Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 16

< Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Amakuru in topic DYK for Daniella van Graas
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Daniella van Graas

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

Subject has appeared on many magazine covers and starred appeared in mainstream movies and television. Sourcing is thin but appears WP:GNG User:Lightburst 15:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

And Entertainers 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

What has happened to this article in the past 24 hours is an example of what article rescue shouldn't be. I'm shocked at the sources that have been added. It's a virtual refbomb of blogs, affiliated, crowdsourced, irrelevant, and bare mention sources, along with a single source -- one I added in my own attempt at article rescue -- that barely goes to showing notability, all added to an article that started out sourced to only to IMDb and FashionModelDirectory.com. It's possibly the worst AfD I've personally been involved with. I'd actually been thinking about joining this project, but if this is what the Article Rescue Squadron is about, I don't think it's for me. --valereee (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  • valereee The afd is still in place. You have given your opinion over and over on the afd and then voted your opinion ...and soon a closer will assess after a few more days of voting. I think you know that the subject is notable and that is why your struck your first redirect vote. The sourcing is thin but it exists - the article was a stub a week ago. This constant grinding and extending comments on the afd and this forum serves no purpose. Rescue Squadron is a worthy project but if you do not think so, ok - no need to extend the afd comments here. The rescue squadron has a purpose and it is a good one. User:Lightburst 13:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
    Lightburst, if I could see the notability, I'd be happy to !vote Keep. I've rescued articles myself, most recently Yongfeng chili sauce. I tried to find sources that prove notability for this subject. I consider article rescue an excellent way to spend my time. I think this particular subject's notability hasn't been proven. No one who is adding these sources can even point out the three that they're arguing prove notability. --valereee (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
    This is more extension of the afd. The NOM did the same thing, extending the afd to the the edit warring noticeboard. It is up to you to decide what sources prove GNG - and you did decide. Now I suggest we all let it go until it mercifully closes. User:Lightburst 13:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Lightburst, I didn't come here to extend the AfD here; it was already here. I came here to comment on the fact that AfDs like this one damage the reputation of the Article Rescue Squadron project, which as you say is a worthy project. --valereee (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Once again...your opinion. The Rescue Squadron has many participants. All participants do not get involved in every article. Some editors pass, or even vote to delete etc. You are posting as if your opinion is fact, and it is not fact. Shaking your finger at the Rescue Squadron is poor form IMO. Let it go. These things get sorted with or without fireworks and drama. User:Lightburst 14:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
And once again... nobody is “extending” this long-suffering AfD process by commenting on the destitute quality of “sources” and why they should be removed. That means you’re a hypocrite in bringing it the rescue squadron. Trillfendi (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Trillfendi You have been profane and insulting on the afd. You have been WP:TENDENTIOUS, you have engaged in edit warring and then accused others of your own crime WP:BOOMERANG. Your stated goal on your personal page is to remove the articles of models. You have an agenda - I see your attempt to remove another model Robine van der Meer (Afd) was thwarted yesterday. Let it go already. Take a break from this. User:Lightburst 15:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose deletion on any subject, whether entertainment, politics, sports, etc. I simply pointed out that the majority tends to fall under models with dreadfully inadequate sources that is proliferating what is supposed to be an encyclopedia and if I see them failing Wikipedia’s standard I will propose deletion. So now you’re putting words in my mouth and using strawmen. Because if you read it definitely said my goal is for article creation (My goal for next year is to reach 100 page creations.), not a deletion ratio. I said the basis of what I propose for deletion is—not a goal. I’m not Thanos, I can’t just snap articles away for no reason. I always let the process go to the very end and never withdraw. If articles are kept they’re kept and if they’re deleted they’re deleted. If there’s no consensus there’s no consensus. What I won’t yield on is the idea appearing on a tv show, movie, or magazine without any reliable sources to verify that is inherent notability. That idea defies Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. For anyone to think an unavailable Amazon link to a 23 year old magazine exhibits notability is pitiful and original research. Trillfendi (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong. Using caps, strident and repeated diatribes, and forum shoppinghere do not prove your point. You prove only that intensity (and I presume sincerely held belief – WP:AGF)has nothing to do with the merits of your arguments. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, you wrote on the AFD disucussion: THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE [Emphasis original]. What part of shouting don't you understand?
The magazine cover simply demonstrates her appearance on the cover. Res ipsa loquitor.
In any event, you've conveniently ignored the rest of the article and the sources. You are beyond convincing. No more futility for me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I read the entire article, sweetie. The sourcing is still banal. And “internationally-recognized” is not only promotional but not even properly proven. Trillfendi (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The result was keep. Per the closer: "I must admit that this is one of the more unproductive discussions I have seen in a long time. Many !votes are simply "meets GNG" (or "doesn't meet GNG") without actually giving reasons for that assessment. Sourcing still seems weak (apparently even Amazon links are being used). Nevertheless, there obviously is no consensus to delete at this time." User:Lightburst 17:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Daniella van Graas 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Daniella van Graas

