Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 15

< Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Andrew Davidson in topic List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Villas in Naples

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The page was started as a weak draft but it appears that there's a long tradition of grand seaside villas in the Bay of Naples, going back to the Roman emperors and the eruption at Pompeii, which preserved some of them. Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Ghostheads

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ghostheads Ghostbusters fans documentary, rescued from the abandoned draft. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Crooked Billet

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

An article about a small area in south west London, England. Some brief source searches did not provide much, and I may not perform further research, so posting here to see if others can dig up some sources. North America1000 08:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion has been relisted.
Updated, substantially rewrote article. Added many sources and text.
And for good measure Template:Did you know nominations/Crooked Billet.
Should be a WP:Speedy keep, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Closed as Keep The result of the discussion was keep. And we will have a DYK, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

3 articles submitted for the AfC

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Please contribute to them if you feel like it, both seem notable to me. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Both articles passed AfC. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  Done Reviewed and published to main space. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Umbrella term

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Unsure if there's anything beyond a dictionary definition to say about this term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Redirect. Sorry this did not work out to keep but it can always be redeveloped if there are sufficient sources about the metaphor to distinguish from the core concept. There are many common metaphors that don't have WP articles, thousands. I was once told that bloke could never be a Wikipedia article. I disagreed and fought an RfC to prevent a redirect to Wiktionary .. worked hard for weeks doing research and now there is no question bloke is a legitimate article because it talks about the use of the word in society and its significance, not merely examples of use. Maybe something like that will happen with umbrella term (and lest we forget 'blanket term' to get them all covered) -- GreenC 18:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas Kao Se Tseien

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Another supercentenarian AFD. Oldest known Catholic priest per Guinness. Very few sources in present article. Need to add Chinese language sources. We have a systemic English language bias. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • "The result was keep. There's a consensus that the article meets WP:GNG based on the provided sources and so merits a stand-alone article."
Also spiked was the WP:NOPAGE and Delete/Redirect argument: Just putting old wine in new bottles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Knauss

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

2nd oldest woman on the planet. Notability questioned. WP:No page is invoked. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Was Keep as no consensus. Per the closer: "The result was no consensus. There are a number of decent rationales here, and whilst the Keeps outnumber the Deletes, a number of the former are brand new or fairly new accounts that have never been near AfD before. When you discard the obviously invalid !votes, we have it at 6-6. Obviously, this means the article can be re-nominated at any point."
Interesting, the closer says that the vote was 6-6 keep/delete. Nevertheless, there were 15 keeps. This is disenfranchisement on a scale befitting Republicans in North Carolina. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This area can involve heavy meatpuppeting and off wiki canvassing by the 110club. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Anything is possible. Where is the proof?
Moreover, there were only four deletes (not six), and one Delete/merge. The page speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitur. Hanging chads anyone? Do we need a recount? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I was commenting in general about the longevity topic. There is a string of editors now topic banned/blocked who are part of the 110club GRG fan club. I just had two show up out of the blue on another AfD I started. How does an editor with no activity in 6 years who has never touched the page in question find an AfD? Legacypac (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Where is the proof? Unsupported mere accusation is no substitute for real proof.
Where is the extra delete?
I know a rigged game when I see it. WP:Duck.
Not to mention that the repeated and wholesale prodding of supercentenarian articles is endemic, abusive, and invites dissent. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
They deny any bad intent to not count the votes properly. Of course, they say there was no !vote. And they promise that another deletion is on the way. You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows. WP:Duck. Rigged system. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], this's not a venue to launch random aspersions against fellow editors. Restrain. ∯WBGconverse 16:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This was not random. If all of the supercentenarian-related articles are to be WP:AFDd into extinction (you only have to 'win' once) then improving these articles is a complete waste of effort. J'accuse. Conspiracy accusations are a two-way street. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It certainly seems like the notability issues related to longevity keep coming up again and again (and I think there was an ArbCom case several years ago). It would be good if a community-wide RfC could establish a consensus one way or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
there was an ArbComm case and Discretionary Sanctions enacted. All we need to do is apply GNG to the walled garden of pages linked to World's Oldest People wikiproject and everything will work out. There is no need to shout about a conspiracy. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cincinnati Time Store

