Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
 Resolved--Milowent • hasspoken 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC) |
I think this is a notable company. My AT&T internet is currently flipping on and off randomly again, so its making searching for additional sources a bit difficult. I certainly didn't make the article as an advertisement, but someone tagged it for speedy deletion for being that. Some help finding addition sources covering it would be appreciated. I see mentions of them being one of four companies competing one year for a Pepsi grant, but it doesn't say anywhere who won that. They were tested at Buffalo University against others, and found to be the best. Dream Focus 10:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Its now at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolture Dream Focus 15:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- It has been relisted. I added references and worked on it. Not many people have commented there. Dream Focus 09:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- This has been deleted. I am glad it got more attention than it otherwise would have, since it was nominated at AfD for lack of notability, but I had concluded there was not much I could do with it.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- It has been relisted. I added references and worked on it. Not many people have commented there. Dream Focus 09:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
| Tenth Presbyterian Church remains in place awaiting further improvements. – Northamerica1000(talk) 08:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC) |
Tenth Presbyterian Church is a notable Evangelical Philadelphia congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America, founded 1829, with an architecturally important church building, 1856, designed by the same architect who did Philadelphia City Hall. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved – Northamerica1000(talk) 07:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |
Not done. Fell victim to Rosse action. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
An artist for which sources are confusing because he apparently engages in "performance art" by making sarcastically exaggerated claims about himself. The article has been the target of sockpuppeting from both supporters and detractors. More uninvolved editors are needed to sift through the sources. Please note that the article has been trimmed recently, so you may have to look in its history for more sources/content. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved – Northamerica1000(talk) 21:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC) |
A village in Mauritania, which some doubt exists. The only online info found so far is from Google satellite photos and land photos on Panoramino. The main issue is the lack of any official name to the place on the Google map. Various names are found in the Panoramino photos, but they are somewhat consistent, e.g. "EL houvra". Perhaps this can be sorted out or more sources found? Tijfo098 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the listing. If we can verify its existence, it should stay, but it can be hard in cases like this one.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving it. – Northamerica1000(talk) 17:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC) |
An article up for deletion about a book that is part of a series of books. It has received some press coverage. Working on finding reliable sources with significant coverage; perhaps this WikiProject can help out! I've begun listing some sources at the article's talk page: Here. Haven't found any accessible (non-paywalled) articles with significant coverage yet, though. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 08:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC) |
A new media outlet having a significant number of citations in academic books. As it's usually the case with publishers and magazines/journals, it may be difficult to find coverage to meet the letter of WP:GNG. On the other hand, I think it meets the (more subjective) criteria at WP:NJournals based on citations alone. Finding lengthy independent coverage about the magazine is also rendered difficult by its use of a rather common phrase as title. Perhaps someone with more time on their hands can improve the article in the GNG direction? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving it. – Northamerica1000(talk) 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |
Done Saved! Tijfo098 (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Because it is sourced from numerous press articles, some editors said this article is a WP:SYNThesis of primary sources. I was unable to find a general treatment of the topic in my google searches (or I wouldn't be asking here for help). Maybe someone here can find such sources and use them to improve the article. There are numerous books about conspiracy theories, and I have a feeling some of them may cover such material (from a wp:secondary perspective). But there is a lot of such material to go through for just one editor. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- If no such sources can be found, will you be changing your !vote to delete? This would seem to be the logic of your argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Possibly. In the mean-time, Dlv999 has found some sources--mostly opinion pieces--which discuss several of these events in the context of Arab politics. So, it isn't far fetched that more academic discussions exist as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Please note the actual basis of the nomination is about the article being little more than a collection of non-notable news events to conjure an article with a POV orientation. This is a WP:NOT consideration based on Wikipedia not being a place for indiscriminately collecting information or being a place to list fleeting news stories. You can conjure up plenty of ideas from press sources, but that doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- The reasons for this being listed here are pretty tenuous at best. