Jump to content

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Goat people: new section
Line 46: Line 46:
{{-}}
{{-}}
<center>'''<big>{{mdash}} Please post new entries at the ''top'' of the list {{mdash}}</big>'''</center>
<center>'''<big>{{mdash}} Please post new entries at the ''top'' of the list {{mdash}}</big>'''</center>

==[[Goat people]]==
*{{Find sources|Goat people}}
*{{lagafd|Goat people}}

This is a [[WP:BROAD|broad concept]] article and, as these are often not well understood at AfD, we can help by explaining and demonstrating the concept. Goatification was a running theme at Wikimania last year and so there's some fun to be had with the concept. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


== [[Young Pioneer Tours]] ==
== [[Young Pioneer Tours]] ==

Revision as of 08:27, 12 March 2018


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
For additional article improvement listings, check out this project's archives and listings at WikiProject Cleanup

This is a list and discussion of Wikipedia content for rescue consideration. When posting here, please be sure to:

  • First familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for topic notability and identifying reliable sources, as well as the prohibition on inappropriate canvassing
  • Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to improve the content. Please ensure that your comment here is neutrally worded. (You can also !vote to delete an article at its deletion discussion because you think it is untenable in its present state, and still list it here in the hope that another editor will find a way to improve it and save it.)
  • You should disclose in a deletion discussion that a post has been made at the rescue list.
  • Sign posts with four tildes ~~~~.
  • Place the {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} template in Articles for deletion discussions, to notify editors about the listing here. The tag can be placed below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

The following templates can be used for articles listed here:

  • *{{Find sources|Article name}} - Adds source search options
  • *{{lagafd|Article name}} - Adds relevant links
  • *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (2nd nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated twice
  • *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (3rd nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated 3 times
  • *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (Nth nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated N ≥ 4 times
Shortcuts


— Please post new entries at the top of the list —

Goat people

This is a broad concept article and, as these are often not well understood at AfD, we can help by explaining and demonstrating the concept. Goatification was a running theme at Wikimania last year and so there's some fun to be had with the concept. Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Pioneer Tours

Concerns were raised that the subject is not notable apart from the Otto Warmbier incident. Would editors look for more sources? Cunard (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Please follow the guidelines on this page and present a solid rationale for keeping the article. Presenting only a characterization of one of the deletion arguments is not sufficient, and your showing up here two weeks after the AFD was opened with an increasingly large number of delete !votes makes this really look like canvassing, which also violates the guidelines on this page. You and others have had two weeks to Google sources that might theoretically be used to improve the article, and asking for more people to Google yet more is not going to improve the situation. I don't think many ARS members are even proficient in Chinese, where one would imagine the majority of non-Warmbier-focused sources would be, so why not try asking at WT:CHINA? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" editors believe the subject is not notable apart from the Otto Warmbier incident. The only other deletion characterization is that the article was promotional, which I fixed with a rewrite. I am not presenting a "solid rationale for keeping the article" here because I presented it in the AfD. If I were to present the rational here, I would paste all the sources I posted in the AfD here which is unnecessary. I am posting here to ask for editors to look for sources apart from the Otto Warmbier incident. Per your suggestion, I've also posted at WT:CHINA asking editors to look for Chinese sources. All of the sources I found were English sources. Cunard (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google news search for "Young Pioneer Tours" -"Warmbier" shows ample coverage not related to that one person. Seems odd people are arguing it doesn't meet the GNG. Reading through the news results now, and it seems they just keep quoting someone who worked there. Lot of news to look through to find anything that counts as significant coverage. Dream Focus 02:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Odd how a Google news search with "Young Pioneer Tours" -Warmbier -"Rowan Beard" still has some results with those two people's names in it appear. Anyway, went through enough to find what is needed to prove it meets the WP:GNG, so the article is rescued. Dream Focus 02:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: I'm not sure how often you read newspaper articles while not looking for sources for Wikipedia articles at AFD, but when something (a "front page" topic, like the Warmbier incident) is in the news, there are frequently a large number of articles on "related topics" buried in pages further back in the same paper that may not directly reference the incident that inspired the coverage but assume an awareness of it on the part of the reader. I am sure a GNews search for "Tibet" would show a massive hike in the number of articles on the topic in 2008 over 2007 and 2009, even if one included -"Olympics" -"Olympic Games" in one's search. The real trick is to see if there was any coverage of the topic before either of those incidents. It's a problem with online news searches that supplementary stories like those almost definitely were appear more disconnected from the core news stories that inspired them than they did in print. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Google News search does filter things. I didn't see any bad results like that in the articles I clicked on. Did you see the sources I found, the two interviews I mentioned in the AFD? Dream Focus 03:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liero

