Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Entries from October 2012

Note: The entries here are currently in a basic reverse-chronological order, in which newer entries are posted at the top of the archive.

Chrysler Hall

Chrysler Hall remains in place. Feel free to improve the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 08:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Chrysler Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hugely popular performing arts hall in downtown Norfolk, Virginia. Has been around since 1972 and is the home of the Virginia Symphony Orchestra and the Virginia Ballet. Plays host to numerous Broadway (and off Broadway) plays, performances and other arts entertainment. The City of Norfolk owns the Chrysler Hall. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Some prods are dumb, this will not be deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

United Shipping & Trading Company

Resolved United Shipping & Trading Company was retained. Please feel free to improve the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

United Shipping & Trading Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

• A global group of companies headquartered in Middelfart, Denmark. Also of historical significance, because United Shipping & Trading Company was founded in 1873. The article needs more sources and expansion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas Lore

Resolved Nicholas Lore was retained. Please feel free to improve the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The same user - User:Qworty has deleted all the content and redirected this article as well? Nicholas_Lore&action=history - This was the article two hours ago, he deleted it all, including a commons compatable free picture and turned it into a redirect. - Youreallycan 19:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've restored the Nicholas Lore article because this person passes WP:BASIC. It needs more work. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• I've expanded the article and added more inline citations from reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Update: The article has been nominated for deletion. It would benefit from more sourcing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your work to you and all the project members that have looked at and improved this article and the report above - Regards - Youreallycan 20:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Eurofins Scientific

Resolved Eurofins Scientific‎ was retained. Please feel free to improve the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 19:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Big company, lost of coverage (in French and German mostly), but hey, none was cited in the article so DELETE!!!11! Tijfo098 (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've performed some preliminary expansion and organization of the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Joseph L. Goldstein

Joseph L. Goldstein remains in place awaiting improvements.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 19:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Joseph L. Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi - this article BLP is under a bit of duress - Nobel prize winner - the subject is adding his papers and suchlike , a bit promotional , allegedly - and a wikipediain is objecting and blanking everything and redirecting - I have requested he revert to a stub - they have although only a few words - not enough replacement imo and I have asked him to replace the pic and the infobox - the subject/or someone close to the subject has returned and reverted - I am on a BLP editing holiday and can't edit the article - can anyone who is interested please help edit/improve this BLP , regards - Youreallycan 19:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Also see discussion here - User_talk:Qworty#Your_redirecting_of_a_nobel_prize_winner_seems_a_bit_severe

My understanding is that you are also meant to be on a "holiday" from participating in BLP-related discussions as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

MMOsite

I believe this site is notable. I ask for help in finding reliable sources to prove this. Dream Focus 16:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• After some news source searching, I haven't found independent significant coverage thus far. There's plenty of primary source coverage from news.mmosite.com, but these usually aren't applicable to qualify topic notability. Google Books turned up this information, but other book resources appear to consist of passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• This has been deleted. I tried to find sources for this one, but had no real luck. But the listing was worthwhile to check out.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Retail loss prevention

Retail loss prevention remains in place awaiting improvements.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 02:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

After a moral panic at ANI (due to the editing by some, gasp, COI experts) 90% of this article was deleted and replaced with a WP:COATRACK for civil recovery. Some cool-headed editors (WP:ROUGE admins need not apply) are invited to participate there in rebuilding a legitimately encyclopedic article. I've added a textbook/monograph and an encyclopedia on the topic to the article's talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly a notable topic, if that was in question.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sidel

Sidel remains in place awaiting improvements.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 01:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a definitely notable company based on their revenue. The article was speedily deleted as spam once and was reposed. There is an ANI discussion about it. It looks like it needs to be cleaned up of promotional language. If you google for Sidel and Tetra you will find a lot of sources. Apparently there were antitrust concerns, etc. [1] Clearly there's material out there with which to expand the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Coelbren Rhodd

Coelbren Rhodd remains redirected to Saint Paul in Britain.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 01:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A matter of discussion has arisen over this article at [[2]], resulting in it getting nominated for deletion based on a personal communication from a leading expert, Ronald Hutton, who has sourced the document to a source by Taliesin Williams, written in Welsh in 1840. Williams, Taliesin., (ab Iolo), Coelbren Y Beirdd; a Welsh Essay on the Bardic Alphabet, W. Rees, Llandovery, 1840. (Traethawd ar hyna- fiaeth ac awdurdodaeth Coelbren y Beirdd, gan Taliesin Williams (ab lolo) Llanymddyfri, 1840. Compare Arch. Cambr. i. 471-473.) The essay won the 1838 Abergavenny Eisteddfod, so is clearly quite notable. I thought I'd post here in case anyone could find that source and see if Coelbren Rhodd is mentioned in it to confirm Ronald Hutton's suggestion without using his private communication as OR. Along with the current primary source, which is Richard Williams Morgan, the article also has 2 secondary sources in the 1800s and one in 1934 anyhow, the age of which I don't see as consequential, so am suggesting a keep/rescue. More sources for it may also possibly be found and would be appreciated. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me point out that there are two substantial issues here. First, that at present we don't have anything other than an email I received identifying this particular text (that is, under this name) as spurious. Second, our research makes it clear that this is but one version of a "bardic" or "druidic catechism", all of which probably trace back to the same original source; however at present we don't have a RS which ties them all together. Be that as it may, there's now the problem of what to call the thing. References to it under this name are extremely scarce, maybe no more than four in all the literature we can find, but if we can reliably tie it all together, the notability may be thereby increased. Mangoe (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Damn Vulnerable Linux

