirety for it to be fairly judged. Yes, typically short films are not written about until after they are completed and reviewed. But the film is notable because of the filmmaker who is an Academy Award winner, so there is reason for inclusion even aside from the cited sources. I think the sources demonstrate that the film exists, and backs up the content of the article. I disagree with your assesment that the sources aren't reliable. They are. One is a print article in the UK, two are media outlets that covered the International Press Academy's Golden Satellite Awards. There are numerous members of the International Press Academy, including TIME magazine and other reputable outlets. The media outlets that covered that event were chosen by the head of the Press Academy. They are reliable and legit. If statements are going to be made about an upcoming film, those are precisely the kinds of outlets they would be made in. Film length has not been used as a disqualifer for inclusion in Wikipedia nor is it a disqualifier in the WikiFilm notability requirements for an "upcoming" film. The criteria for including material in Wikipedia is that there is reasonable belief that the infromation is "true". Also many of the actors in this film are notable, either Academy Award nominees or very well known cult actors with followings. Per WP:ENT that is also grounds for inclusion. We all know that keeping or deleting articles is subjective. Before the person who submitted this article submitted it for deletion, he admitted on the talk page that he wanted others to contribute to it and that he did not want to submit it for deletion. I think that first response was the correct one. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- As noted by numerous accounts in the AFD process, there is a lack of reliable sources making any reference, let alone devoting an entire article, to this movie. That, not the presence of multiple notables involved in its production, is relevant. A reasonable parallel: as a registered account I wrote numerous articles about works by famous artists, but only when content about the individual works was supported by multiple sources. Merely having been produced by a notable creator is not itself enough. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to respond. There are two things you are mentioning "multiple" sources and "reliable" sources. The article does have "multiple" sources that are not coming from the primary person or production, but which were interviews done with various members of the cast and crew. As for "reliable" I think that can sometimes be a subjective opinion. Wikipedia guidelines say that content shouldn't be deleted unless it is factually untrue or gibberish. Of course reliable sources are necessary to make sure that articles are mostly needed information. I believe that two interviews coming from media outlets that were granted access to the International Press Academy's annual event is "reliable." It's also not coming from the "primary" source, but are secondary sources which could have been edited or never published, at the whim of the media outlet. Also there was a print article in a recent UK magazine. It's a new magazine, but it is an interview with a well known cult actor who also is in this film and who mentions this film. Again, I think that is a reliable source. None of the articles has the film as the "primary focus" of the article, but a short film that is upcoming might not have articles written about it in which it is the primary focus until a later date. I think perhaps it might be best for this article to be a keep until other sources become available (considering that the filmmaker is notable which is one of the criteria), with a tag for sources left on the article for the other criteria to be met in the upcoming months. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, I have a question. The tag on the article which the guidelines told me use to direct to this ARS has been removed from the article by one of your squad. Is that routine? - Catpowerzzz (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- The "rescue list" tag should be placed only in the AfD discussion, not the article itself; the article must contain only the "Article for deletion" tag. We had a previous "rescue" tag that was placed in the article but it shouldn't be used any longer. Where did you read about placing the rescue tag in the article? That guideline should be updated to reflect the new procedure. Diego (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:CRYSTALBALL. If and when material becomes available which relates to the film, we can consider whether they justify an article. And no, there is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that states that "content shouldn't be deleted unless it is factually untrue or gibberish". Things can be deleted because they are unsuitable for an online encyclopaedia, and often are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- As for the above characterization of "one of your squad", I belong to no squad, thank you. I don't imagine the other contributors who've weighed in here or at AFD consider themselves part of a coterie designed to take this article out, and the presumption that there's a concerted community effort is tiresome and a bit self-serving. Far too much verbiage expended on this already on several pages. This horse is beaten. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- 99.136.255.180 - I think you are mistaken or confused. I was not referring to you or your possible changes to the page but to Rescue Squad member Diego above and he has addressed my question about his removal of the tag. When I referred to "squad" I meant the "rescue squad team" of which Diego is a member, not some imaginary squad of hostile users to which you were pressuming I was referring (whether they exist or not is another question). I also was not aware of your changes to that page. I think you added it after my change. Sorry if you were confused. But this has nothing to do with you. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- As for the above characterization of "one of your squad", I belong to no squad, thank you. I don't imagine the other contributors who've weighed in here or at AFD consider themselves part of a coterie designed to take this article out, and the presumption that there's a concerted community effort is tiresome and a bit self-serving. Far too much verbiage expended on this already on several pages. This horse is beaten. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to respond. There are two things you are mentioning "multiple" sources and "reliable" sources. The article does have "multiple" sources that are not coming from the primary person or production, but which were interviews done with various members of the cast and crew. As for "reliable" I think that can sometimes be a subjective opinion. Wikipedia guidelines say that content shouldn't be deleted unless it is factually untrue or gibberish. Of course reliable sources are necessary to make sure that articles are mostly needed information. I believe that two interviews coming from media outlets that were granted access to the International Press Academy's annual event is "reliable." It's also not coming from the "primary" source, but are secondary sources which could have been edited or never published, at the whim of the media outlet. Also there was a print article in a recent UK magazine. It's a new magazine, but it is an interview with a well known cult actor who also is in this film and who mentions this film. Again, I think that is a reliable source. None of the articles has the film as the "primary focus" of the article, but a short film that is upcoming might not have articles written about it in which it is the primary focus until a later date. I think perhaps it might be best for this article to be a keep until other sources become available (considering that the filmmaker is notable which is one of the criteria), with a tag for sources left on the article for the other criteria to be met in the upcoming months. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- As noted by numerous accounts in the AFD process, there is a lack of reliable sources making any reference, let alone devoting an entire article, to this movie. That, not the presence of multiple notables involved in its production, is relevant. A reasonable parallel: as a registered account I wrote numerous articles about works by famous artists, but only when content about the individual works was supported by multiple sources. Merely having been produced by a notable creator is not itself enough. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Is it possible for someone to assist me in improving this article ~ to avoid deletion? The subject is a bodybuilder and internet personality who is dead (has been for half a year) and has been nominated for deletion under WP:BLP1E. The subject has had coverage prior and post death - has published a book - casted in a upcoming series - has own protein line - viral videos - a "cult following" (as says in a source). The subject passes WP:GNG. Please assist, thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 05:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- So now the Rescue Squadron has been canvassed to save this terrible article from its impending deletion. Wonderful.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Canvassed? add that to the list of policies you may need to read up on :) -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 05:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Article Rescue Squadron has, several times in the past, been used as an attempt at a saving throw for some article. While I was wrong in choosing BLP1E (we have WP:1E instead), this man is not notable, considering that everything that has been said about him concerns his death.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I asked for assistance, that is all. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 05:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- The Article Rescue Squadron has, several times in the past, been used as an attempt at a saving throw for some article. While I was wrong in choosing BLP1E (we have WP:1E instead), this man is not notable, considering that everything that has been said about him concerns his death.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Given that User:Ryulong is here reading and commenting this thread, any accusation of "canvassing" seems out of place. Diego (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Canvassed? add that to the list of policies you may need to read up on :) -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 05:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with asking for help here. I did some searching and found some links to major news sources, which covered not just his death, but some coverage before then. All of them said he had a cult following, so he meets the subject specific guideline for models listed at WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 16:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw this at AfD, but I'm not sure about this one, so I thought that I would toss it this way in case someone felt it could be worked on. The subject appears to have been a professional snowboarder, so WP:ATHLETE might have applied, but there is no evidence that I've seen to say what level of competition he competed in. Otherwise, there are sources online and in the article, but they need to be evaluated. The author is trying hard in the AfD, but doesn't really seem comfortable with the process, and I'm not in a position to help at the moment one way or the other. It could do with different eyes. - Bilby (talk) 04:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Snowboarding is a sport, so being a profession at it, plus an artists whose works are shown around the world, makes the guy notable. Dream Focus 16:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Dispute about Jesus' execution method
The subject of the article is notable, there is no question in that and no one even denies the notability on the Afd page. The rationale in the Afd nomination was to "delete some of the content" because it may be POV! But the quality of content is no reason for deletion, given the notability. If a user wants to delete content he should build consensus for deletion using proper Wikipedia policies, not use an Afd as a "means for content deletion". Afd is not for dispute resolution over content. The article needs to be rescued, given its undisputed notability. History2007 (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- What would you like the ARS to do, in this case? You correctly note that the article is well-sourced and, indeed, the deletion rationale has nothing to do with sourcing. This is not a board for finding keep votes, and in lieu of a need for sourcing -- I note your own Keep argument doesn't really hinge on sourcing -- I see nothing for the ARS to do here other than spam the AFD with additional opinions, which really isn't the purpose of the organization (and is, in addition, problematic). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Must agree with Ginseng, there is nothing for ARS to do here. Everyone knows Jesus was killed because he was a space alien.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is a good point Milowent raises. If there weren't so much controversy over ARS and canvassing I'd hop over to the AfD right now and strongly suggest renaming the article Jesus was indisputably killed because he was a cosmonaut. Or at least redirect to that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis.
- Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis (AfD discussion)
- Linsmeier, Thomas J. (2011). "Financial Reporting and Financial Crises: The Case for Measuring Financial Instruments at Fair Value in the Financial Statements". 25 (2): 409–417. doi:10.2308/acch-10024.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)
As I said, I don't have the time for a Kerrrzappp! of this one. If you want to pick up the baton, I recommend (Martinez 2009, pp. 281–283) as a good starting point, since it gives a overview of the history, albeit a one-sided one. Some of the others, such as (Wesbury 2009, pp. 87–99, 115–116) , give the other side's view, which you'll of course need to cover. I omitted the Linsmeier 2011 citation, which is the first obvious fix. So here is the wikitext for it, above. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- This article is a small essay and part of the Late-2000s financial crisis, which has plenty of articles where some of this material can be added. Being a member of WP:ARS does not mean to always say Keep. There is no way I can see that this should be kept, even if all the numerous technical problems were corrected.
- The creator, Yj10c (talk), knows the subject matter, but a newbie editor often does not know Wiki techniques. We can provide some encouragement, without allowing this article to remain in mainspace. ARS members, join me in providing encouragement to Yj10c (talk). We may be too late, there are no contributions after February 18, but we need to be encouraging and welcoming to newbies. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It survived its previous AFD. The AFD has been extended to get more input. The creature has been mentioned in popular culture for thousands of years, appearing about. Did someone perhaps do a study and publish a book on things like this? If anyone knows where to find such a thing, or other sources, please participate. Dream Focus 21:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess the question is what distinction you envisage between the article on Qilin in popular culture and the article on Qilin? That is, in the case of Librarian vs Librarians in popular culture, the former is about librarians in reality, the latter about the way they're portrayed in stories etc, and there's a clear line between the two. With Qilin 'reality' isn't relevant so I don't know where a line could be drawn. --Zeborah (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Hatted Entries
February 2012
Police officers charged criminally in Canada
Police officers charged criminally in Canada– AfD discussion closed as Delete. |
---|
Hi, would you please help me to save and improve the article Police officers charged criminally in Canada. It is currently under a Speedy Deletion +Tag. In addition, a previous editor made a slash and burn edit. It seems the article content is sensitive to some people; however, the article meets the guidelines of Wikipedia, to the best of my knowledge. Thank you for your help. JunoBeach (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Amabile Choirs of London, Canada
Amabile Choirs of London, Canada– Discussion regarding proposed deletion of the article. |
---|
The Amabile Choirs of London, Canada has the purpose of bringing together young singers from London, Ontario and surrounding areas. This family of choirs began in 1985 and has since grown to eight choirs under the direction of seven conductors. The proposed deletion says Doesn't give evidence of notability. Only has one (primary) source; likely doesn't pass wp:GNG Reliable sources are easy to find. For example, The Canadian Encyclopedia has an article on this organization. There are enough sources that the notability issue may also be overcome. For example, one youth choir won a Canadian award in 1985. This is a proposed deletion, not an AfD, but since I objected to the deletion, an AfD may follow, unless the article is improved, at least with some reliable sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Amal Jyothi College
Amal Jyothi College– Discussion regarding AfD discussion. |
---|
Already speedily deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amal Jyothi College but this appears to be a notable college that deserves to have an article. See google cache here [3]. Why this needed to be speedily deleted, instead of improved during a seven day AfD, is beyond my understanding.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Kenneth Parcell
Kenneth Parcell– AfD discussion closed as Keep. |
---|
Emmy nominated character (2009) from 30 Rock. If an Emmy nomination isn't a good enough reason to keep an article on a fictional television character, I'm not sure what is. Article is relatively bad at the moment, could clearly use refocusing off of plot and onto real world impact. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
SEPTA Route C
SEPTA Route C– Discussion. |
---|
Article about SEPTA Route C in Philadelphia, but part of a pattern to remove mention of particular SEPTA transit routes, and articles about SEPTA routes. I objected to the immediate deletion, but an AfD may follow. What is the practice in other cities? This is a policy issue, not just notability for a particular bus route. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Patricia Kernighan
Patricia Kernighan– AfD discussion closed as No Consensus. |
---|
Article about an Oakland city council member. There's disagreement about whether or not the sources currently in the article meet the GNG, but it seems likely to me that there are more sources available - if hard to find - that would clearly push it over the threshold. Kevin (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Institute for International Research
Institute for International Research– AfD discussion closed as Keep. |
---|
Article is clearly WP:N (simple search on Google News gets dozens of results), but is also currently a horrible WP:ADVERTISING mess. Very severe cleanup is necessary, but IMHO it can be salvaged. Ipsign (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Avatar (Ultima)