This is a clone of Worms and seems to have a following. Sourcing this doesn't seem to be easy but we may have some specialists in this topic area. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed the link to the proper AFD discussion. The previous one ended in merging various articles to that one. Dream Focus 03:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Lady (character)

There seem to be lots of literary aspects to this and so a variety of perspectives may help. Andrew D. (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a non-neutral notification and violates the guidelines on this page. The literary aspects largely relate to a topic that already has a separate article (as had already been outlined in the AFD) or to other "Dark Ladies" in the works of other writers; creating an article on Wikipedia that compares these figures is WP:SYNTH pending a source that actually does the same, and none of the sources Andrew had located before posting the above apparently did so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It closed as delete, but the basic information is at Dark Lady already. Just lost a paragraph. Dream Focus 22:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raw intelligence

Making sense of such crude stubs which we see at AfD is like processing raw intelligence; sifting the sources and looking for confirmation. We're good at this, right? Andrew D. (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This ended in KEEP thanks to the work done by Andrew Davidson to the article. Dream Focus 22:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unpopularity

Today's selection is of special interest to those of us who feel the chill of disapproval from time to time. The nomination seems to be looking for more and better content on the subject. They don't say what that might be but maybe someone here has some ideas. I have suggested that we say something about unpopularity at an early age but I don't have time to work on this myself yet. Anyway, here's some inspiration from Cicero. Andrew D. (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Quodsi ea mihi maxime inpenderet tamen hoc animo fui semper, ut invidiam virtute partam gloriam, non invidiam putarem.
(unpopularity earned by doing what is right is not unpopularity at all, but glory)

— Marcus Tullius Cicero, Oratio in Catilinam Prima in Senatu Habita
Seems to be written by a socializer about their kind. "There has been considerable research documenting the effects of peer rejection, such as low academic achievement," seems like total nonsense, since nerds who don't feel the need to socialize have the best scores. The obvious bias in the article against hermits would need to be fixed. Dream Focus 12:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result was keep.

Sink drain cover

My view is that commonplace objects like this are always notable but it looks we need to demonstrate it. I recall that Hans Adler once gave the example of the egg slicer. One things for sure; this is not a dictionary definition. As this is such a common mistake, it's worth reading WP:DICDEF so that you understand the difference between a dictionary entry and a stub. Andrew D. (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Study abroad

This will be of particular interest to our ex-patriate editors, especially those now based in Japan, as it was translated from their language. In my view, what's appropriate now is a merger but that's usually easier said than done. Andrew D. (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard–MIT Mathematics Tournament