Resolved Damn Vulnerable Linux‎ was redirected to Security-focused operating system – Damn Vulnerable Linux.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 01:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Damn Vulnerable Linux (DVL) was a distribution of GNU/Linux geared toward computer security students." This distribution of Linux is obviously useful to computer science students, and was listed for PROD, which I removed and stated my objection. Unfortunately, useful is not a good reason for retention in Wikipedia, and this software article does not yet have any reliable sources. I hope that we can provide at least one reliable source. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

My Highbeam account shows nothing, but Google news archive has results. [3] Most of them aren't in English. Working at this now. Dream Focus 17:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is now at AFD. Dream Focus 23:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Now relisted to generate more discussion. Nominator says there are no reliable, non-trivial references. Perhaps there is no way to save this useful article, but there should be one. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Three people have said the sources found prove its notable, the nominator and one other have said to delete it, and one more guy says to merge it. Doesn't seem to be a consensus either way, which is why it was relisted for more people to have time to participate. Dream Focus 14:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Dominique Xardel‎

Resolved Dominique Xardel‎ was retained. Please feel free to improve the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 22:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Academic from France. Probably 99% of the way to meeting WP:ACADEMIC, or maybe even already there. This version of the article tells the full story about Dominique Xardel‎. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Level Up! Games

Resolved Level Up! Games was retained. Please feel free to improve the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 22:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a potentially notable game distribution company. Article written by an obviously inexperienced editor. Needs more work, but references don't seem that hard to find. See AfD for a few more. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Employee relations

Resolved Employee relations was redirected to Industrial relations.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 21:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What we do with employees at Wikipedia is attack their work and try to destroy it. If they complain, we have them disciplined... :) Warden (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

StarTeam

Resolved StarTeam was retained. Please feel free to improve the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 20:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Historically notable software. Some sources were found during the AfD. Many more are only available in print probably. The article needs a lot of work: poor structure and laden with puffery. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

CITYpeek

Resolved CITYpeek was retained. Please feel free to improve the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 20:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

An article (which has recently been reduced to a stub) that I've performed some preliminary work upon about a U.S. company. The article is currently lacking inline citations and would benefit from more sources and expansion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Historical figure

Resolved Historical figure was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 16:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty much a done deal now but it's such a broad topic that there may be scope for more improvement by editors with a fresh perspective. It's in the DYK queue too. Warden (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Florence Nightingale or Napoleon"!! I agree the broadness of the topic leaves it ripe for improvement; basis for AfD nomination is really unclear.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Snow keep close. Another horrible nomination rectified.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Penis game

Penis game remains in place. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 16:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A game we've all played in the cafeteria in school at one point or another... it's in dire need of cleanup, but obviously a notable topic (not sure if that's a good or bad thing...). Shadowjams (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you just insulted the ARS, I'm thinking its safe to say you mentioning something like this here is just being pointy. Rather immature. Dream Focus 22:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I cannot stand for this blatant misuse of the rescue list by Shadowjams. He is trying to canvass votes for his stupid "penis game" creation? This is unacceptable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what line of logic you two went through to come up with these accusations but it's ridiculous and insulting. Shadowjams (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I am rarely wrong, but I suddenly fear I was here and acted prematurely. My apologies, Shadowjams.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• 21:58, 18 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+584)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damn Vulnerable Linux ‎ (delete, obvi) (top) [rollback: 1 edit] [4]
• 21:54, 18 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+297)‎ . . Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list ‎ (→‎October 2012: add)
• Insulting comments towards the ARS in the edit right next to the one where something called a "penis game" was listed here, despite it not being nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 22:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It was originally put up for speedy delete. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

[5] That was removed at 21:27, 18 October 2012, before a request was posted here. Dream Focus 22:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There have never been issues with people posting here after declined PRODs and CSDs, so what has changed? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Carefully read the comments in the AFD I linked to, please. Someone who thinks negatively of the ARS decides post a link to the "penis game" and then go to one of the articles tagged to make disparaging remarks towards us. Dream Focus 22:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• The "Penis Game" article is a farce. But Purplepackback and Wolfie have now twice reverted my addition of pictures to the absurdity.[6] Calm down, warrriors! To my surprise the game is possibly notable, but someone needs to actually improve it. If you're gonna revert my friendly farcical addition - DO SOME ACTUAL WORK ON IT. How come no one is stalking the actual articles I write? And I can't get someone to create Thomas Appelquist (1997 Sakurai Prize winner) to save my fucking life. Article topics on articles we should have are innumerable. But the goddamn PENIS GAME, that merits close scrutiny? We need to revert Milowent to save the fuckin' integrity of the project? .... Eh. I am so amused by the whole thing I can barely keep up my illusion of anger. Time for lunch.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• And BWAHAHAHA - even PBP's reverted version [7] left my tag description of "needs growth of sources; more heft as well. please implant more citations." And people need to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penis game and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Penis game to realize having a sense of humor is a key ingredient of life.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's original research you are adding. I dislike "farcial additions" to articles, as that seems POINTy. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is this here? It's not up for deletion or merger or anything. And why is Milowent laughing maniacally? pbp 15:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It was put up for CSD which was declined. If there is a chance that it is notable, then this is where the ARS can help show it is by adding reliable sources (but not by adding OR). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You guys are the life of the party, aren't you? PENIS.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I take umbrage at this idea that I'm humorless. I find many jokes funny. Unfortunately, Milowent, many of yours in the last few weeks have come off as vulgar or insulting, which is why I am critical of them pbp 22:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

lol. umbrage duly noted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven J. Hill

Resolved Steven J. Hill was deleted.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 16:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Howdy all--perhaps there's hope for this one yet. Any help is, as always, appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not too much hope, unfortunately. The corporate entrepreneur bio article typically rises or falls based on how many profiles he's managed to get written about him in mainstream news sources. I don't see any here, nor enough about him individually spread among articles to rise to the same level. Not even sure the "JOLT challenge" is notable, but that may be his best shot.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying anyway, Milowent. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