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

On 18 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daniella van Graas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that spokesmodel Daniella van Graas thinks she has been largely typecast as a model, but wishes to gain 20 kilograms (44 lb) and play a Monster? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniella van Graas. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Daniella van Graas), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Euwyn Poon 3rd

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Subject meets WP:ANYBIO - made a widely recognized contribution in his field User:Lightburst 01:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Knoema

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a huge repository of data and statistics. I'm not sure how accessible it is but it looks like a useful resource for us, never mind our general readership. Andrew D. (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Sanjay Razdan

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

A seemingly notable doctor, urologist, robotic surgeon, and professor. Widely published. But sourcing is thin. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. User:Lightburst 13:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind updating this page with the result but the AfD is still open. Or is that an aspirational result :) -- GreenC 13:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
User:GreenC I go to the page and the discussion is closed - what am I missing? User:Lightburst 19:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
User:GreenC Oh I see there is another one. The link here on rescue must be an old link. User:Lightburst 19:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjay Razdan (2nd nomination) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Bronco McLoughlin

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"We have top men working on it right now."
"Who?"
"Top ... men.”
Andrew D. (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Celi

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

3rd nomination for this article - subject has written books WP:GNG Even though the books are self published the books are in many libraries. In addition the subject has made a widely recognized contribution in her field. Often quoted on the topic of Men's Health across Australia User:Lightburst 00:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • sort of keep...Closed as "no consensus", with no prejudice against renomination at any point. User:Lightburst 00:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "The result was no consensus. There are both weak and substantive arguments on either side of this discussion. While the arguments to delete are slightly stronger, the claim that the subject meets NAUTHOR has not been convincingly refuted (as the claims to GNG have been). The discussion has been relisted thrice, so I have no option but to close this as "no consensus", with no prejudice against renomination at any point." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Chuck Whittall

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The subject appears to be WP:ANYBIO received awards ...The tone of the article is a bit promotional but perhaps can be improved. User:Lightburst 00:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The result was Delete. It seems the closer voted by deleting the article. I sent a talk page message to the closer to explain rationale for deletion as there was no WP:CONSENSUS after four weeks of Afd. Should have been a no consensus keep. User:Lightburst 18:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

List of edible invasive species

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Bothered by annoying intrusions? Here's an interesting approach to the problem... Andrew D. (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The result was keep. Per the closer: "The result was no consensus. There are many !votes going in all directions, but at least it is clear that there is no consensus to delete. The other alternatives (draftify, merge elsewhere) can be discussed on the article's talk page. Should no improvement of the article or a meaningful discussion about alternatives be forthcoming, then there is no prejudice to a renomination after a reasonable amount of time."User:Lightburst 17:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Moonbase Alpha (Space: 1999)

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Red Alert! Moonbase Alpha is under attack! Already destroyed are weapons and equipment, vehicles including the Moon Buggy. All of the base's crew have been diverted. Secondary and reliable support is needed. Would a better defense have been mounted if it was realized it was being attacked on all fronts? What can and should be saved? What can be recovered and restored? Can you assay this essay? Can the alternative universe be joined with ours? "Your mission, should you decide to accept it" StrayBolt (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Correction: List of Space: 1999 vehicles and Eagle Transporter weren't deleted, but they are AfDs. They were removed from the Template:Space: 1999. StrayBolt (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

21st century skills

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn" is attributed to Alvin Toffler. Here's another opportunity to learn... Andrew D. (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. User:Lightburst 13:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Derrick Morris

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

De mortuis nil nisi bonum Andrew D. (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I've told you before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in, so I'll repeat myself: Follow the instruction at the top of this page to [i]nclude a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to improve the content, or do not use this page. It is not a forum for you to make slimey accusations against AFD nominators, as you did in the #Women in science section, or even to make weird joke-y comments like this one or the #Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics one immediately below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hijiri 88 You seem hell bent on being anti-personnel. WP:Civil should temper your actions. Comment on edits, not editors. This notice was specific enough. span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC) — preceeding unsigned comment added by User:7&6=thirteen
Ummm... My comment was on Andrew's edit. It violated this page's rules. "Don't speak ill of the dead" is not a reason to keep an article on a person; being dead doesn't automatically make him notable, and if anything the argument that we are not allowed say bad things about someone who is dead, if that's what Andrew was actually saying, would be an argument for deleting the page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Not seeing any sort of accusations, nor any slimy accusations in this new thread. This is actually entirely open-ended. North America1000 18:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say he made slimy accusations; I said he made a joke-y comment that violated this board's requirement that a reason for preserving the article be given. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this style of listing. There is a practical limit to what one can say when asking for more eyes on something. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the article has sufficiently improved and been expanded, so that I will nominate it for WP:DYK
Meanwhile, the discussion continues.... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When an article is deleted, does the entropy of Wikipedia increase or decrease? Some demons are needed to work on such questions... Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The Spoony Experiment

