Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list

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

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

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

The following is a list and discussion of Wikipedia content for rescue consideration. Please be sure to:

• Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for topic notability and identifying reliable sources prior to posting here.

• Include specific rationale in your post why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and how the content can be improved.

• Tag the deletion discussion with {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}}, to inform editors about the listing here. The tag can be placed below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

March 2012

David "Noodles" Aaronson

The article is currently at AFD and no, I do not request here that anyone go to the discussion and offer support. It is an article that originally suffered from the valid concern of being all plot and no sources. I have begun addressing that concern, and the result, though not perfect, is looking better.[1] What I AM asking here is that perhaps some editors might be able to assist me in expanding the "Analysis" section though use of the many available sources speaking about the character of Noodles directly and in detail.[2][3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Miller Live

A 2004 wikipedia article facing a wp:PROD. It is currently getting about 1,000 views every month even though it appears its cotributors ave deserted it(?) Ottawahitech (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I deprodded it. Anyone reading the first bit about the awards won would know not to prod it. I see the prodder has a bot running to automatically nominate ridiculously large numbers of articles at a time. [4] Unless there was a discussion to just automatically nominate everything not referenced, I don't think this should be tolerated. We need to start a discussion somewhere about this. Dream Focus 00:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That was a piss poor sorry prod.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dream, you're right, this editor has prodded a shitload of articles because he says they don't meet WP:V, just because they don't currently have references. That is far from being actually unverifiable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There are not as many of these as I thought -- maybe 50? -- many have been deprodded already.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Plummer v. State

(See Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Plummer v. State (of Indiana)

I created this page, and I am now nominating it for deletion and for rescue. Here is why I believe that there is no real contradiction between these two actions.

Reasons why I think the page should be retained. (See Reasons why I think the page should be deleted below.) Plummer v. State is a widely quoted court case that supposedly establishes that resisting arrest, even to the point of killing a cop, is legal if the arrest is "unlawful":

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

This bogus "quote" keeps coming up again and again on discussion boards such as Reddit, Slashdot, Dogg, etc. and in the comment sections of numerous blogs. Flyers have been passed out at occupy wall street protests (with claims that arresting OWS protesters is unlawful, so you should violently resist arrest).

I was surprised that something so commonly referenced did not have a Wikipedia article. A Google search on "Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306" (with the quotes) finds 133,000 hits. How can that not be considered notable?

Reasons why I think the page should be deleted. (See Reasons why I think the page should be retained above.)

Despite abundant evidence that a large amount of people know the fake version and think it to be real, none of the evidence appears to be usable according to WP:RS. All of this is on blogs, discussion boards, YouTube comments - all worthless for our purposes. It just feels like we should have an article about such a widely held misconception, but I really can't see how to meet our general notability requirements. I am nominating this for rescue in the hopes that someone else can succeed where I have failed. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Do I understand that what you are saying is that it is a myth that the case establishes that resisting arrest, even to the point of killing a cop, is legal? If so, why not simply rename it to "the myth of Plummer v. State" or some such?

As far as why you have not received any help on this article, I personally believe that lawyers feel slighted at Wikipedia and as a result we are not getting enough contributions from wikipedians who have legal knowledge. This of course on top of everyone running around needlessly all tryng to save their favorite articles from deletion which is causing general burnout. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Its discussed in a massive number of Google news archive and book search results. So its notable no matter what. And long discussions should be at the AFD not here. Dream Focus 00:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Why create an article on something if you question its notability? And even if you do, but it meets WP:V and seems useful, I don't see why you would self-nominate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Video gaming in the United States

I believe the subject is notable it has sources it clearly needs expansion and but it has WP:POTENTIALDwanyewest (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since the article was nominated for speedy deletion by an editor who thought it might be worthwhile if improved, which is a bit odd, I removed the speedy notice. Its still subject to a regular PROD or AfD though, because there's not much content at the moment. I can't imagine that template in the article, suggesting separate articles for all those countries, is viable. Consider where else the content can go, if this can't be sufficiently expanded with sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And then I see we have Category:Video gaming by country, I learn something every day!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• That is something surely talked about in the media a lot. Just find news articles showing how big of an industry it is year by year, and list the amount of money made from American made games and imported games. Be an interesting chart to see. Dream Focus 15:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Telegraphing (entertainment)

• Discussion here. The term has been in use for centuries. I've added a couple references, could use some more references and expansion. Diego (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Foot hockey

• I believe Ottawahitech was adding this entry (he pasted in the discussion).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To followup, I believe Ottawa's basis for listing is that he feels the subject is notable. The article has some references already, but it could use additional sourcing and formatting improvements. Also, since many Canadian newspapers are pay walled, someone with access to those newspapers would probably put this article over the top.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am just learning how to include discussions in other WikiProjects - I tried to undo the one I inserted here earlier today, but it cannot be reverted.