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- like you're the expert.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that response is up there with "I know you are, but what am I". If you have something to say to address my concerns that would be more constructive. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Milowent. GregJackP Boomer! 15:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that response is up there with "I know you are, but what am I". If you have something to say to address my concerns that would be more constructive. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- like you're the expert.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone can list any article they would like help finding references for to prove its notable. There is no reason to hassle them. Dream Focus 16:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong. If notability is questionable, members of the ARS should be asked to investigate whether an article meets the criteria, not prove it. And as long as people persist in canvassing here, anyone can comment on the fact. The ARS don't own this page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps consider asking the poster to clarify their post for rescue consideration, if you're in disagreement with it. This is a public discussion board that anyone can post to, and members of this WikiProject have no control over who does so or what they write. Also, this post is honest and has integrity, in my opinion, and is not canvassing whatsoever. The poster hasn't asked anyone to !vote at the article's AfD discussion; they're asking for assistance in locating sources about a topic! Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Let's just say that this is a highly controversial article that even admins shy from [1]. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved – Northamerica1000(talk) 03:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |
Arthur's "sword of peace". An interesting aspect of the Matter of Britain which I'd not come across before. Warden (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
| Nomination for rescue consideration withdrawn. A discussion is occurring here at the project's main talk page regarding the placement of links to deletion review discussions on the rescue list. – Northamerica1000(talk) 12:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC) |
The article may be relisted at AfD, or renominated, so improvements to the article would be conducive to retention of this article about this notable topic. A discussion about sources for the article, and an evaluation of them, is occurring on the article's talk page here. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- ARS is for improving articles, not stacking DRVs. Also, discussion on the article should just continue under "resolved entries" below, where it's been going all week pbp 17:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever you say. Perhaps consider actually joining the WikiProject, per your strong interest in it! All editors are welcome to join. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Northamerica1000(talk) 17:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC) - Have to agree. This is completely inconsistent with all that this wikiproject purports to be about. It is just unabashed canvassing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus time and again has proven it is not. But feel free to argue nonstop every chance you get for a few months before loosing interest and finding something else to do. That's usually how these things go. Dream Focus 01:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Asking for assistance to improve an article isn't asking for people to !vote whatsoever, and it never will be. Please read the Project's code of conduct in the upper right-hand corner of this page. Then, see also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh please, DRVs are about addressing whether the close of an AfD was an appropriate gauge of consensus, procedure, and policy. The only reason to notify editors of the DRV is to get people to comment there. At any rate that should be dealt with on the ARS talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Re: "The only reason..." – No. The article may be relisted at AfD, or renominated for deletion again. Improvements to it would be conducive to retention of the article. Please stop taking my posts entirely out of context, both here and elsewhere. The request is for improvements. Notification about the DRV discussion was procedural, because the article was previously listed on this board. See also: Freedom of information. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I worked to improve the pizza cheese article--I found credible, legitimate sources that no one had bothered to unearth before. I saw them pooh-poohed with nary any attempt at legitimate analysis. I am sick and fucking tired of accusations against my integrity and will not stand for them. I do !vote to delete articles that merit it, I do not waste time on articles that will be deleted, and I work to improve articles that I find interesting when they merit it. This DRV is a joke and the close will be endorsed, and the editor bringing it to DRV will lose credibility. End of story.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Where did anyone make accusations against your integrity?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also, when did my credibility come into play here? I'm not the one who called people advocating merger "Cheese jihadists". Milowent, you are taking this AfD and DRV way too personally pbp 04:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever you say. Perhaps consider actually joining the WikiProject, per your strong interest in it! All editors are welcome to join. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