{{cite quick}}

{{cite quick}} remains in place for use in articles.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 16:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is at TfD - an interesting change of scene. I'd not come across this citation template before and editors here, who specialise in adding citations, may well be interested in the technical issues. Warden (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could enlighten us as to how you expect the ARS to improve a template? Or are you just here to canvas? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Templates are edited in a similar way to other pages and so someone reading this may be able to improve it in some way. It certainly seems that there's some scope for technical improvement here and just reading the discussion is informative, I find. Warden (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Templates are often mentioned on relevant Wikiprojects. This project involves improving articles and finding references. So this particular template is somewhat relevant. Dream Focus 13:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

More bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well Andy, you really live up to your name. Stop being so grumpy, and go and respond to my post there. Did I not make a valid reason to keep the template, and just not use it until it was fixed and properly tested? Dream Focus 13:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And how are you proposing we do that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You put a message at the top its only for test purposes right now, and not to use it in any article until it gets approval. Dream Focus 13:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And how does that stop it being used anyway? The correct way to disable a template is to move it out of mainspace. It should never have been deployed at all in its present state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of ARS members who wish to take up Warden's suggestion that they help with 'technical improvement', Here is the source code:

Wiki-markup in Template:Cite_quick
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*********************************************************************************** <noinclude><!-- --==================================================================== -- Template:Cite_quick - Quick citation for author, title, URL, etc. --==================================================================== -- (see NOTES at bottom) --></noinclude><span class="citation {{{1|web}}}">{{ #if:{{{last|{{{author|{{{last1|{{{editor|<!--- -->}}} }}} }}} }}}<!--if {last|author|..} set--> |{{{last|{{{last1|{{{author|{{{editor}}}}}}}}}}}}<!--last name-->{{ #if:{{{first|{{{first1|}}} }}}<!--if first set--> |, {{{first|{{{first1}}}}}} }}{{ #if:{{{editor|}}}|, ed.}}{{<!--if name is editor--> #if:{{{last2|{{{coauthors|{{{author2|}}} }}} }}}<!--if last2 set--> |<nowiki/>; {{{last2|{{{coauthors|{{{author2}}}}}}}}}<!--last2 name-->{{ #if:{{{first2|}}}<!--if first2 set--> |, {{{first2}}} }}{{ #if:{{{last3|{{{author3|}}} }}}<!--if last3 set--> |<nowiki/>; {{{last3|{{{author3}}}}}}<!--last3 name-->{{ #if:{{{first3|}}}<!--if first3 set--> |, {{{first3}}} }}{{ #if:{{{last4|{{{author4|}}} }}}<!--if last4 set--> |<nowiki/>; {{{last4|{{{author4}}}}}}<!--last4 name-->{{ #if:{{{first4|}}}<!--if first4 set--> |, {{{first4}}} }} }}<!--endif last4 name--> }}<!--endif last3 name--> }}<!--endif last2 name-->{{ #if:{{{date|}}} |<nowiki/> ({{{date}}}). <nowiki/> |<!--else-->{{ #if:{{{year|}}} |<nowiki/> ({{ #if:||{{{day|}}} {{{month|}}} {{{year}}} }}). <nowiki/> }} }}<!--endif-else {date}--> }}<!--endif-else {author|last|last1}-->{{ #if:{{{title|<noinclude>title</noinclude>}}}<!--if title--> |{{ #ifeq:{{{1|web}}}|book |{{ #if:{{{chapter|}}} |{{ #if:{{{url|}}} |[{{{url}}}{{{urlx|}}} "{{{chapter}}}"] |"{{{chapter}}}" }}<!--endif-else {url} #1 -->. <i>{{{title}}}</i> |<!--else no chapter-->{{ #if:{{{url|}}} |[{{{url}}}{{{urlx|}}} <i>{{{title}}}</i>] |<i>{{{title}}}</i> }}<!--endif-else {url} #2--> }}<!--endif-else {chapter}--> |<!--else not book-->{{ #if:{{{url|}}} |[{{{url}}}{{{urlx|}}} "{{{title}}}"] |"{{{title}}}" }}<!--endif-else {url} #3--> }}<!--endif-else {1}=book -->{{ #if:{{{format|}}}|<nowiki/> ({{{format}}}) }}{{ #if:{{{work|{{{newspaper|{{{journal|}}} }}} }}} |. <i>{{{work|{{{newspaper|{{{journal}}}}}}}}}</i>}} |<!--else no title-->{{ #if:{{{work|{{{newspaper|{{{journal|}}} }}} }}}|{{ #if:{{{url|}}} |[{{{url}}}{{{urlx|}}} <i>{{{work|{{{newspaper|{{{journal}}}}}}}}}</i>] |<i>{{{work|{{{newspaper|{{{journal}}}}}}}}}</i> }}<!--endif-else {url}--> }}<!--endif {work}--> }}<!--endif-else {title} ------------------------------------------------------- Pub/location/volume -->{{ #if:{{{publisher|{{{location|{{{place|{{{agency|<!-- -->}}} }}} }}} }}} |<!--then take time to check each...-->{{ #if:{{{journal|{{{work|{{{newspaper|}}} }}} }}} |<nowiki/> ({{ #if:{{{location|{{{place|}}} }}} |{{{location|{{{place}}}}}}{{ #if:{{{publisher|{{{agency|}}} }}} |<nowiki/>: {{{publisher|{{{agency}}}}}} }} |{{{publisher|{{{agency}}}}}} }})<!--endif location--> |<!