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cincinnati Time Store (2nd nomination) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Article and references substantially improved.
Be that as if may, the discussion has morphed into a Merger proposal, which would benefit from your insight and input. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Default to Keep Per the closer: "The result was no consensus. A majority wants to keep, and a minority wants to redirect or merge. Nobody, including the nominator, wants to delete. This means a trout for the nominator for misusing the deletion process, and no consensus to redirect or merge. Such proposals can continue to be discussed on the article talk page, where they belong." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Turtle walk

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article is about volunteers who patrol beaches looking out for hatching baby turtles. This is somewhat like our own activity of helping articles survive the perils of early existence, eh? Andrew D. (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Christine Weick

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Notability question. Needs better sources. WP:One event Discussion here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources added/restored. Should be a candidate for WP:Snow 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Christian Worldview Film Festival

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Notability question. Needs better sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Richard May (speedway rider)

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I have tried to add new refs but this is pre internet - anyone can help with some hard wood refs please as I think this is worth saving.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I found a couple using WP:FENS (Free English Newspaper Sources). You might find several there. Here are 2 in the Guardian. [1] I don't have access so this is all I have of them. StrayBolt (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, I think those Guardian articles are about the horse "Dickie May". StrayBolt (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
He might meet WP:NMOTORSPORT if you can find an WP:RS to support it. StrayBolt (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Here are a few links that might be refs or background info.[2][3][4][5][6] StrayBolt (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Outline of performing arts

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Minimally sourced article. But fundamental concept involving WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Frontbend and Backbend

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Common yoga/gymnastics/calisthenics terms, the articles are currently unsourced and focused on extreme contortionism. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

List of science fiction short stories

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nowadays, publishers tend to promote turgid tomes and trilogies but the short story was an excellent format in the earlier days of paper rationing – tight and time-efficient – somewhat like the telegram or Twitter. It's interesting to re-visit these and their prophetic ideas such as If This Goes On— or The Fireman. Andrew D. (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. According to the closer, "Opinion is divided between keep because the topic is notable, and delete because the topic is overbroad / poorly defined and the content is deficient." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Resignation

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is quite similar to the case of meeting below – a broad concept for which we have a weak article being attacked on the erroneous grounds that it is a dictionary definition. Andrew D. (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was keep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Richard Wilbur Award

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The $25 entry fee makes it look like a vanity award but surprisingly there is significant independent coverage in Google News. I doubt anyone at the award is getting rich from $25 fees, it probably pays for the administration, $1000 award and publishing costs. -- GreenC 23:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot more sources than that. Google, Google Books, Google News and HighBeam Research. Article needs continued improvement. And a more complicated discussion that has just been relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Wilbur Award. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Improved sourcing and content.
The result was keep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the work adding sources! So many available. -- GreenC 14:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
User:GreenC Glad to help. Does this qualify for the Hall of Fame? I would award it to myself, but that seems like a WP:COI. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Meeting

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Yet another case where the WP:DICDEF policy is misunderstood and misused. These are commonly cases where is rescue is especially appropriate – a major topic with a huge literature but which is so familiar to everyone that WP:BIKESHED applies. Andrew D. (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Closed as Keep. I had pointed out there was no compliance with WP:Before. Nominator agreed and withdrew nomination. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I gotta point out that it seems like BEFORE is at least as commonly misinterpreted as DICDEF, as though it favoured keeping over deleting. The admin in question, in this case, has the authority to unilaterally delete pages that a thorough BEFORE check would have revealed to be a copyvio, and honestly the worst case of failing to observe BEFORE in the last eight months was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wife and Wife, where there should have been no AFD because a proper check would have resulted in speedy deletion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
A good hypothetical and an interesting point for the deletionist mavens. But there was no WP:Copyvio here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not a hypothetical given that it actually happened, but I see your point about how it's kinda off-topic here given how there was (apparently) no copyvio. I was just pointing out, since you brought up BEFORE, that it seems somewhat odd that BEFORE is almost always cited as though it favoured keeping articles even in cases where copyvio has taken place, which is not the case. I considered explicitly pointing out that my comment was not specifically related to the article under present discussion, but I figured that was a given. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
What does this have to do with improving the article? North America1000 21:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Not all that much, but for that matter going into detail about why the nomination was withdrawn has nothing to do with it either, and nor does the (apparently inaccurate) claim that DICDEF is widely misunderstood. Honestly I'm somewhat confused about what the discussions that take place on this noticeboard are meant to be for; it doesn't appear to say anywhere that the purpose is for discussing ways in which to improve the articles in question, and that doesn't appear to be how it is used. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Article now has template that says: "This article was considered for deletion, and requires cleanup according to the discussion." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tawhanga Nopera