- ARS is for improving articles, not stacking DRVs. Also, discussion on the article should just continue under "resolved entries" below, where it's been going all week pbp 17:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's about time for another RfC on the future of ARS. I thought I would give them the chance to improve when I proposed it some months ago, but they have if anything, gotten worse with the canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Now we are resorting to threats when an article escapes deletion and a chorus of editors at DRV asks what the purpose of the DRV is? (The last new editor noted "specious non-notability claims" of the AFD.) This is unacceptable.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do whatever you desire. Just don't blame me for the actions of others vis-a-vis as being the poster of the article here for rescue consideration, because of course, no editor has control over the actions of others whatsoever. My post was intended to request improvement to the article. The DRV notification was procedural because the article was previously listed at this board. Also notice how this article is listed at WikiProject Food and Drink in its Article alerts section: Diff page here (scroll down), (although the DRV is not). Perhaps a discussion should occur on this project's talk page about listing DRV's here. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's about time for another RfC on the future of ARS. I thought I would give them the chance to improve when I proposed it some months ago, but they have if anything, gotten worse with the canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- People who don't get their way in an AFD, sometimes start making ridiculous accusations against the Article Rescue Squadron that have been refuted time and again. This is no different than any other WikiProject. Dream Focus 10:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've started a new discussion thread titled "Linking Deletion reviews on the Rescue list" at this project's talk page. The discussion is located Here. Also, per concerns stated herein, I've removed the DRV link from my nomination at top. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 03:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC) |
Maths editors often don't have much clue about notability and it's interesting to engage with their alien approach to our articles and help provide a comprehensible lead. Warden (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 18:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC) |
An stub article nominated for deletion that needs improvements such as more sources and expansion. After some source searching the topic appears to be notable, which is why the article should be retained on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some sources that can be used to expand the article:
- Kindstedt, P.S. "Recent developments in the science and technology of pizza cheese". Australian journal of dairy technology. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
- Reinbold; et al. (April 18, 1978). "Preparation of Pizza Cheese". United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
- Quarne, E.L. (April 1968). "Recovery of Milk Solids in Direct Acidification and Traditional Procedures of Manufacturing Pizza Cheese". Volume 51, Issue 4. Journal of Dairy Science. pp. 527–530. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
- "Effect of incorporation of denatured whey proteins on chemical composition and functionality of pizza cheese". Australian journal of dairy technology. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
- Kindstedt, P. S.; et al. (1997). "Chemically-acidified pizza cheese production and functionality". Irish Republic, Dairy Products Research Centre [5th Cheese Symposium]; Irish Republic, Univ. of Cork. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
- Additionally, Google Scholar has many articles directly about this topic. See this search.
- This article can certainly be improved. I also emailed Kindstedt at the University of Vermont, one of the world's experts on pizza cheese, on the off chance we might get his participation.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the initiative to help improve the encyclopedia.
Northamerica1000(talk) 18:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why some discussions get populated with editors who don't want to understand the state of human knowledge on a subject astounds me. I think the prod on I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! earlier this year demonstrates a latent bias against imitation dairy products among our editorship.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- This deletion discussion continues to get more idiotic. An editor claims pizza cheese doesn't exist, then it does exist, but isn't notable, then WP:GNG is just a rule of thumb that should be ignored here though nomination was due to lack of sourcing. Heels are digging in over a 10 year old article!--Milowent • hasspoken 19:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the initiative to help improve the encyclopedia.