--else not journal-->{{ #if:{{{agency|}}} |. {{{agency}}}}}{{ #if:{{{location|{{{place|}}} }}} |. {{{location|{{{place}}}|}}}{{ #if:{{{publisher|}}} |<nowiki/>: {{{publisher}}} }} |{{#if:{{{publisher|}}}|. {{{publisher}}} }} }}<!--endif location#2--> }}<!--endif-else {journal|newspaper} --> }}<!--endif pub/loc set-->{{ #if:{{{journal|}}} |{{ #if:{{{volume|}}} | '''{{{volume|I}}}'''}}{{ #if:{{{issue|{{{number|}}} }}} |<nowiki/> ({{{issue|{{{number}}}}}})}} }}<!--endif journal volume/issue... set ------------------------------------------------------------- Date/year -->{{ #if:{{{last|{{{author|{{{last1|{{{editor|}}} }}} }}} }}}<!--if author set--> |<!--then omit date here--> |<!--else no author-->{{ #if:{{{date|}}} |. {{{date}}} |<!--else-->{{ #if:{{{year|}}} |. {{{day|}}} {{{month|}}} {{{year}}} }} }}<!--endif-else {date}--> }}<!--endif-else {last|author|..} -->{{ #if:{{{page|{{{pages|{{{isbn|{{{issn|{{{archiveurl|{{{doi|<!-- -->}}} }}} }}} }}} }}} }}} |{{ #if:{{{pages|}}} |{{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{pages|528-32}}}00000 }} | . pp. |{{#ifexpr:{{{pages|528-32}}}00000 < 1 |. pp.|. p.}} }} {{{pages}}} |{{#if:{{{page|}}}|. p. {{{page}}} }} }}<!-- ------------------------------------------ doi / ISBN / ISSN -->{{ #if:{{{doi|}}} |. {{citation/identifier |identifier=doi |input1={{{doi}}} |input2={{{doibroken|}}} |input3={{{template doc demo|}}}}} }}{{ #if:{{{isbn|}}} |. {{hide in print |[[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/{{{isbn}}}|{{{isbn}}}]] }}{{only in print |ISBN {{{isbn}}}|}} }}<!--endif isbn-->{{ #if:{{{issn|}}} |. {{hide in print |[[International Standard Serial Number|ISSN]] [//www.worldcat.org/issn/{{{issn|{{{ISSN}}}}}} {{#tag:nowiki|{{{issn|{{{ISSN}}}}}}}}] }}{{only in print |ISSN {{{issn|{{{ISSN}}}}}}|}} }}<!--endif {issn|ISSN} ------------------------------------------ Archive URL -->{{ #if:{{{archiveurl|}}} |. Archived from [{{{archiveurl}}}{{{archiveurlx|}}}<!--url+urlx --> the original]{{ #if:{{{archivedate|}}} | <nowiki/> on {{{archivedate}}} }}<!-- -->}}<!--endif archiveurl --> }}<!--endif {page|archiveurl} --------------------------------------------------- Accessdate -->{{ #if:{{{accessdate|{{{acc|}}} }}} |. Retrieved {{{accessdate|{{{acc}}}}}} }}<!--endif {accessdate} --------------------------------------------------- notes / quote -->{{{notes|.}}}{{ #if:{{{quote|}}}| "{{{quote}}}" }}</span><noinclude><!-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --NOTES: -- Template:Cite_quick defaults to show quoted "{title}", or -- if {work} specified, then to quote "{title}" such as -- a short-story title, then show {work} italicized. -- -- NOTE R1: A page-range or page-set is detected in "pages=n" by the -- use of {#ifexpr: {pages}00000 < 1}, where singular pages would -- be >1, such as page {3}00000, but ranges or page-sets would be -- {528-32}00000 < 1, {65/68}00000 < 1, or {1.3-1.7}00000 < 1, -- but single {1.3}00000 still >1 to show "p." not "pp." plural. -- Other parameter "page=" is not auto-adjusted & always shows "p.". -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --HISTORY: --07Aug12 Created to run {cite_web} extremely fast but few parameters. --07Aug12 Put NOTES comments to explain template coding. --07Aug12 Put HISTORY comments to log major changes. --07Aug12 Added parameters: urlx to extend URL. --07Aug12 Put 3x faster gated-if "{accessdate|{page|{publisher|{location...". --08Aug12 Changed when author to show "({date})" after name. --08Aug12 Changed to always check archiveurl, in gated-if after page#. --10Aug12 For {1}=book, put "{chapter}" & italic ''{title}''. --10Aug12 Added isbn/issn in gated-if which checks page/archiveurl. --27Aug12 Added {day} & {month} as quick options when no {date}. --27Aug12 Added {doi} into page/pages/isbn/archiveurl gated-if. --09Sep12 Changed to check {date} from 4x to only 2x, after author/location. --09Sep12 Allow {place} (makes {location} only 25% slower). --09Sep12 Allow {quote} or {notes} as same as final end-dot ".". --09Sep12 Put null "<nowiki/>" to omit &#32 or <b/> markers. --14Sep12 New parameter "acc" as an alias for "accessdate". --02Oct12 Enhanced "pages=" to detect singular page as "p." not "pp." prefix. --06Oct12 Fixed to allow outer apostrophe as <i>{title}</i> or <i>{work}</i>. --06Oct12 Moved rare "quote=" under accessdate, with ". " before quote. --07Oct12 Changed to handle if-journal for volume/issue/number. --07Oct12 Added parameter {format}, checked only as gated under {title}. --09Oct12 Added {coauthors} as alternative for {last2} else {author2}. --09Oct12 Checks {last} before {author}, to avoid "author=" as no author. --13Oct12 Changed to show {agency} before location, if any. --13Oct12 Changed to show editor name with ", ed.". --13Oct12 Changed to show last1 else {author} in case empty "author=" null. --13Oct12 Checked location format for {work} in gated-if, after {journal}. -- --> {{documentation|Template:Cite_quick/doc}} [[Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates]] <!--PUT INTERWIKI LINKS in /doc page, not here --> </noinclude> ***********************************************************************************