As far as foot hockey is concerned, I am personally not familiar with the topic, however, I noticed that the article has been on Wikipedia for quite some time and has had a ton of contributors - all of whom may feel rejected if this article is deleted. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Taboo VI: The Homecoming

• Taboo VI: The Homecoming, AfD here. It's a cassette nominated for lack of notability, I've found a couple of sources through a Google blogs search (they sometimes find reliable sites with an editorial staff) but I didn't have time to add them. There are several related nominations, and I suspect that the sources I found could also provide notability for some of them. Diego (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, some of these may well be notable (its a mass album nom), as the Mountain Goats are a fairly high profile band.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Apple media events

March 7 Apple Media Event was nominated for deletion here after WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I've refocused the discusion creating the new Apple media events that expands the focus to all Apple events, thus preserving the original content. It could use lots of help by expanding the new stub to all other Apple media conferences and compiling all specific sources available at Wikipedia for this topic. Diego (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Gawd, Apple media events is a great idea for an article -- every one of these things the past few years gets crazy amounts of press coverage, a timeline type history would be great.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Another service provided by your friendly disruptive (in the good sense) Consensus-man. Saving content with delete !votes, my alignment is true neutral! Diego (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
    • WTF just happened? How was this deleted? CallawayRox (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Almost everyone on the discussion talk page agreed that the article was not needed now that Apple media events is up. The closing admin decided that the was no problem hiding the attribution history in the admin-only area, which is the normal status for all red-linked articles. Diego (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
        • What part of "March 7 Apple Media Event now serves to provide attribution for that content in Apple media events and must not be deleted so long as Apple media events exists." allows this?? This looks like admin abuse. CallawayRox (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I suppose this could be fixed with a simple deletion review that asked an administrator to undelete the article and blanked it or created a redirect. Diego (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
            • I had bad luck at deletion review previously. CallawayRox (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
              • I think, in fairness, that Diego has inadvertently misrepresented the discussion above. Almost everyone on the discussion talk page agreed that the article should be deleted. Hence, it was deleted, and we now have the far more agreeable Apple media events. I remain extremely uncomfortable with the idea of pursuing any action that undermines what was very (like, very very very) clear consensus in the AFD to delete. Additionally, some workaround to address the attribution issue was effected, as far as I can tell. I am not even remotely familiar with attribution issues, though, so if you ask me to point you to where the workaround was put in place, I'll respond with "uhm...". ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
                • This is what happens when you look at AFDs without considering wider site meta-consensuses. Yes there was a consensus to delete but that should have been tempered by our attributation policy and prior practice that clearly mandates that we redirect in these circumstances. It would have been easy to have read the consensus as no article there but close as redirect by referencing the need to keep the history for attributation. It must have happened that way a gazillion times before. If no one else has time I'll raise it with the closing admin and take it to DRV if he doesn't move. The way it has been left is unacceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • If you must, but this seems like quite a can of worms. There were several other persons who, not sharing my assumption that Diego wasn't intentionally trying to undermine the AFD, thought his action was an underhanded (I think the word was "slimy" -- and I can't stress enough that I don't share that opinion) way of countermanding what was a pretty lengthy and involved discussion. Personally, I barely care whether there's a redirect there or not, but it is alarming that someone could, intentionally or not, render 7 days of discussion essentially moot through this practice. If I'm missing something here, please say so; I'm less than familiar with issues surrounding attribution, and if I'm missing something it'd be helpful to know about it. Thanks, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've since asked the closing admin to confirm that the current attribution page is indeed what it says it is, a history of the edits to the deleted article. (Still waiting though, but that would be a perfectly valid outcome and my preferred course of action at this point). I've said once and again that the current interpretation of "delete an article" being "make its history inaccessible" is a can of worms, always have been, and it was not even the intended effect when deletion policies were written; removing content behind Admin access was only to protect the Foundation from copyvios and libel at BLPs. This is what you get when current customary practice is against the goals of the well thought consensual guidelines. Diego (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Monitory Democracy

Many available sources are primary, with John Keane using the term (who introduced the term in his book The Life and Death of Democracy in 2009). Here's some examples other than the references currently in the article (as of this post), all written by John Keane: Monitory democracy and media-saturated societies, (John Keane) Monitory democracy resides in the China labyrinth, The China Labyrinth. However, significant coverage in reliable sources does exist, including this article from The Nation (Sri Lanka): Monitory democracy for better governance. Perhaps other editors can find additional reliable sources that cover this topic significantly? Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the content can be moved into John Keane (political theorist) if the concept is not independently notable. E.g., a while back I did some work on the notable sociologist Daniel Bell, whose work gets referenced all the time in the media but his article didn't even explain the basic concepts of some of his most-cited books. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the nominator did not consider that option here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Clear Books

Clear Books got deleted recently for the second time. At the end of the AfD a user who had voted delete suggested that the article be re-created from the perspective of Clear Books being accounting software as opposed to Clear Books the company. In fact, this user then went on to create the article through the AfC process. And yet again Clear Books has been put up for AfD. Perhaps this time it will be kept! --TimFouracre (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Corey Smith (artist)

• Corey Smith (artist) (AfD discussion)

I saw this at AfD, but I'm not sure about this one, so I thought that I would toss it this way in case someone felt it could be worked on. The subject appears to have been a professional snowboarder, so WP:ATHLETE might have applied, but there is no evidence that I've seen to say what level of competition he competed in. Otherwise, there are sources online and in the article, but they need to be evaluated. The author is trying hard in the AfD, but doesn't really seem comfortable with the process, and I'm not in a position to help at the moment one way or the other. It could do with different eyes. - Bilby (talk) 04:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Snowboarding is a sport, so being a profession at it, plus an artists whose works are shown around the world, makes the guy notable. Dream Focus 16:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)