Avatar (Ultima)– Discussion. |
---|
Discussion on the talk page was that like every other Wikiproject out there, we can discuss redirects as well as deletes and whatnot. When I Google for "Ultima" and "Avatar" I get 26 million results. Kind of hard to sort through all of that, or even the 2,440,000 results from a search of what the Video game Wikiproject has for their custom search of approved reliable sources. [4] If anyone can think of any better search criteria to narrow it down, I'd appreciate it. There was never any real consensus to eliminate this article and replace it with a redirect. Seven people were against any mergers, one said only the companions(not the Avatar but his companions) articles should merge, and four said merge them all. [5] Some opinions please. Also, if anyone finds any additional reliable sources covering the character, please add them in. See the history of it here [6]. In addition to existing sources in it, I found a recent article titled Ultima: Most. Important. Game Series. Ever. [7] which says Ultima IV had no villain, and the world of Britannia was in a moral crisis, and only savable by embodying the world's new eight virtues and becoming the Avatar. That term became the default for a player character within a video game. Seems like its important since that term then began being used elsewhere. The article even shows how other notable games had parodies of the Avatar in them. As a final note, Ultima was one of the first games to have you control one specific character, the Avatar, which you create. The other characters already exist with pre-determined roles and personalities, and can be engaged for conversation. This has become the default mode for party-based games these days, but it was rare in that era, where you rolled an entire party yourself, or occasionally played pre-determined characters. Once again, the character did it first, and now everyone does it based on him. Dream Focus 16:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Zindagi Games
Zindagi Games– AfD discussion closed as Delete. |
---|
The afd is at [9]. This company has only made two games so far, both of which are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, they getting ample coverage. Using the video game Wikiproject's custom search I find a large number of results for this company. [10] That's a lot to sort through. Some help please. Dream Focus 13:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Clear Books
Clear Books– AfD discussion closed as Delete. |
---|
It survived its previous AFD and was immediately put up for deletion a second time by the same person. It is cloud based accounting software (i.e. accessible from the Internet) as opposed to desktop based software. This is a technological change and advance in the delivery method of accounting software. Without Clear Books listed in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is missing knowledge about the new cloud based softwares that are out there. The article is written by the founder, however, it does reference reliable, independent third party sources.--TimFouracre (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Modo (software)
Modo (software)– AfD discussion closed as Keep. |
---|
Made by Luxology and a lot of news results. Digging through some of them now. Dream Focus 22:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Luxology
Luxology– AfD discussion closed as Keep. |
---|
I nominated the above article for deletion, as it presently appears to lack significant non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources. With that said, the more I am looking through the sources listed on google news, the more it is looking like the article might meet the notability guidelines. If possible, I would really like an outside opinion. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Radio Amateurs of Canada
Radio Amateurs of Canada– AfD discussion closed as Keep. |
---|
A 2004 created article. Not clear (to me) what the motive is for deletion nomination. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
2013 BCS National Championship Game
2013 BCS National Championship Game– AfD closed as Delete all. |
---|
There is not 1 good wikipedia reason given here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 BCS National Championship Game to delete anything from the 2012 or 2013 football seasons here at all. There is verifiable information from independent sources." of "encyclopedic worth to have an article about on all of the 2012 and 2013 season pages. Yes there is not much on the 2014 or 2015 seasons yet and they could be deleted but Wikipedia is a work in progress and Wikipedia:DDH deletion does not help. Theworm777 (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
|
List of community organizers
List of community organizers– AfD closed as delete.. |
---|
Everyone on this list has their own Wikipedia article. The news media and book search shows they are referred to as "community organizers". Some help with the article would be appreciated. I'm going to start searching for each name and the phrase "community organizer" and adding in references to reliable sources. Dream Focus 14:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Edgeborough School
Edgeborough School– AfD closed as Keep. |
---|
Historical prep school, with several notable former pupils. We're having difficulties finding online sources which cover it in depth, however - most GoogleBooks hits are snippets. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association– AfD closed as speedy delete. The article has been recreated; see Pennsylvania Land Trust Association. |
---|