Good luck... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC) (Oops, I seem to have lost the line breaks in the source. Still, I'm sure ARS members know how to access template source code... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

I have collapsed the template-markup display, and also put the "<pre>" tag to retain the indentation of the markup. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

...which then hides the source code once again - how many ARS members are there that know how to code templates? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Most experienced editors will edit templates to some extent, I suppose. Analysing our edits, for example, I have edited a template 71 times; Dream Focus has edited a template 57 times; and AndyTheGrump has edited a template 8 times. Warden (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you actually have a clue what you are writing about, Warden? This isn't about 'editing a template' - it is about template source code. The code was broken. It had obviously never been tested properly, and should not have been deployed in Wikipedia mainspace. 'Anyone can edit' doesn't mean 'anyone can add untested template code without approval, and against consensus'. Your obvious lack of understanding regarding the template clearly demonstrates once more why this technical issue should never have been raised here in the first place - problems with template source code are way outside the ARS scope. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• No; template creation is not a restricted function and so it is open to anyone, just like article creation. The technical aspects just require ordinary computer literacy and any experienced editor who is comfortable with Wiki markup should be able to work in this area too. The main issues in this area seem to be more human ones of not-invented-here and punctuation pedantry. Warden (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that ARS members should 'rescue' Wikid77's template code by modifying it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest that they read the discussion and take it from there. From each according to his ability... Warden (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with the general gist of Gump's comment that this is article rescue squadron, not template rescue squadron, and this is probably a misuse of the ARS pbp 15:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, Template:Cite_quick was used to quickly rescue 9-time featured article "Barack Obama" from exceeding the template include-size limit and crashing halfway down, so if the template is deleted, then the Obama article needs to be massively rewritten to fit within template limits. So "rescue" one or the other. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you asking ARS to help you writing the template code? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
      • So far, I have been providing feedback on the the template's talk page and Wikid77 has been quite to respond by amending the template. That seems an efficient process because, as the code is complex, it would tend to get chaotic and confusing if editors worked in parallel. This is similar to the way that edit conflicts are annoying when editors work on an article at the same time. Warden (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks to Wikid77 for ably demonstrating that our readership is competent in this area. For my part, I have tested the template in a new article that I wrote today. I found a minor issue and have started discussion about this on the template's talk page. "Those who can, do ...". Warden (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• if people have a problem about this being on the rescue list instead of our talk page, because its still a matter of interest to our group, suggest it be moved.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • How exactly is template source code of interest to ARS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, because we add citations to articles? That's the critical part of our mission in rescuing worthy candidate articles. The purpose of the template is to allow for quicker adding of cites. How it operates can be of interest. Again, you are free to suggest the discussion should be removed from the list if you wish.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Warden, I asked you nicely to use the rescue list template when you add an article for rescue. Why is that difficult? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, you didn't ask me nicely; you didn't even use the magic word. Warden (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• One suggestion for improvement is to duplicate {{Citation}} entirely but remove all the Wikipedia:COinS meta-data produced. That would cut include size, but maintain 100% compatibility for readers.--Salix (talk): 14:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Top Third Ventures

Top Third Ventures remains in place. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 16:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Top Third Ventures is an environmentally friendly business in Kenya, but the article suffers from having been written by someone with a conflict of interest. Another editor and I have made some contributions. The article was tagged for deletion, but I removed the speedy deletion notice and said that I objected to deletion. Perhaps an AfD will follow. Please help, especially by changing the overly promotional tone of the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Daco-Roman

Daco-Roman remains in place. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 16:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Same situation as highlighted about the Thraco-Roman article below. We need unbiased editors to salvage it. Even though it is not proposed for deletion, the article is "under siege". Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you should report issues like this to WP:NPOV/N or to relevant WikiProjects, but not here. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thraco-Roman

Thraco-Roman remains in place. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 16:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There have been several attempts to fully remove and redirect this article, by a user trying to push radical POVs/revisionism at any price. We need your help to better source and structure it. The Thraco-Roman concept is notable, parts of the article are sourced, it has versions in 6 languages and tons of articles link to it. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Quick note: This is not currently at AfD. But do we need more unbiased editors dealing with the baloney slung by editors in this area of the world (former Yugoslavia through Greece)? Definitely.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed--Codrin.B (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not the purpose of this list to notify people about discussions. It's about article improvement. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. That article definitely needs improvement. Can you spare a few hours on it?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

An honest request for an article to be improved. Is that okay now? Sure it is. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Half-a-dozen font lists

Resolved Samples of sans serif typefaces was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 16:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samples of sans serif typefaces. The argument is apparently that including font samples in this these lists of notable fonts makes them unsuitable for Wikipedia. Perhaps these lists can be improved? There's varying quality in these lists. A couple of them look like they could use some clean-up work. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I worked on some of these articles some months ago, and I will take a look. These articles are useful for word document editors and webmasters, but of course "useful" is not a criteria for retention. If the quality needs improvement, that is hardly a reason for deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Cricut

Resolved Cricut was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 15:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

An article I've been working on about a product range of home craft die-cutting machines that is up for deletion. It would benefit from more organization, copy-editing, expansion and sourcing. As usual, I'd prefer that visitors here please help out to improve the article, and refrain from !voting at the AfD discussion due to concerns of vote-stacking that have been expressed here in the past. However, if so inclined to post at the AfD discussion, please perhaps consider commenting instead! Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Suicide of Amanda Todd