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawhanga Nopera Maori Academic. I need any assistance you can muster. there are sources at Google Scholar, but I have no appropriate language skills to find other sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Very large database

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The result of the discussion was keep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Jean-Philippe Susilovic

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Philippe Susilovic Belgian British television personality, Gordon Ramsay side kick. Needs better sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've totally expanded & updated the sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I resorted the order of two sections of the Rescue list, new ones should be added to the top. StrayBolt (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Kept. Closed as The result was no consensus. (default to keep) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Mathematical practice

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
I don't get it; per this, you had already stated at the AFD that said AFD should be speedy-closed as keep before you posted the above. By posting here and requesting help "rescuing" the article you are essentially admitting you have no faith in your own speedy keep !vote, since if speedy keep were a legitimate option the article would be in no danger to begin with and wouldn't need "rescuing". FWIW, I think the article should be kept, but see no need whatsoever to !vote as much because the AFD will clearly be closed that way later rather than sooner, and I don't want to risk legitimizing a bogus "speedy" keep !vote by causing it to get SNOW-closed and so de facto speedy-kept regardless of whether or not WP:SKCRIT applies. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't get it; why do you need to comment about Andrew D. every time he posts here? -- GreenC 12:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Not every time he posts here; just every time he does something weird like what I outlined above. Anyway, I'm not commenting "about Andrew D." but about what he's doing; there's a difference. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
BTW: I went back and checked, and of the 52 threads that have been opened on this page since my first post, I've commented in 17, and of those 15 were started by Andrew (although actually my comments in three of those 15 were not targeted at him at all, but at others who commented after him, so I might say 12);32 of the 52 threads were started by Andrew, so I've actually commented in less than half of the threads Andrew started, and only come close to "commenting about him" in a third. And while my rate of responding to Andrew's threads relative to those started by others is slightly higher than Andrew's rate of starting threads relative to that of all other editors combined, it's not so by much: my rate of responding to Andrew is somewhere between 70.6% and 88.2%, whereas Andrew's rate of opening threads on this page relatively to everyone else (sorry for the awkward wording...) is 61.5%. And yes, if Andrew opens weird/questionable threads at a higher rate than everyone else, it would make perfect sense to respond to them by questioning their usefulness, calling them out for blatant canvassing, etc. more than those of others. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It sound like you suspect Andrew is canvassing, so you see his actions in that light, as "weird". This is known as assumption of bad faith. If you didn't think Andrew was canvassing, his actions wouldn't seem weird at all, rather someone who was concerned about an article and voted speedy keep and brought it to the attention of ARS - not weird at all. It might help if you would just open a case against Andrew and settle the matter rather than constantly airing suspicions of bad faith which is bothersome to the community and not conductive to collaborative editing. - GreenC 13:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
As someone who has been watching here, please let me suggest to you, Hijiri 88, that you do less in the way of these comments following posts by other editors. If you see something that is clearly a violation of policy, take it to ANI, but otherwise, it's counterproductive to comment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
(This is a response to GreenC; I didn't notice Tryptofish's comment until now, and have not read it yet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC) ) I'm not sure what in the above implied to you that I thought Andrew was canvassing. I think he was canvassing, for example, here, here and here, but in cases like this I have no earthly idea what he's doing. If one takes his !vote in the AFD (which I mis-linked above, an action for which I apologize and which I have now fixed) literally, he thinks the AFD is without basis and should be closed as speedy keep, but if that's the case what's the point in posting here? It can't be canvassing, since there'd be no point in canvassing something you have confidence will close the way you want it to regardless. Shits and giggles? He posted on WT:MATH to vent about supposed "deletionists"; did he post here to vent about WP:MATH not apparently sympathizing with this view? Either way, I can't think of a good-faith, policy-compliant, reason for this use of the Rescue List. Anyway, 6/7 of your comments on this page since February 8 (when I first noticed it) have been replies to me, and most of them hardly make more sense, and have significantly less to do with article rescue, than the bizarrest of Andrew's postings, so I would appreciate your not questioning me in this manner unless you are willing to acknowledge that you're in a glass house. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Letter of thanks

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Thanks to all the numerous members of the Article Rescue Squadron for their support. It's interesting to note that this nomination was arranged on IRC. Andrew D. (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

