Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list

 Main page Rescue list Content menus Article Rescue guide Newsletter Members Awards Talk page 

ARS Code of Conduct Note that this wikiproject is only intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting votes or vote-stacking. Be sure to follow the guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here. Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Wikipedia's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to.

For more information about article rescue, please refer to ARS Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Rescue guide

WikiProject Article rescue squadron's (ARS) main focus is on Wikipedia articles based upon topics that are perceived as actually being notable that are going through Articles for deletion (AfD), that:

• Need references
• Are written poorly
• Lack information readily available
• Need cleaning up.

ARS also functions to rescue other Wikipedia content perceived by editors as appropriate for the Encyclopedia. See Articles & content for an overview.

The following is a list of 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|~~~~}}. This is to inform editors about the article's listing here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Please post new entries at the top of the list. Also, please place the {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} tag at the corresponding deletion discussion for articles listed here.

February 2012

Zindagi Games

The afd is at [1]. 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. [2] That's a lot to sort through. Some help please. Dream Focus 13:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• After checking out the links above and some other searches, I haven't found significant coverage in reliable sources thus far. All the links are basically blogs, fan sites and commercial sites, and most are about the games, rather than the company. A sidenote: per WP:PRODUCT, ..." a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right."... However, I'll do some further searching in the near future. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I always found the WP:Product thing rather odd. A writer, artist, etc. can be notable based on their work, but a company can not be. Music companies and film companies are usually seen as notable based on their work, but not game companies. That is odd. Dream Focus 13:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Leopard (newspaper)

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)

• Comment: At first glance this is a toughie. If we can find some coverage to show GNG is met, yes. Best alternative would be to fold content into Goldsmiths, University of London and a redirect. It would a shame not to have the content.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• What's confusing is that this is also the name of the student union there, making a search a bit more difficult. But I found nothing that can be called reliable, and such papers usually need time to establish notability. As for well-done article--the only external reference given in the article is this, but it doesn't even mention the paper. I agree with Milowent's suggestion, and I see that DF proposed the same thing at the AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sal's Pizza (Dallas)

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)

• As notable as Mzoli's? There is not a lot of consistency at AFD on single-location restaurants, as best I can recall, its often just a WP:GNG debate unless its Michelin or similarly rated (see my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant) for Michelin notability). The number of local stories on it [3] does show local popularity.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, that Google News link produces no hits for me... Drmies (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (e/c) This is the relevant notability guideline for judging whether or not the Dallas Observer sources (supplied in the AFD) help this article pass muster (the "Audience" section, in particular). If it can be demonstrated that the Observer is at a minimum a "regional" source, in terms of its online and/or offline audience, then I think this subject is probably notable. My concern is that our article on the paper seems to suggest it's very much limited in audience to Dallas. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Looks like there are two Sal's Pizza in Dallas: http://www.urbanspoon.com/s/13?q=Sal%27s+Pizza Ottawahitech (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Gigi Causey

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.

• Rome, Emily (January 28, 2012). "'Time Freak': Sci-fi short and an Oscar moment to remember". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 03, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• "UT grad goes crazy when her short film gets an Oscar nom". The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved February 03, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Keerthi sagathia

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)

• I just took a crack at finding sourcing for this article and failed miserably. This is going to end up at AfD in its current form, and it will get deleted there. It reads like a puff piece written by an artist management agency or, as the case may be given the author's name, a family member :). All that said, totally agree with you regarding the "immediate bombardment" that greeted the article's author. Hate seeing that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I went through some of the Google news archive results. His work does get some mention. With a career like that, I'd say he is clearly a notable musician. Dream Focus 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Since my reply here has now been quoted in the ongoing AfD and used against my vote (which is amusing, for some reason), I'll say here that I think with the additional sources added this article now just squeaks by. Nice work. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hacker Time

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

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)

• Cleaned up the article. Added references:

• Kock, Nereu F. ; et al. (1994). The nature of data, information and knowledge exchanges in business processes: implications for process improvement and organizational learning (Research paper). The Learning Organization. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
• Cook, Sarah (1996). "Process improvement: a handbook for managers". Gower Publishing Ltd, et al. Retrieved February 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) ISBN 0-566-07633-0

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Mailstorage

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.

• Palmer, Shelly (March 31, 2011). "Storing Your Stuff by Mail". Fox News, New York. Retrieved February 04, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
• Chicago Sun-Times. "Naperville-based Storage Firm Thinks Outside the Box". Chicago Sun-Times.