This article has been around for 10 years but doesn't have any sources so naturally gets a drive-by nomination by someone who hasn't read WP:BEFORE or WP:SOFIXIT. This is a routine job for the ARS but Wikipedia has lots of maths editors who may be able to help and it occurs to me that @Arthur Rubin: or @EEng: might know something about this so their views are welcome too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Please refrain from including non-neutral ad hominem criticisms/assumptions about the AFD nominators or pinging specific editors in your listings here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. I didn't even know unconfirmed accounts could open AFDs. I guess that's just IPs. (Maybe point out that the nom is an SPA next time, rather than what you did here?) Anyway, this article does not appear to have any chance of getting deleted, so it's really unclear what the point of list it here is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, the ARS has too often been asked to help with hopeless cases – weak topics that are likely to be deleted regardless. This is unproductive and discouraging. It is better for the ARS to focus upon more promising topics and so I am listing the ones that I'm finding at AfD. In this case, it wasn't clear how the discussion was going to go because I was the first to comment. As the page in question had no sources, there was still useful work to be done. Andrew D. (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result was speedy keep.

Dragonite

Are your edits are often dramatic, bold or grandiose? Do you spend hour after hour on Google Books doing research for an article? Can you focus on a single article intensely? Maybe you're a WikiDragon too... Andrew D. (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: What are your suggestions for improving the article? The above joke-y meta comment would be amusing and charming, if you also indicated, in accordance with the guidelines on this page, a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to improve the content. You haven't edited the article talk page or the AFD yourself, so it's very difficult to determine what changes you think could be made to rescue the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The most obvious issue in this case is that there are blatant alternatives to deletion as just about every Pokemon is a blue link and so it is not our policy to delete them. I get the impression that this particular specimen is especially popular in Pokémon Go. That's had extensive coverage since its release in 2016 and so maybe that's a promising line of enquiry. Andrew D. (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the obvious solution is revert to a redirect, per BRD, and then allow discussion among interested editors whether an exception should be made for Pokemon #149 but not #147 (which redirects to a list) or #148 (which redirects to an unrelated article). This is how I !voted, this is the implied intention of User:Zxcvbnm, and this is almost certainly how the AFD will be closed; literally no one is saying "This page should be removed from public view". I'm confused what purpose posting this to ARS under these circumstances could serve, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Dragonite is in my experience no more popular in GO! than its fellow "quasi-legendary" Tyranitar and significantly less popular than Blissey. The only Pokémon GO! gym mainstay I can find who has a standalone article on English Wikipedia is Snorlax. The reason for Snorlax's popularity in GO! is essentially that it has high base HP, and it's far behind Blissey on that front. Obviously this is about reliable secondary sources providing significant and relevant coverage, not in-game stats (or even "reliable" secondary sources reporting on those stats). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result was redirect.