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

He gets passive mention in places, but only one reliable source found so far gives him significant coverage. I find it odd that no media that covers video games mentioned him interviewing legendary game maker Richard Garriott at his castle. Dream Focus 15:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Nature therapy

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Spring is sprung, the grass is riz..." The sun is shining here and so it seems a shame to work on Wikipedia rather than going outside. But I suppose it's dark or raining elsewhere and so working on this topic might help cheer you up... Andrew D. (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: In future, please follow the instruction given further up this page that reads You should disclose in a deletion discussion that a post has been made at the rescue list. Tryptofish (talk · contribs) has done this for you the past dozen or so times you've listed an AFD here, but ideally you really should be doing it yourself. (And yes, I know I too forgot to do it with the Hobo AFD below, but I had already !voted delete on that one, so my posting here hardly gives the impression of canvassing, and my posting here without disclosing such at the AFD hardly gives the impression of stealth canvassing, that yours does seeing as you had already !voted keep.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Gorō Hobo

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I suspect this subject may be notable, but I can't support preserving the article as written, given its unsourced claim that the subject is "renowned" (apparently the result of reading too much into a colorful translation of the title of a book that has a short article on him); however, if anyone has quick access to that book and could fix the article, I'd probably change my opinion (as no doubt would Hoary). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the above message was copy-pasted (without my consent or knowledge) here and here. It was altered slightly to give a message that was quite the opposite of the one I usually toot around here. I'm not sure if the rest of the Rescue Squadron wants to do anything about this to rein in its own members or what have you, but I figured I should leave a record of the same message being posted in other fora without the original poster's awareness on the same place it was originally posted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Women in science

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This is another incipient deletion spree. Jess Wade has been writing an article each day, as explained at her own article, which has itself been repeatedly threatened with deletion. [1] [2]. Her subjects are other women scientists and several examples are listed. Andrew D. (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Please either remove Phelps from the above list or remove the personal attack incipient deletion spree -- the article was created from a previously deleted version, in a counter-consensus fashion, and was speedy-deleted a few hours after you wrote the above. (Also, while it's not entirely relevant, saying that an article has been "repeatedly threatened" when what actually happened was it was PRODded, you DEPRODded without explanation -- something you've been repeatedly called out for -- and the same user immediately AFDed it because you didn't give them any reason not to, is hardly appropriate.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fanya Ismail ended in delete and is now at deletion review [3]

Phyllis Bolds ended as KEEP. Dream Focus 03:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarice Phelps is now in draftspace. Andrew D. (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ana Achúcarro closed as: The result was Keep (SNOW) Experienced editors are unanimously saying Keep. There appears to be no support for this proposed deletion. Victuallers (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC) So it was closed the same day it was started. Dream Focus 16:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Phelps and Achucarro are now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 1. Leviv ich 04:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Tap list

Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
The result was NO CONSENSUS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Closed as no consensus 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Closed as DELETE. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a deletion spree building for lists of breweries, distilleries, wineries and vineyards in the states of the USA. These generally seem to be notable per WP:LISTN and so mostly just need some work to develop them. Editors who specialise in food and drink topics such as Northamerica1000 should please take a look. Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the first list, and then searched for news coverage of the first thing in that article that didn't have its own article. Found a fascinating story about a family of moonshiners and created an article for Dalton Distillery. I wonder how many of these other things listed have enough coverage to create articles for them. The more blue links a list article has, the more likely it is to be seen as worth keeping. Dream Focus 16:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Would somebody please add template:reference list to the ones that are still open? I've been doing it, and I really shouldn't have to. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Since you were the one that edit warred that ridiculous rule in place, don't think anyone else is ever going to take it seriously. No Wikiproject is required to do this. Whoever feels like adding it does so, don't expect it of others. Dream Focus 19:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Since you asked so nicely, I did it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Andrew, this is not as bad as the one above, but when six AFDs on similar topics are opened by five different users in a short space of time, I hardly think it's fair to call it a "spree". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
What is a spree other than a grouping of like things. It can happen because one gets deleted and others seek to replicate the success. Attention is drawn which draws more attention. It's emergent, but that doesn't make it any less real. -- GreenC 15:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland dress

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

“But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”

Andrew D. (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Lauri Arajuuri

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Finnish film actor. I suspect that there is a language and cross cultural problem that hinders finding sources on him. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Any links to Finnish newspapers or magazines archives for the late 1970s? StrayBolt (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The result was redirect to People Not as Bad as They Seem. Due to the low participation, "soft delete" applies (i.e., the redirect can be challenged as if this was a WP:BOLD edit). StrayBolt (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Malicious compliance

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An opportunity for creative thinking. Here's some ideas... Andrew D. (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Postmodern mathematics

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does a Postmodernist Philosophy of Mathematics Make Sense? Andrew D. (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Postmodern mathematics closed as redirect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Motorsports Hall of Fame of America inductees up for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

See Motorsports Hall of Fame of America. Category Discussion 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_16&oldid=1242941056"