Note that most of the editors not suggesting keep are suggesting a redirect or merge on the basis of the subject not being sufficiently independent of various other subjects such as pizza or cheese in general and those concerns should be addressed, not just the concerns of the nom.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's day one, DA, hopefully the misguided editors will be corrected by the end of the AfD.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sources were removed from the article, which are now listed in and being discussed at the article's talk page: Here. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 17:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC) |
An article apparently sourced that is considered by some editors to be WP:SYNT and not using sources reliable enough. Perhaps it can be improved? The article is currently dominated by two recent studies and their surrounding press coverage. 92.4.165.211 has posted a good number of wp:secondary sources on the AfD page, but these have not yet been used. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Considering this just went through AfD a few months ago, that's a weak nominating statement. Theories can well be notable even when they are absolutely devoid of any legitimate research. Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory was the last one like this I dealt with.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
| Nomination withdrawn. After extensive source searching, just not finding significant coverage. – Northamerica1000(talk) 17:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC) |
An article about a project funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the United Kingdom that needs significant clean-up, copy-editing, organization and sourcing. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 10:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC) |
Articles about Gibraltar are currently in the firing line and this is the first that I've come across. I pounced on it immediately following the similar case of Hotel Bristol which was recently Kept at AFD. Warden (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved – Northamerica1000(talk) 22:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC) |
Klemen Jaklic is a scholar with a fine record, but academics are often difficult to retain when challenged in an AfD. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved – Northamerica1000(talk) 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC) |
"Every dog has its day". Warden (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 20:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC) |
Part of a mass AFD that nominates almost everything related to the Mazinger franchize. I actually agree that the majority of the nominations are minor fictional elements that are best suited to be merged to the list of characters or another such list. However, as the series was extremely popular and influential in Japan, I would be completely shocked if Koji, the main character, and Mazinger Z (robot), the titular robot, did not have reliable sources to be found. However, these would very likely be in Japanese, and thus difficult for a native English speaker such as myself to locate. I figured this might be a good spot to check if there are any Japanese-fluent editors interested in helping to improve the articles. Rorshacma (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment from the nominator: In addition to being unsourced, the Koji and Mazinger Z articles are not written to encyclopedic standards, which is why I included them in the nomination. They also have been cleanup tagged for years but not improved, and only a handful of edits in the last two years. If someone is willing to completely overhaul or rewrite them, I will remove them from the AfD due to their importance in the universe. Some guy (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 19:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC) |
This article has potential and what I believe are pretty good sources. It was nominated for deletion based on WP:OR and what appears to be a dislike of the subject matter. After I started to work on the article by adding several academic sources, those advocating for deletion started to argue that it was WP:COATRACK. I don't believe it is, but I don't know how to address that argument, so help in rewriting the article would be appreciated.
In addition, there is content dispute based on an overly narrow definition of censorship. There is currently an RfC, so imput on that would also be helpful in getting this article saved. GregJackP Boomer! 10:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- It was observed to be a coatrack before you began "improving" it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd also suggest that attempting to involve the ARS in this way might well involve WP:CANVASSING - you aren't just drawing attention to the article in order for it to be improved, you are also arguing for support of a particular viewpoint at the RfC, which is outside the ARS remit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- And I'd suggest that you are not WP:AGF. This is the article as it existed at the time it was brought to ARS. Of course, if you feel it was canvasing, file a complaint. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself, as these type of unfounded accusations have been addressed over and over again. Guess what - it's not canvassing. GregJackP Boomer! 02:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Asking others to help to improve an article is never a bad thing. As a side note, I took part in more than a hundred AfDs here, and it was very common that people tried to improve articles during discussion by bringing more sourced materials. And it was not even once that I reverted their changes. Why? Because they must be given a chance to improve whatever they want. If they can't improve anything or materials are irrelevant to the subject, the closing administrator will see it. For the same reason, I usually objected to removal of sourced materials during AfD by contributors why tried to prove that subject does not exist. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Asking others to help to improve an article is never a bad thing". No - but asking others to take a particular position in an RfC may well be - it appears to be overt canvassing. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:GregJackP and possible canvassing at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I did not ask for anyone to take a particular position, I noted that their input would be welcome. GregJackP Boomer! 23:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- That is self-evidently untrue. You argued for support of a particular position in an RfC - which is outside the remit of the ARS, and should never have been raised here in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