Swamp monster

If you want to get down and dirty... :) Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: The above is a violation of the guidelines on this page. It includes neither a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, nor any ideas to improve the content, and is nothing but a notification that an article is at AFD, with the clear implication of "This article is at AFD; you know what to do..." If no rationale or ideas for how to fix the article's problems are added within the next 24 hours, I will remove it as canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestions above don't have formal guideline status and, even if they did, common sense is expected. In this case, my gut feeling was that the topic had potential as a broad concept page. Lambian has suggested the excellent source Swampmen: Muck-Monsters and their Makers and so matters are proceeding well. Andrew D. (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't, but WP:CANVAS does. If you come here and do nothing but link to the AFD, presumably because you think ARS members will be more likely to !vote one way than any other (even though my "userfy/draftify" middle way suggestion is getting some traction). Anyway, even if Lambian did find a source, who's going to do the heavy lifting of fixing the article? At a guess, I'd suspect that maybe one quarter of the contents of our article are even touched upon in that book (which probably says something different even for some of those). This shouldn't be allowed end up like the Korean influence on Japanese culture AFD, where the "TNT delete" !voters had to clean up the article while "keep" !votes either walked away apparently happy to have "won" the AFD or actively hindered improvement. What's your take on Moving the page to User:Andrew Davidson/Swamp monster? Or maybe even Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Swamp monster? (That one actually seems like a really good idea -- has it been tried before?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been tried before – see WP:INCUBATOR. It didn't work and now we have draft space which doesn't work well either. It's our policy to develop content in mainspace and that's the best place for it because readers and editors can collaborate together in a natural way. Local drafts aren't nearly so good because they have limited exposure and engagement. They are like a morass or swamp; topics get bogged down there. Andrew D. (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know abour Article Incubator. What I meant to ask was whether this project had ever "adopted" problem articles like the swamp monster one into its own project space to fix them. The problem as I see it is that quite often ARS will come along and !vote down a proposed deletion of an article that clearly has next to nothing worth preserving, and then not actually do any work to fix the articles in question. With swamp monster, I and two other editors (so far) have looked at it and said "Wow, this article is a mess. Almost everything in it is textbook OR. I don't think anything would be lost by blowing it up and starting over." Presumably you and the other keep !votes disagree and see at least a sizeable portion of the article as salvageable, but if that's the case then the burden is on you to prove it by fixing the article. The above-mentioned "projectification" (?) would allow ARS members to do so without the time limit of AFD. Obviously it would need to still have some form of time limit, or perhaps there could be a limit on the number of drafts ARS can host at any one time, or something. Anyway, that's kinda beside the point. Your continued good-natured punning is much appreciated (and I'm being sincere; I had a good larf at your last sentence), but I still think that "winning" AFD "battles" and then running away without making any effort to fix the articles, which is what appears to be going on here (and certainly went on in the "mottainai" and "Korean influence" cases), is the opposite of the stated purpose of this project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No members of any Wikiprojects are required to do what you are suggesting, so why should this one be any different? Dream Focus 02:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're admitting to using ARS as a forum to canvas for keep !votes in the AFD, and not to improve the article? Neither one of you has touched the article itself, and all Lambian has done is made it worse by inserting more apparent OR into the lead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just improved the article in question, before reading your recent nonsense post here. No one is "admitting" anything, not sure how what I said got twisted around in your mind to make you think that. Most articles listed now didn't have anyone go to them, since no one thought they worth the bother of saving. Sometimes people feel like doing some work in an article, and sometimes they don't. Dream Focus 03:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This forum is currently being discussed elsewhere as a stealth CANVAS outlet and some people are gunning for its closure and maybe building evidence for a case? I don't know. It's currently under the spotlight so to speak and it might be best to consider some of the suggestions being made not in a personal way. -- GreenC 03:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result was no consensus.

Relation (history of concept)

This is mainly a case of cleanup but I'm not keen on philosophical topics myself. See also the similar AfD for Virtues (number and structure). Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The result was keep.

List of Wikipedia people

I suppose that everyone is quite familiar with this topic. There's lots more scope for expansion. Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The result was no consensus.

Arlett Tovar

This article needs expansion and incorporation of references found via a basic Google News search. WP:FOOTY includes one top-division women's league despite there being dozens around the world. This particular league and its players have received a remarkable amount of news coverage in its first season. Hmlarson (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.

Viridiana Salazar

This article needs expansion an incorporation of references found via a basic Google News search and in the AFD. WP:FOOTY includes one top-division women's league despite there being dozens around the world. This particular league and its players have received a remarkable amount of news coverage in its first season. Additional eyes appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep.

Medicine Trails

Article was recklessly nominated for AfD though luckily a helpful British user who happened to pass by has managed to supply the following sources that support the retention of the article, in relation to early pan-American trails:

As the British man noted on the talk page of AfD, it's possible they may relate to parts of the Oregon Trail, Great Osage Trail or Santa Fe Trails or to the Lewis and Clark Expedition route.

Please help to fix the article using the above sources. Danke. 14.192.208.83 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result Page moved to Draft:Medicine Trails Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deneva Cagigas

In addition to the secondary sources already in the article, there are other articles about this player in Mexico's top-division football/soccer league available via a Google News search to support WP:GNG. WP:FOOTY does not include the majority of top-division women's leagues around the world -- only 1 on my last check. Hmlarson (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Userfied to User:Hmlarson/Deneva Cagigas

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list&oldid=830026656"