How is that interesting? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:STEALTH is policy. Wikipedia IRC is not owned or maintained by Wikimedia. Are there public logs? According to WP:IRC: "When the channels are used to attack Wikipedians, or when IRC discussions are cited as justification for an on-wiki action (eg. I saw it on IRC), the resulting atmosphere is very damaging to the project's collaborative relationships." -- GreenC 23:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
But the editors in question voluntarily owned up to having discussed off-wiki; that's the opposite of WP:STEALTH. Compare the reaction that this project gave to the suggestion that a requirement to include mention in the AFD itself that it had been posted here be introduced. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
'Owning up' doesn't help because we have no idea what was said, if there was direct canvassing and/or a cabal of deletionist. Are there logs? Notice it says "cited", the very thing you say is acceptable is contradicted by WP:IRC and WP:STEALTH. -- GreenC 23:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
A few points before I drop this and walk away:
  1. If you or Andrew believe a policy violation has taken place, the proper venue for reporting it is definitely not the ARS rescue list.
  2. I find it hard to believe that many people share your interpretation of WP:STEALTH as applying especially to cases where an off-wiki conversation took place and the participants openly disclosed this fact.
  3. I have seen IRC mentioned a total of twice in my nine years of actively contributing to Wikipedia. The other time was 29 July 2018 when I was informed by email that someone there was impersonating me. I had completely forgotten about the latter incident and so had to check WP:IRC to figure out what the hell Andrew was talking about, which further highlights how wrong the venue is.
  4. If the nom(s) violated a policy in doing so, then that just means the article is in even less need of "rescue" than most of the other items Andrew has posted here in the last few months.
  5. The article as it stands is garbage, and would be of better service to readers if incorporated into a longer article. This is not to say anything about the WP:NOTABILITY of the topic or the hypothetical possibility that a decent article could be written, and is actually very much in accordance with our deletion policy, despite the current number of "keep" !votes at the AFD which completely ignore the stated reason for deletion and are relying on strawman "notability" arguments.
  6. There is no "cabal of deletionists" because there are no "deletionists". "Deletionist" is a derogatory slur used by some members of the Wikipedia community to describe some other members of the same Wikipedia community, who happen to hold a more conservative interpretation of what kind of topics should have their own standalone articles, or whether it is beneficial to the project to maintain one-sentence sub-stubs indefinitely, or other similar issues.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"Arranged on IRC" is a bit strong; I commented about it on IRC (with an aside that I probably should have listed it here myself) and then pointed out that the two people who immediately voted as a result should note that I mentioned it to them on IRC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I just thought it was interesting in a general way. I hear about IRC from time to time but don't use it myself and so am vague about what goes on there. GreenC's link is informative and Power~enwiki's clarification is helpful. Insofar as we're commenting in a secondary way on the AfD, it's good to share our perspectives and experience. This helps us understand and collaborate with each other better. Thanks to everyone for their input. Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Mild rewrite and additional sources.
The result was keep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Copy (written)

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Copy is the text in between the boilerplate like infoboxes and categories. It's the meat in the sandwich of our articles but someone thinks that there's nothing to say about it. Are there any copywriters out there? Andrew D. (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Girls' toys and games

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I suppose that we all have some memory and interest in our childhood toys. I myself quite liked marbles but now I have lost them, alas. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. After two full relistings, no conenseus has formed regarding an outcome for either article. Concerns presented herein can continue to be discussed on the article talk pages, if desired. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Secondment

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Article was AFDed in May but the AFD withdrawn after two editors suggested it was a valid stup with room for improvement, and the nominator, User:Exemplo347, decided to give time to expand the article accordingly; however, the last edit to the article as of September 3 was the removal of the AFD template. Fixing an article that was un-AFDed (essentially put "on notice") to allow time to improve it seems like it should be a top priority for the Article Rescue Squadron, so posting here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The result was Withdrawn to allow time for people to work on what they believe is a promising stub with room for improvement. (non-admin closure) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

List of deadliest animals to humans

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I found some references. Not sure about the mosquito entry. Different sources say different things and I can't find the right article on the World Health Organization's website. Dream Focus 19:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. The nomination lacks a valid reason to delete; its point about a single source is now erroneous and there is little support for it. See WP:SK and WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Candida blankii

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Our favorite yeast? Probably not. But no pretense of compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Jean Mill