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)

• This is a close call to me, but the the concept of "mailstorage" does deserve to be preserved whether in self storage or elsewhere.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Renamed article to Mail storage (grammar correction). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oddcast (company)

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)

• I de-speedied, will take a look at it later today!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• I added a few sources, this company is clearly notable. What happened here is an outrage which happens every day, I am afraid:

1. Dream created a stub [4] which included 2 new york times URL references, and which made a clear notability claim. "Oddcast is an online marketing company that was found in 1999, and whose works have been seen by hundreds of millions of people." It also listed some of the company's major campaigns with major companies. The article was no work of art, but it was BRAND NEW.
2. 3 minutes after creation, its tagged as sounding like an advertisement. [5]
3. 15 minutes after creation, Dream removed the advertisement box, with edit summary "doesn't seem like an ad to me. I wrote it from a neutral point of view referencing the New York Times. the external links are to them and their notable work that gets coverage in the New York Times and elsewhere)".
4. 48 minutes after creation, another user removes alleged "peacockery",[6]--which is, namely, the core of the notability claim of the stub, "and whose works they report as having been seen by hundreds of millions of people."
5. 7 hours later, it is now tagged for Speedy Deletion.[7] Why? Under CSDA7, for no claim of importance! This is comically sad.
6. About 3 hours later, Dream returns to find this ridiculousness. He posts on the talk page to contest the speedy deletion, but as the article creator he cannot remove the speedy tag. Now I'm not sure about this, but I believe despite the contest notice the article is still in real jeopardy. So, Dream posts here for assistance, and luckily because other people know who he is and he's not just some random new editor, I am able to assist. But in any event, many newby editors will never return in time to contest the CSD - the article will be GONE.

Things like this should not happen. This is exactly what drives new editors off wikipedia. And as to established editors, shouldn't someone at least check who the article creator is before marking something as CSD? Can't there be some tool for that?

The problem demonstrated by this experience is common-what can we do about it?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply at talk page. Diego (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Milowent, here's the thing. I looked at the article (which seems safe for the moment), at the version you linked. It was CSD'ed by a relatively experienced editor who seems to do little more than nominate for deletion but who seems to have a fairly decent track record (I only looked at a 100 edits). That version, I'm sorry to say, was not written in a way that confers notability. Mind you, I don't wish to impugn DF's writing skills, but a factual statement followed by a list full of redlinks, that does not make an admin happy. I clicked on to the NYT articles, and searched down the page, and found that the info there seemed plenty relevant (and in-depth) to at least ward off CSD. In other words, I would have declined speedy deletion, but what I'm telling you (well, as if you didnt' know...) is that CSDs being applied and granted is often a function of the writing. Even the current version, which is much better, does not have a lead that suggests notability. As for new editors being driven off--well, this wasn't a new editor who wrote it. "Oddcast ... whose works have been seen by hundreds of millions of people", with the first link to the company website, well, one shouldn't be surprised to find that tagged as promotional and then slapped with a CSD. Such article writing makes it all too easy to click delete, and no amount of complaining about deletionist, trigger-happy admins (I speak in general: I am not speaking of you, you know that) will change that fact. Bottom line, to avoid CSD tagging, have references and better-written first versions... All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:28, 7 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) Is there any reason this content should really be deleted? The AfD seems to be upset that its in a separate article, however, there's no question that Ultima Online is extremely notable, and there are a slew of articles trying to cover it in a reasonable way.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I renamed it to List of worlds in Ultima Online since it is a list article, and mentioned how many other such list articles for worlds of notable series existed in Wikipedia, it the same as character and episode list. Dream Focus 00:12, 4 February 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. AfD in Category:Gettysburg Battlefield. Abraham Bryan, or Brian was a free black man who owned a farm on Cemetery Ridge at the time of the Battle of Gettysburg, and with other blacks fled the area for fear of being enslaved by the Confederate troops. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC) I've added pointers to articles and books mentioning the man. The AfD nomination is based on the biography guideline, but the article may work if the focus is placed on the incident instead of the person. Apart from my Keep, the AfD currently had only Delete !votes based on the lack of sources. Diego (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC) The article's AfD closed as "Refocus and move". The article was moved to Abraham Brian farm house. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Dental College

• I've already handled this one, but wanted to make a note here. This college is one in the same as Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery, another stub subject to a suggested merge. I expanded the latter article, and suggested that Pennsylvania Dental College be redirected to it. This was a classic rescue situation, the subject was notable, the current content was weak, but if deleted its unclear if either article would have ever been recreated. It turns out that the Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery was actually the 2nd dental college founded in the United States (its a bit more complex than that, but essentially that's the case), and the college spawned what became the current dental schools at UPenn and Temple. I.e., its an overlooked but important part of American dental history. (BTW, an article could be created on Dental Cosmos, the premier dental science periodical from the 1870s to 1938.[8] [9])--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Milowent, that page is now a dab page, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Dental College. If you're satisfied with that, then this thread can be closed. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)