It is easy to determine that the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association is an important and notable organization in Pennsylvania politics, but this article has numerous problems, probably including copyright violations. However, perhaps the article can be trimmed down to eliminate the copyright issues and allow for future expansion in the usual Wikipedia manner. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Micromechanical flying insect
Micromechanical flying insect– AfD closed as Snow Keep. |
---|
Topic which is clearly notable due to the wide range of sources available on GoogleScholar. Improvements to the article by editors familiar with robotics/engineering would probably increase its chance of surviving AFD. --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Candace Gingrich-Jones
Candace Gingrich-Jones– AfD closed as Snow Keep. |
---|
There is no question in my mind that this will be kept at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Gingrich-Jones, but the article really could use improvement, which would erase the doubt of any good faith editor.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
|
The Leopard (newspaper)
The Leopard (newspaper)– AfD closed as merge to Goldsmiths, University of London |
---|
A London university student newspaper with a well done article, but lacking independent third party sources. Can we do better? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Sal's Pizza (Dallas)
Sal's Pizza (Dallas)– AfD closed as Delete. |
---|
A simple article about an Italian restaurant in Dallas, Texas. WP:GNG is met. The nomination for deletion is based in part upon the sources being local in nature, and as such are considered unsatisfactory per the nominator's rationale. However, Dallas' population is 1,197,816, and as a major metropolitan area in the United States the sources in the article are likely valid as trustworthy and reliable. Can others provide more reliable sources to better qualify this topic's notability? Northamerica1000(talk) 11:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Gigi Causey
Gigi Causey– AfD closed as Keep |
---|
A biography of a living person article that appears to just meet WP:GNG. Perhaps source searchers can find more reliable sources to further qualify the topic's notability and improve the article. Here's the sources I cited in the article's AfD discussion. The first article listed below constitutes significant coverage, in which Causey herself is mentioned numerous times. The second article is very short.
|
Keerthi sagathia
Keerthi sagathia– AfD closed as Keep |
---|
I do not know much about the subject however I saw it was contributed by a new Wikipedian who was immediately bombarded with all kinds of deletion canned notices - a sure way to chase away a newbie from a part of the world we should be encouraging to join Wikipedia.
Off my podium :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Hacker Time
Hacker Time– AfD closed as Keep |
---|
This is a CBBC show. The AfD discussion is basically boiling down to WP:GNG vs. WP:IAR, and possibly WP:TVSHOW, the former of course being the prevailing argument for deletion. I did a source hunt of my own and came up empty beyond the usual hits from bloggers and primary sources. It'd be fantastic if any of you source-hunters could find anything better to give a bit more weight to arguments for the article's inclusion, because I have a strong feeling this article will be deleted as it currently stands. I don't think additional keep votes without sourcing backup are going to help. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Process improvement
Process improvement– AfD closed as Keep but possible merge |
---|
This seems to be a tendentious nomination of a business-related article. The topic is extremely notable and rich in irony in the present circumstances. It inspires me to try the current rescue process and I am not finding it an improvement. The rescue tag was better because it encouraged you to actually edit the article. Warden (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Mail storage
Mail storage– AfD closed as Keep. |
---|
This topic appears to just meet WP:GNG from the following sources, with the first one listed below being one that I found and added to the article.
However, other's in the article's AfD discussion (here) disagree. Placing this here in the hope that others can find and add more sources to further qualify this topic's notability. This article is also tagged for copy editing and reading like an advertisement. As ARS' scope also includes these types of article improvements, hopefully others can help to improve the article by copy editing. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Oddcast (company)
Oddcast (company)– CSD removed and article improved. |
---|
Can some help me with this please? I started an article with references to them in the New York Times, but it still got nominated for a speedy deletion. The press section of their website shows they have received hordes of coverage for their activities, and their showcase shows all the things they have done for major companies. I've been adding things to the list that have news coverage for them. Need to come up with a good lead paragraph I think. Dream Focus 12:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
|
January 2012
Worlds of Ultima Online
Worlds of Ultima Online– AfD closed as "merge to Ultima Online". |
---|
Worlds of Ultima Online was nominated on January 27th 2012. The AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worlds of Ultima Online. If anyone is familiar with this game, or has read reviews about its worlds in magazines or notable websites, please help add additional sources to the ones I already found. Dream Focus 20:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Abraham Bryan
Abraham Bryan– AfD closed as "Refocus and move". Article was moved to Abraham Brian farm house |
---|
Closed as Refocus and move.
|
Pennsylvania Dental College
Pennsylvania Dental College– AfD closed as The result was merge to Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery and University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine. |
---|
|