Resolved Suicide of Amanda Todd was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 21:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't always share the opinions of this group (somewhere around 50% of the time perhaps), but I thought I'd bring this one up here. It's already getting a lot of attention, and it's leaning toward keep at this point. I usually !vote delete for newsy sorts of articles, but I don't believe that guideline is appropriate in this case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What a horrible event, I had not read about it before. As for the AfD, people should stop wasting their time, and its already clear the outcome will be no consensus or keep. Anyone can renominate in a few months when things calm down and we can more rationally assess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly are you posting here? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I presume they posted it here because they think the topic is notable and not just a NOTNEWS situation? The poster admits they aren't aligned with us, and they are not an ARS member. The posting here is having no effect on that massive AfD discussion, in any event.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• The post is quite likely intended to request assistance to improve the qualification of the topic's notability, if possible. Please assume good faith on Wikipedia, rather than doubting people's intentions from the start. Let's work together to improve the encyclopedia. It's tiring to read the same types of posts from those that seem to like monitoring posts here, but don't even lift a finger to actually improve the articles listed herein. Perhaps consider taking a few moments to actually improve the article instead. Common sense, really. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that the AfD was getting a lot of SPA type !votes, and thought it might be worthwhile to get some additional eyes on it from more seasoned AfD participants; the WP:NOTNEWS argument is tricky in this particular case, but in general I agree with Milowent that the AfD was premature. I wouldn't say I'm "unaligned" with you; if I see an article here that I agree is worth keeping, I'll add my input to that AfD. (not sure if the "article improvement" comment was directed at me, but I didn't see any obvious way to do that; it had plenty of coverage, the AfD delete !votes were primarily concerned with whether or not it was likely to have lasting impact). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

My comment above was directed (per the indentation) only toward the post above by IRWolfie, not you at all. Again, let's work together to improve the encyclopedia. -Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie has confirmed my suspicion that he was looking for more keep voters for the AfD, and is not using this list to improve the content. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you better arrest him then, if you can think you can prove your case at trial.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I saw you read this, so where is your proof? You accusations are serious ones, and may violate WP:AGF unless you can back them up.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie; has it occurred to you that not everyone who watches this page is a hardcore inclusionist? I've !voted delete on some articles posted here, and keep on others. I know of a few other editors who watch/participate here who have a mixed !voting record as well. The point is that the current AfD had a lot of !votes without much substance. Folks that follow ArS tend to be more familiar with policies, regardless of their leanings on a particular article. Regarding article improvement, I only said that I personally didn't see any obvious way to improve it. That doesn't mean that others couldn't improve it; NA1000, Milowent, and DreamFocus, to name a few, are all probably more talented in that area than I am. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This list is meant to be for improving articles, not for looking for more AfD voters. Look at the top of this page. "The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking."IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm not making my point clear enough; I'm not trying to vote stack; I don't feel strongly about the keep/delete of this particular article in the long run. I simply thought that the article and the AfD could use the attention of folks more familiar with article improvement and policy, since like many topical/current event articles, it attracted a lot of inexperienced editors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hayden Wayne

Resolved Hayden Wayne remains in place, and is currently tagged as possibly not meeting notability guidelines for music.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 19:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this one can even be saved, but thought I'd see if it could before sending it off to Afd. This seems to be a marginally (or non) notable BLP, written as a bit of a hagiography. I can't seem to find any sources which are not the subject, but there should be, somewhere. Not knowing all that much about the music industry, I don't even know where to begin looking. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, one of the links provided in the article appears to be an interview with WNIB, a Chicago classical music station. There are some reviews of his music on highbeam: [8] [9] [10]. There are also a few articles that mention him: [11] [12] [13]. I also noticed a few other trivial mentions here and there, but I don't know if any of this really adds up to notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks, TDA - Your assistance with this article would be much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to highbeam articles so I think it is better to find someone who does.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't at AFD, but from what I see, his notability is arguably marginal. There's certainly enough to satisfy WP:V and avoid BLP concerns as a result.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of the Enron scandal

Resolved Timeline of the Enron scandal remains existent as a redirect to Enron scandal.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 19:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPDELedted recently. There's an "AfD" of sorts on ANI. Someone could request that page be userfied and add the all important inline refs. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've received the content by email, and am working on improving it. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 02:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Where was the discussion for its deletion at? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Enron scandal shows up blank. Dream Focus 03:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There was no prior discussion. It was deleted under the supreme authority invested in administrators by WP:BLPDEL. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

