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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:25, 21 February 2017

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.
Include specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to improve the content.
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 (Nth nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated N ≥ 4 times

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

Stefan Ćertić

Stefan Ćertić (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

I need help here as i suspect article might be a victim of "on call" deletionism. I think we need more natural point of view from wider audience especially persons from the field of technology. Arguments like, research paper has only 5 cites stands still, however, sometimes is more valuable who cite work then number of citations. Personally, i think it is a good quality, properly referenced article. DGG made some good points, however votes such as "Delete as clear business advertising" suggest pure copy-paste votes without even reading the article. It would be good to discuss with DGG on any matter as he clearly base his opinion on research, however, other opinions (or lack of it) are what makes me worry. Just join the conversation, as we discuss both standpoints are becoming clear --Edwmgs (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Anyhow, a lot of references are added in order to improve notability, including all the career section which was the issue in the first place. --Edwmgs (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bassat and Paul Bassat

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Andrew Bassat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

This AfD is regarding the co-founders of Seek.com.au (see this), a multi-billion dollar company in Australia. There are a lot of sources with mentions, and getting everything together will take some work, but they are both clearly notable. The single AfD discussion covers both articles. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forever (website)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Forever (website) (2nd nomination) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Concerns were raised that the article is a violation of WP:PROMO and still doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Would editors review the article to fix any Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations and also look for more sources? Cunard (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (website) (2nd nomination) was closed as "no consensus". A merge discussion has been opened at Talk:Forever (website)#Proposed merge with Glen Meakem. Cunard (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 {{-}}
 <center>'''<big>{{mdash}} Please post new entries at the ''top'' of the list {{mdash}}</big>'''</center>
+==[[Stefan Ćertić]]==
+*{{lagafd|Stefan Ćertić}}
+I need help here as i suspect article might be a victim of "on call" deletionism. I think we need more natural point of view from wider audience especially persons from the field of technology. Arguments like, research paper has only 5 cites stands still, however, sometimes is more valuable who cite work then number of citations. Personally, i think it is a good quality, properly referenced article. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' made some good points, however votes such as "Delete as clear business advertising" suggest pure copy-paste votes without even reading the article. It would be good to discuss with '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' on any matter as he clearly base his opinion on research, however, other opinions (or lack of it) are what makes me worry. Just join the conversation, as we discuss both standpoints are becoming clear  --[[User:Edwmgs|Edwmgs]] ([[User talk:Edwmgs|talk]]) 05:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Anyhow, a lot of references are added in order to improve notability, including all the career section which was the issue in the first place. --[[User:Edwmgs|Edwmgs]] ([[User talk:Edwmgs|talk]]) 08:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 ==[[Andrew Bassat]] and [[Paul Bassat]]==
@@ Line 55: / Line 59: @@
 Concerns were raised that the article is a violation of [[WP:PROMO]] and still doesn't meet [[Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline]]. Would editors review the article to fix any [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] violations and also look for more sources? [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 06:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 :[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (website) (2nd nomination)]] was closed as "no consensus". A merge discussion has been opened at [[Talk:Forever (website)#Proposed merge with Glen Meakem]]. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 11:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
-==[[Stefan Ćertić]]==
-*{{lagafd|Stefan Ćertić}}
-I need help here as i suspect article might be a victim of "on call" deletionism. I think we need more natural point of view from wider audience especially persons from the field of technology. Arguments like, research paper has only 5 cites stands still, however, sometimes is more valuable who cite work then number of citations. Personally, i think it is a good quality, properly referenced article. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' made some good points, however votes such as "Delete as clear business advertising" suggest pure copy-paste votes without even reading the article. It would be good to discuss with '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' on any matter as he clearly base his opinion on research, however, other opinions (or lack of it) are what makes me worry. Just join the conversation, as we discuss both standpoints are becoming clear  --[[User:Edwmgs|Edwmgs]] ([[User talk:Edwmgs|talk]]) 05:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Anyhow, a lot of references are added in order to improve notability, including all the career section which was the issue in the first place. --[[User:Edwmgs|Edwmgs]] ([[User talk:Edwmgs|talk]]) 08:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)