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Seems like there is plenty notable to me. Cat fanciers amongst us?7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted for third time. Somebody doesn't like the voting result ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was KEEP. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The article still needs help. At the end of the closer's long rationale for keep is this: "I think everyone acknowledges this still requires plenty of effort to get into good shape, but the consensus I read below is that the article should be kept and improved to that state." StrayBolt (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

List of television actors who died during production

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are there any film students who have textbooks about this? Surely its listed somewhere, people studying things that happened in the industry and what effect it had. Dream Focus 23:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

"The result was keep. The consensus is that it meets WP:LISTN." StrayBolt (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Devil

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Better the devil you know? Andrew D. (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I'm trying to figure out what the benefit of posting this here was -- the article is not, and never was, at any risk of being deleted, but it does need serious work to not be a useless, near-unsourced, content fork; if you posted here saying that the article needs work, and ARS editors should help fix it, that would make sense, but I can't figure out how what you actually wrote above helps improve the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
H, I hope you don't mind this opinion, but per the warning against "staking a claim" on the iban, it may be better if you don't post here on ARS. This possibly isn't what admin Ivanvector intended, but it seems reasonable to consider ARS as Dream's area, and therefore somewhere you should avoid. Just like Dream shouldn't post on Wiki project Japan, as that's reasonable to see as your area. You might have noticed I'm a big fan of your work, but even I wouldn't be able to defend you if someone took you to ANI for posting here. Over the years, you might find your attitude towards Dream will mellow, and you'll come to recognise his many awesome qualities. At that point, it should be easy to get the iban rescinded.
For now, the good Colonel might be a great choice of frenemy for you, I doubt there is a scholar alive who couldn't learn from him. But if you wish to query the Colonel, a better place to do so might on the AfD in question. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
(responding to an email) Indeed it is not what was intended, and it was later clarified (to me, assertively, by other admins) that such a restriction should not be crafted to prevent either editor's participation on a page like this, as long as they avoid each other. The example given to me was with respect to AfD specifically: I suggested they should not, but was told that per the policy, an iban does not prevent them from participating in the same community discussion as long as they are not responding to or interacting with each other. Personally I think that gives a lot of grey area, but that seems to be what the community intends.
As for the "staking a claim" bit, I don't see any evidence here that Hijiri is dropping comments on discussions only so that the other ibanned editor cannot. Two whole days passed between Andrew's comment and Hijiri's. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. The greyness is pesky in one sense. On the other hand, it allows the community to have the best of both worlds, considering the extensive overlapping interests. We can still benefit from Dream's excellent improvements to Japanease games, companies & Manga. And from H's nuanced, high quality contributions to AfDs, even when they are flagged for rescue. I was concerned about the risk of H being taken to ANI - obviously an ARS editor wouldn't do that, but not all are as drama averse as we are round here. Thanks to your clarification,the risk should be minimised. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Closed as KEEP Dream Focus 04:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of different maze types

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think if this list article had "list of" in its name, would not have been a problem. Anyway, if anyone has any books or knowledge about mazes, please help improve the article. Dream Focus 21:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters

Latest comment: 5 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

This follows the nomination of Gumbys. That made my brain hurt but this now getting silly. Andrew D. (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That made my brain hurt but this now getting silly. That implies the nomination was bad enough to hurt you, but you were actually on the losing side in that one, as it ended in a redirect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
"Getting silly" is much more likely a reference to The Colonel (Monty Python) given the context. For those unfamiliar with Flying Circus, The Colonel's schtick was interrupting and calling a halt to scenes which he deemed "too silly". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, the result was originally marked as "speedy keep" -- a very irresponsible act that was one of eight uses of XFDCloser in seven minutes. I don't disagree with the final "keep" closure, but this incident was something of an administrative nightmare. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hijiri 88 You are fly specking. Doesn't change the result as posted here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm marking with specks or tiny stains from the excrement of a fly? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Right. Or more colloquially 'trying to pick fly excrement out of pepper.' It can be done, but we've already wasted more time than it is worth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, I thought we had come to an informal agreement not to list AFD results on this page: whatever happened to that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I had no such agreement. Posting gives our list members useful information (and perhaps some insight). Feedback lets us know where we are where we came from, and how we got there.
I intend to keep posting results. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Feedback lets us know where we are adn where we came from. Not without context. If you intend to keep posting results that I consider to misrepresent the actual results, then you can't tell me not to point out as much (and I would appreciate if you didn't make any more jokes about me playing with insect faeces). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Post away. So the record is clear there was no misrepresentation as to the disposition. Stop fly specking and I'll stop calling it for what it is. Over and out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I never said there was misrepresentation here. And... so you're not going to stop referring to my comments as insect turds even after I politely requested that you stop? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, you've misunderstood what I said. I never so characterized your postings. I think your attention to the smallest internal detail of the closing process is not helpful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't misunderstand your meaning: I'm bothered by the way you choose to express that meaning. The idiom you use is not one I can recall hearing before in my thirty years of life, so you definitely could say "your attention to the smallest internal detail of the closing process is not helpful" in language that doesn't refer to my comments as insect droppings. I've been told recently to avoid mentioning editors I've conflicted with in the past, but surely it will be adequate to say that I do not like it when other editors refer to my edits in such a manner, and I have my reasons for feeling this way. Please do not do so again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Didn't refer to your content that way. You miniscule concern (it's hard to sort things that small) was the subject of the idiom, which you apparently still don't understand. I did not make the comparison you ascribe to me. Your 30 years of experience with English is different in quantity and quality when compared to my 70. I explained what the idiom meant, and you choose to disregard my explanation and my meaning. You can lead a horse to water ... Oops, there's another idiom. I apologize for the language gulf that we are experiencing it here. Let it go. WP:Dead horse. Okay. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, if you don't like posting AfD results here start a discussion on the talk page and get consensus for a rule. This group does not belong to you or 7&6, we all have a say in how we want to do things. In the mean time, do not disrupt this forum by complaining when someone does so. -- GreenC 14:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll consider starting that discussion at some point in the future. But honestly being repeatedly reminded that my comments are like turds has been distressing enough that I'd rather just go write articles for the next long while. If you wanna talk to your fellow 7&6 about respecting other editors' wishes regarding the kind of language one uses to address them, that would be much appreciated, but I'm done here for the time being. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Andrew D. (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

List of African American activists

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"I Have a Dream"... Andrew D. (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Heraclius (son of Constantine IV)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Arguments are that the son of an emperor in ancient times is not notable while being the son of the queen today is because you have newspapers and whatnot to cover them, that's what makes them notable. Anyone have any history books to search through to see if anything can be found on this person? Dream Focus 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

ePartner Consulting Ltd

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A software company. New article. WP:GNG question. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

An article made by the people who work there, with no indication of notability, and you also said it should be deleted in the deletion discussion. If you don't think there is the slightest chance of rescuing the article, no reason to post here. Dream Focus 20:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
All of that is true. But it is only my opinion, and I could be wrong. There might be sources I have missed. By my nature I am always an optimistic inclusionist, but every subject and article is different. I was hoping that the subscribers to this page might use their combined experience and resources to turn it around. If it can be saved, I would welcome the result. Your mileage may vary. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick Brockmeyer

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The result was DELETE. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

List of cult films

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
 
  • The page already has 1430 references accumulated by hundreds of editors over many years. And it was kept last year at AfD. So someone naturally suggests that the sensible thing to do is delete all that and start again with nothing. See Sisyphus... Andrew D. (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A truly pointless deletion nomination. I participated in the previous AFD [7] and nothing changed. Just click on the references for each entry, and search for the word "cult". Simple. Since every single entry is already referenced I don't see as how we can help improve the article any. Dream Focus 17:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The page needs work. One issue is that, with all those entries and sources, it's too big and slow. Maybe the entries need pruning, maybe the page needs splitting, maybe there are other possibilities. As the topic is familiar and accessible, it's a good one for us to help with. Andrew D. (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "The result was keep and split. Clear consensus that the list article should be kept. There also is strong consensus that the article should be subdivided in some manner. Finally, there is general agreement that significant additional cleanup is required without necessarily determining what that should be. I interpret this as an easy keep, but a recognition that there is much work to be done on the article." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Alcatraz water tower

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In-service program

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is a common feature of large organisations and professions, providing learning and development for staff. It would be good if Wikipedia had one for its editors, eh? Wikimedia UK started a series of Skillshare events last year with a master class on featured article writing by Johnbod. Article rescue would be a good topic for another such event. I'll talk to them about organising one. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Cats