David Benowitz

Resolved David Benowitz remains deleted. However, if any are interested in possibly working on it please see WP:USERFY and WP:REFUND.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 19:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeking the assistance of the Article Rescue Squadron to determine whether a Wikipedia biography about attorney David Benowitz currently could be restored. Benowitz is now a lecturer in law at George Washington University, and having handled many high-profile cases that received ample coverage in regional media, Benowitz is routinely invited to appear on cable networks like MSNBC to provide legal analysis on nationally noteworthy cases. Now, to disclose, I have a conflict of interest regarding Benowitz, as I am a partner in the lawfirm. In 2010, Benowitz had become nationally visible for his work disputing the reliability of "breathalyzer" equipment used by police forces. So, our firm thought it was appropriate to see a Wikipedia article published about Benowitz. Not being familiar with the editing and publication process, we did what any business might do when they're not expert in an area of specialization -- we searched Google for a Wikipedia expert to handle the work. Finding one on a freelance consultant site, we were given assurances that their team of editors was compliant with Wikipedia policies, etc., so we hired them to help with a Benowitz biography. Within a short time, even before anything was published on Wikipedia, we found the interaction with the editor to be so strange and unprofessional that we could no longer engage with the firm we had hired, and we sought to terminate our relationship with the firm. Well, against our wishes, they went ahead anyway and published a malformed article about Benowitz, which was deleted in due time by User:Courcelles. After some months, we sought again to find a *better* author of Wikipedia articles, and having found one, engaged again in the middle of 2011 to publish a reliable, properly-sourced article about Benowitz. A version of that article is in my "sandbox" space (link) for your consideration. That article was eventually reviewed and determined to be worthy only of deletion. Considering that since that February 2012 deletion, Benowitz has been hired by George Washington University as a lecturer, and he handled the newsworthy case of Michael Poth (a U.S. Marine charged with second-degree murder of another Marine), I think it's quite possible that Benowitz passes Wikipedia's various notability requirements. Our firm has not paid anyone to make this request on our behalf, and we won't seek to pay anyone else for further editorial work on a David Benowitz biography. Having learned that paid editing is frowned upon, we're interested in engaging with Wikipedia according to its community standards. I'm asking the Article Rescue Squadron to take a look at whether a bio about David Benowitz could be passed through a "deletion review" process, with the added elements of notability conferred by the George Washington lecturer position and by the handling of the Michael Poth case. - Dogdaymorning (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking for our input. Unfortunately, however, I think the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Benowitz got it right. Technically, a deletion review or DRV would only be appropriate if the AfD close was incorrect, but here the consensus in the deletion discussion was clearly in favor of delete, so the administrator closing the debate properly deleted it. As to whether a proper article could be recreated, I'd say probably not. There are many top notch attorneys in the United States, but you'll note that few of them have Wikipedia articles about themselves. Its the same with most professionals. Most law school professors do not merit articles, to say nothing of lecturers. There are no biographical profiles from independent reliable sources about David, and press mentions in the context of commenting on his own cases or legal stories in the news are not sufficient. Not to say you can't find examples on wikipedia where no on has noticed an attorney is not notable, e.g., Benjamin Crump, one of Trayvon Martin's attorneys, may not be notable, and his coverage far exceeds Benowitz.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • When you added your request Dogdaymorning, you decided to also remove information from the signatures of myself, Milowent, and Northamerica1000. [14] Please don't do that again. Dream Focus 09:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• For any interested in rescuing the article (despite the deletion result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Benowitz) about this person, see also WP:USERFY and WP:REFUND. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

Resolved Zeitgeist was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 23:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is a good explanation of the term and its origin, but there is objection to it as being merely a dictionary definition. Surely more can be said about it, and more inline citations should be easy to add. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• lol, look how many wikis have an article on this. boggle the mind that someone would send this to AFD instead of just improving it if it bothered them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• I'm generally on the deletionist side of things (flag-carrying cheese jihadist), but I even think this is a pretty short-sided AfD pbp 23:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Crittercism

Resolved Crittercism was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 23:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a typical tech start-up which has received some coverage in WSJ and a few tech sources. The argument for deletion is that the article is "spam by stealth" or "stealth spam". I'm not sure how to improve the article to dispute that theory. Perhaps someone here has more experience with such articles? Tijfo098 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bangladeshi political families

Resolved Bangladeshi political families was deleted.  – pbp 15:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems likely to be easy to improve. Warden (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Many others to use as an example. Category:Political families by country Dream Focus 18:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely to improve without locally knowledgeable and reliable source with vandal-proof permanent semi protection. Thanks 82.73.35.159 (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, finding "locally knowledgeable and reliable sources" looks difficult here. Its too bad, as it seems such an article could be maintained if we could find editors with expertise in the area. We can't do it all. AfD rarely brings out such editors, it generally invites some editors pre-disposed to favor deletion over improvement. Such is the nature of the beast.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

HD DrawHackensack Drawbridge

Resolved Hackensack Drawbridge was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 14:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

HD Draw is an article about a New Jersey railroad bridge. There are already many articles about railroad bridges, and I think this one is just as notable as the rest. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is now a very well documented article with 13 inline citations and five other sources, with explanations of its significance and demise by a collision with a coal steamer in 1946. There are many railroad buffs who want the history of railroads documented, and this is part of that history. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• The new version is a complete overhaul from the nomination. At first glance, I feared this article would get quickly deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This article has been transformed by ARS editors, and there should be no fear of deletion. Thank you for all your good work, ARS and other editors. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Confluenze

Resolved Confluenze was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 14:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

An article about an academic journal that appears to have WP:POTENTIAL for a Wikipedia article. A unique article that needs improvement. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I noted that this AfD did not draw any delete votes. The discussion noted some potential weaknesses, but the result seems correct.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fiesta Nightclub (Sheffield)

Resolved Fiesta Nightclub (Sheffield) was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 14:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

An article about a former notable nightclub in Sheffield, England. Nightclubs are quite popular in many societies. While seemingly unlikely to be deleted per the plethora of reliable sources available about the topic, this stub article would surely benefit from expansion. I'd actually prefer that people reading this don't !vote at the article's AfD discussion, because then people who monitor and are critical of this WikiProject will likely make accusations of vote stacking! However, if so inclined to participate in the AfD discussion, perhaps consider making a comment instead. Of course, one has no control over the actions of others whatsoever. Whatever! This topic seems pretty fly, improve it! Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup - I'd agree that it looks notable enough - though finding more sources may involve old-fashioned research in local newspaper archives etc. A quick look with Google suggests that the obvious online stuff has already been found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryukyu Arc

Resolved Ryukyu Arc was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 06:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I know it's a long-shot to ask for help here with that article, as it would take a boffin to improve it, but it seems to me that content similar with what we have at Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc should exist for Japan's other major southern island arc. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This was kept at AfD, no straight out delete votes, and notability was demonstrated during discussion. Since there was an allegation that creation had ulterior purposes, it is good that attention was brought to the article. Article could still use more improvement, however (and graphics).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Study for a Caricature (Leonardo, Milan)