My opinion on this issue was that instead of mass voting to keep poorly framed contents, the ARS regulars could have well worked to improve the wider topic area such as Human rights in Islamic countries, which doesn't even have a section about freedom of expression and ways in which this is curtailed in such countries. YMMV as they say. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 19:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC) |
Was up for AfD previously, sources are there, they just need someone to make them inline, and maybe add some more. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved |
Another article where the main argument for deletion (including my own) is that the current contents is WP:SYNThesis of primary source material. I was able to find one academic source that has a brief discussion of the topic from a wp:secondary perspective and I've mentioned it in the AfD. It's not enough to write an article from that in my view, but perhaps more sources like that can be found. Ironically, the problem there is the deluge of fashion magazines (i.e. primary sources) that swamp any web search. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- The article has already been deleted. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but if this is about improvement and not just voting, then nothing prevents one of the regulars here to ask for a WP:REFUND (cf. WP:USERFY) and exploit the source(s) found in the AfD. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Scotty's close essentially invites a new version, if one can be created. I was amazed to see how old the term is, the oldest use I found on google news was 1982 [3]. Can anyone find earlier uses? (no prize for this contest other than the joy of discovery)--Milowent • hasspoken 18:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but if this is about improvement and not just voting, then nothing prevents one of the regulars here to ask for a WP:REFUND (cf. WP:USERFY) and exploit the source(s) found in the AfD. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC) |
Nominator has not conducted WP:BEFORE, and considering that each of the artist's other singles are notable, it's a reasonably likely that information exists on the song pbp 02:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- How have you determined that nominator did not conduct a before check? GregJackP Boomer! 03:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know where you get the idea that I didn't research this. The artist's notable singles meet WP:MUSIC (this one does not) and she has three other red-link singles. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- No she doesn't. Of the singles listed in her template, only Gravity doesn't have its own article. Since the others due, it is likely that there are also sources for "Gravity" if you looked for them. But you should be having this discussion on the AfD, not here pbp 05:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, please assume good faith. I found nothing of substance. For other non-notable singles, please see Sara_Bareilles_discography#Singles. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Google news archive search for the name of the song and the musician, and you get 156 results to look through, although some aren't in English. That would indicate its notable enough to not be sent to AFD. You need a highbeam account to read some of them though. I easily found newspapers that had at least a hundred thousand readers, and referenced them in the article so it clearly passes WP:GNG now. It takes far less time to find sources, than it does to read and type in responses in the AFD, and here. Dream Focus 09:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, please assume good faith. I found nothing of substance. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- They are not going to do that, they would rather just make a conclusitory statement without evidence. I ran several different searches and found that there were several that did not come back with any notable results. They aren't going to acknowledge anything that could indicate that there may be a difference in opinion on how to improve the project. GregJackP Boomer! 17:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- When you can find ample results by searching for "Gravity" and "Sara Bareilles", then its safe to assume the nominator didn't do a proper search before nominating it. I explained how to search to show them how. There was nothing rude about pointing that out. Having discussed this in the AFD, I see the nominator also is unaware how WP:NOTABILITY works, I quoting the bit about articles being notable if they meet the WP:GNG or one of the secondary guidelines such as WP:MUSIC, they not having to meet both. That might be why they claim to have found nothing in their search. Dream Focus 23:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to read the remarks he posted on his talk page when prodded about the issue of bad-faith accusations pbp 23:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Yeah, except for the fact that when I did the same search, I looked at most of the hits and found that they were either trivial mentions, which did not go towards establishing notability, or did not mention the song at all, or were a concert announcement for her. Unless you have a keylogger on his computer, you don't know for a fact, and the evidence doesn't clearly show that he did not do WP:BEFORE, any more than the ARS is guilty of canvassing. It's not appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 23:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- When you can find ample results by searching for "Gravity" and "Sara Bareilles", then its safe to assume the nominator didn't do a proper search before nominating it. I explained how to search to show them how. There was nothing rude about pointing that out. Having discussed this in the AFD, I see the nominator also is unaware how WP:NOTABILITY works, I quoting the bit about articles being notable if they meet the WP:GNG or one of the secondary guidelines such as WP:MUSIC, they not having to meet both. That might be why they claim to have found nothing in their search. Dream Focus 23:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- They are not going to do that, they would rather just make a conclusitory statement without evidence. I ran several different searches and found that there were several that did not come back with any notable results. They aren't going to acknowledge anything that could indicate that there may be a difference in opinion on how to improve the project. GregJackP Boomer! 17:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, please assume good faith. I found nothing of substance. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Google news archive search for the name of the song and the musician, and you get 156 results to look through, although some aren't in English. That would indicate its notable enough to not be sent to AFD. You need a highbeam account to read some of them though. I easily found newspapers that had at least a hundred thousand readers, and referenced them in the article so it clearly passes WP:GNG now. It takes far less time to find sources, than it does to read and type in responses in the AFD, and here. Dream Focus 09:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, please assume good faith. I found nothing of substance. For other non-notable singles, please see Sara_Bareilles_discography#Singles. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- No she doesn't. Of the singles listed in her template, only Gravity doesn't have its own article. Since the others due, it is likely that there are also sources for "Gravity" if you looked for them. But you should be having this discussion on the AfD, not here pbp 05:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 00:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC) |
I declined the proposal to delete this article, and have added sources. Needs more work. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I added some information and references to it from Fox News article about roof cleaning, and then added in an interesting bit about the high cost of cleaning the Superdome in New Orleans. Dream Focus 13:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 00:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC) |
I declined this article's proposal for deletion, have added sources and edited it. It would benefit from more sourcing and expansion. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved Please feel free to continue improving the article. – Northamerica1000(talk) 02:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC) |
Of interest to military veterans, I suppose. Warden (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I found 212 Wikipedia articles that mention open terrain. [4] I added a link to it from a couple of those articles that were military related. Can someone use a bot to automatically add a wikilink to the first place that appears in any article? Dream Focus 13:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved – Northamerica1000(talk) 01:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC) |
I'm not sure why this article is included in the articles for deletion discussion, as Underwolf Records is a notable record label. I am familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and this company has the press to fulfill that requirement. Please reconsider the proposed deletion of this article. Ant Harness (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved – Northamerica1000(talk) 02:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
On 8 September 2012 a user calling himself Vander Wallace tagged this article for speedy deletion with the reason "The primary entry has no merit, anyone with $40 can have their own radio station, the page should be deleted". Another user then "Removed speedy tag. Licenced (sic) broadcasters are usually notable. References are sufficient to pass A7.)" VW then nominated the article for deletion and then started on a tirade that sounded more personal that someone attempting to maintain facts. It was only after complaints of their anonymity that this user actually created a User: page.
They have since then complained to the one of the local newspapers that did the interview on their comments page and contacted the Editor of the paper to have the article taken down. Citing that we are "criminally misleading". They have since supplied the author of the story and the newspaper editor copies of our stats to prove our claims as they are a local newspaper.
The station is licensed in a number of ways and they pay a handsome sum of money annually to for their license & royalty fees. These are detailed some of these at the page as well as a history of the original complaint by VW.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andhow.FM
These are the following changes that have been made to the article since:
- removed license reference. Station licensed under New Zealand RSM LFPM GURL. (andhow.FM had to be inspected by the RSM radio inspector to get this license.)
- removed reference to Pandora & Spotify
- removed references to listener numbers (as the stations is not at any liberty to supply our aggregate listener numbers to the public.)
- removed reference to Radio Heritage NZ & wikipedia link to LPFM stations in New Zealand.
- removed LPFM database reference
- changed broadcast area in Radio Box from New Zealand to Porirua, New Zealand.
- added reference to location of actual database for Radio Heritage NZ
The Radio Heritage NZ site link had nothing to do with the article reprint that they did, but they do maintain a database of LPFM stations in New Zealand. This is supported by donors to their website. Since the station was a part of that database, the article contained a reference to their external site. However, they have removed this link as one of the user's replied that they felt that they were "doubling-up" on the same reference. The author only did this to show that they are good sports and respect the Wikipedia process of fact checking.
Andhownz (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Andhownz - you referenced this nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andhow.FM which is how I came to find it here. I have made a number of suggestions there about how the article could be improved and you seem to have adopted these but I venture to suggest the problem with this article is bigger than a couple of contentious references. You need to be very conscious of the obvious conflict of interest you have with the subject. In rebutting claims there (and in adding claims here) you refer to the subject in the first person -