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

There's a deletion spree of topics related to cats. I've listed some articles and categories but maybe there's more. There's certainly lots more articles about this sort of topic including Cats and the Internet, Cat lady, Cats Protection, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of cat articles. See Template:Domestic cat Dream Focus 02:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Cat lover culture and Media coverage of cats both closed as no consensus. Dream Focus 01:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Large numbers

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

An article from 2003 which has been been updated by 527 different editors. Is that a large number? You could be #528... Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Small number did not survive. StrayBolt (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Information-theoretic death

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We are concerned with the destruction of data here and this seems an aspect which may be of interest. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There is also a parallel discussion about sourcing on the article talk page, and the beginnings of an edit war. You have to see it all in its fullness to understand and comment on it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The result was keep. Concept appears to be notable even if it does not relate to any accepted form of medicine."
Parallel discussion about sourcing and content continues at article talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

Sheet dealing

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheet dealing Important concept, but needs way better references (now six of seven references are actually from one source), major rewrite and clean up, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Default to keep. "The result was no consensus." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ursula Reinstein

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ursula Reinstein She seems like a notable scientist, but having trouble finding references. Anyone familiar with articles for scientists? Dream Focus 00:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I added the template that discloses that it was listed here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I honestly forgot to do that. Don't really think most people care. Dream Focus 02:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak for "most people" but I care. The rules at least suggest it (if not outright require it), and this is backed by good policy reasons. It's listed now, so I would not be hard on yourself. WP:AGF mistakes happen. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
That specific rule was put there by Tryptofish and others who criticize the ARS on one of their talk pages, and then edit warred to make the change and revert those of us who reverted it. [8] Anyone can tag something as being listed on any Wikiproject's AFD list, but no one can require any project or person to do so. Their discussion and what you see in the edit history of that template shows their insulting accusation that this project is canvassing, despite all evidence showing that it is not. The instructions on how to add an article for rescue at the top of this page shows to put the thing in the AFD already, just as other wikiprojects have. There no reason for it to be up in the side rules like that. For years now I almost always tag it since it brings more attention to this list and more likely to join in the effort, but just forgot this time around. Dream Focus 03:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Notice how it currently reads "This means, in part, that you should disclose that you saw a notice here when you comment in a deletion discussion as a result of seeing that notice,". Not one person has ever done that or will do that. No Wikiproject is required to do that. Dream Focus 03:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. I figured it was just an honest oversight. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Constitutional hardball

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

A good topic for wiki-lawyers and concerned U.S. citizens. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A good topic for wiki-lawyers, eh? Andrew D. (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting argument to delete because of who the author is. Per the nominator, "Some Polish guy" started the article. Nominator says the author is a convicted sock puppeteer. Worth a look. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep "The result was Withdrawn. Article completely rewritten in compliance with policy." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@world record egg

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A world record has been set, it getting more likes than anything else in history. Lot of mention of it out there, what sources can be found to have significant coverage? Dream Focus 04:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Need a custom search engine for book reviews

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

List so far:

Some newspapers have reviews which don't require paying to see them. Probably some magazines out there too. This will help save book articles as well as help with article creation. Dream Focus 04:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

One of the best sources for book notability is Ebscohost as they aggregate academic journals containing book reviews. Don't know what the home page is, I Google "ebscohost <keywords>" and it will bring up something like this with a list of "related articles" containing more hits. They can be made into high-quality cite journal refs. Ebscohost is not the source, a commercial database that re-publishes source journals, similar to JSTOR. -- GreenC 05:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's a couple below, but they may not be easily searchable. Searches can likely be performed by typing in "Review" and then the name of the book.
There's also the Reliable Sources Search Engine: see WP:RSSE. North America1000 13:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is another one, at least the book section: https://www.theguardian.com/books (here are the reviews https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/guardianreview ) StrayBolt (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

These are the top-tier of the major North American city papers that run a book section:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenC (talk • contribs)

All have been added. 18 things total mentioned there now. Dream Focus 19:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Lindal Cedar Homes

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Working now on recovering Lindal Cedar Homes, a US-based construction company. It is the largest manufacturer of prefabricated cedar homes with multiple book mentions. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Studio Drift

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Studio Drift - a truly amazing Dutch design company. I think it would make a good contribution to the interior design coverage on Wikipedia. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  Done Published to main space. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Apereo Foundation

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apereo Foundation - US non-profit open-source organization.--Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_15&oldid=1242941045"