Nomination for rescue consideration withdrawn. The topic appears to be unverifiable, and the article appears likely to be deleted.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 04:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

An unsourced stub article [possibly] about a drawing by Leonardo da Vinci that needs sourcing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it needs sourcing if it can be verified. A close look is merited, but the discussion seems to be finding that we have a WP:V problem.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe it's a WP:HOAX. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• All four book results are from Wikipedia, it saying that in their descriptions when you click on them. [15] If it was real, then surely some book would mention it somewhere, or the museum's website would have it listed. Dream Focus 17:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Addended my initial post above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• The article has now been deleted, thanks to those ARS members who investigated this and helped the AfD reach the proper result.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Importantly, perhaps an article or addendum to the Leonardo da Vinci article about Leonardo da Vinci caricatures would be in order. Per a comment from the AfD discussion for this deleted article from User:Amandajm: "Maybe a general article on Leonardo's caricatures would be the next step. I'm sure that the subject warrants an article." Of course, article creation and/or expansion takes significant time, effort and energy. Building a factual and comprehensive digital encyclopedia for the world is quite important though, and I like the idea of da Vinci's (notable) works being covered in entirety. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  It was deleted because it was a hoax. As I stated, it was only listed in four books which say they get their content from Wikipedia. Surely it'd be listed somewhere if it was real, and the museum they said had it would list it on its website. Anyway, here you go. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Caricatures_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci That's where you can find all the real caricatures the guy did. Be a good starting point. Dream Focus 16:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can collectively work to eventually add verifiable information to the Leonardo da Vinci article about da Vinci caricatures, or even perhaps create a new article: Leonardo da Vinci caricatures, either per the starting point of information at Wikimedia Commons: Category:Caricatures by Leonardo da Vinci. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The article Leonardo da Vinci is already a mile long. The caricatures are already mentioned there, but they don't warrant longer treatment within that article. They are just one of many categories of drawings that he did. For that reason it would be much better to devote a separate article to them, in the same way as the major works have separate articles. Other categories of drawings that could have articles are geological drawings, botanical drawings, hydraulics, military machines, engineering, optics, flight etc.

I wouldn't say that it was a "hoax". I think that some source on Caravaggio may well have said that a figure was "Like a caricature by Leonardo" which might have seemed to indicate "like a specific caricature byLeonardo". Amandajm (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for checking in at the discussion, and please feel free to ping me at my talk page if you create the new article. While the topic is not one of my areas of strong knowledge, I could probably help out here-and-there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

list of celebrity hairdressers

Resolved List of celebrity hairdressers was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 06:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the sort of topic which geeky males don't get, unlike list of Linux distributions or list of Gunsmoke television episodes. Due to this huge bias against female fashion, we still have a rich seam of fresh content to mine. Warden (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Nominator seems unaware of the face that "list of celebrity" or similar articles do exist in droves, such as the celebrated List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards. Some may be bad, but the majority are well-established. The AfD is already drawing broad attention, I see.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The title of the list is bad. It's actually about hairdressers who are "celebrities" (i.e. notable) because of their work, not some celebrities who happen to dabble in hairdressing. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

NA1000 and others did some good work on this one, obviating the concerns that caused the AfD. Good job, a net gain to the project.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Blended learning

Resolved Blended learning was retained. Please feel free to continue improving the article.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 06:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be the beginning of the end for AFD. Here we have an admin utterly failing to follow the proper process outlined at WP:BEFORE: no discussion on the talk page; no serious attempt to edit or even tag the article for improvement. No, he just brings the matter to AFD in the hope that a fairy godmother will do the work of improvement for him or otherwise it will all be destroyed. Now Kudpung is a mature and respected admin but he's just not playing by the rules here. I could rewrite the article in a trice myself - it would only take an hour to completely transform it and give it excellent references. But my reward for this effort would just be to have others bringing more poorly written articles to AFD so I think I'll go to bed instead. The rest of you can please take a look and see what you make of this sorry state of affairs. Warden (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What you need to understand Warden, is that before launching into your personal attacks (not playing by the rules) and totally inaccurate assumptions, once nominated, an AfD can go one of several ways and the decision is one of the community and not yours. I have saved more articles from extinction than you would care to take time to investigate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is an odd nomination in that the nominator does not actually advocate for deletion. The suggestion is that we "revert it to the last edit by its creator and to ensure that all 'references' are reliable and verifiable, and if not, delete it." A quick search confirms that numerous books and scholarly articles exist on blended learning, so notability is obvious. I have to agree that I cannot see that it was an appropriate nomination. Should I take the 20 minutes necessary to create an unassailable stub that obviates the whole AfD? We could all find thousands of articles that are as similarly shitty as this one on highly notable topics, and mass nominate every single one for AfD under the same rationale. I don't take any issue with the nominators good faith, any good editor should get frustrated sometimes as how much work there is yet to be done on the project. I hereby nominate our friend Purplebackpack89 to rewrite the article for us, I hope he is willing to volunteer.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Cattleman Restaurant

Resolved The Cattleman Restaurant article was retained. Please feel free to continue improving it.  – Northamerica1000(talk) 02:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The Cattleman Restaurant in Manhattan is a defunct restaurant, but it is documented with two New York Times articles. I confess I do not quite follow the deletion discussion. If the two NYT articles exist, why is this apparently notable and well patronized in its day restaurant now to be deleted? --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• When Longchamps (chain of restaurants) was prodded about a year ago, I worked to fix it, and some articles talked about the Cattleman (Larry Ellman was involved in both), so I wouldn't be surprised if its notable. I'll take a look.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• This article has been significantly improved recently. Quite impressive. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)