Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 2

• 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)

• Aziz Shavershian (AfD discussion)

Hello, Is it possible for someone to assist me in improving this article ~ to avoid deletion? The subject is a bodybuilder and internet personality who is dead (has been for half a year) and has been nominated for deletion under WP:BLP1E. The subject has had coverage prior and post death - has published a book - casted in a upcoming series - has own protein line - viral videos - a "cult following" (as says in a source). The subject passes WP:GNG. Please assist, thank you, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So now the Rescue Squadron has been canvassed to save this terrible article from its impending deletion. Wonderful.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Canvassed? add that to the list of policies you may need to read up on :) -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron has, several times in the past, been used as an attempt at a saving throw for some article. While I was wrong in choosing BLP1E (we have WP:1E instead), this man is not notable, considering that everything that has been said about him concerns his death.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked for assistance, that is all. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that User:Ryulong is here reading and commenting this thread, any accusation of "canvassing" seems out of place. Diego (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with asking for help here. I did some searching and found some links to major news sources, which covered not just his death, but some coverage before then. All of them said he had a cult following, so he meets the subject specific guideline for models listed at WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 16:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• It Must be Nice (AfD discussion)

Hi. I believe another user Dennis Brown has used vexation as a reason to submit this article for deletion, as he "got tired" of discussing the article on the article's talk page. Prior to submitting the article, the user had made statements on the talk page inferring that the article was worth improving and outright admitting that it was worth keeping or he would have submitted it for Afd previously. Here is the quote: "As for the tags, it was tagged to encourage others to find more references, not to get it deleted. If I wanted to send it to AFD I would have. Once the movie comes out, there is a chance that better references will come along, and the tag is there to tell people they need to be added." Then he proceeded to strip the article down to a stub and then submit it for deletion as a stub without references. This was because he claims he "got tired" of discussing it on the talk page and after not even remotely trying to reach any kind of compromise on his scorched earth, delete everything mentality. He and one other user (Ckatz) have questioned the article's notability, even though the article has met that criteria on many levels, in that the filmmaker is a recent Academy Award winner and an Academy Award nominee and other notable actors are in the film, including a famous cult film actor. The article also had several independent sources. The sources were all independent media interviews and or print articles on the filmmakers and cast in which the film was discussed. The article has met all the criteria for inclusion both in film notability per WP:ENT and general notability as well as all requirements for for inclusion as an "upcoming film" (where the bar is set at having two independent sources and evidence that the film is past the stage of "principal photography"). Furthermore, after Dennis Brown and Ckatz together stripped the article down to a stub and removed all the references, and then one submitted it for deletion (to hide the evidence)... after I tried to restore the souces so Afd users would see the source, user Dennis Brown then reverted those sources again stating that the sources were deleted because they "were not there when it was submitted by him for Afd" and therefore should not be there, inferring that the article is "frozen" once submitted to Afd. One of the people commenting on the Afd said that it was wrong for him to say that. I think it is more than wrong. I think it is malicious. I think it proves the point that this user and the other one who wrangled him into doing this Ckatz are working as a tag team who are using vexation as a reason for deletion and not common sense or good faith. They are creating false levels of notability and false levels of criteria's for inclusion which simply don't exist and which no film could meet. If a filmmaker being a recent Academy Award winner is not enough notability, I don't know what is. If they want to rewrite the standards for notability for film and exclude Academy Award winners then they should be consistent and not just attack one article. Delete all the films that are made by Academy Award winners then. That would make sense. ; ) - Catpowerzzz (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Catpowerzzz, I know how frustrating this can be, the nominating statement doesn't take you, the creator, and your good faith efforts into account here. That being said, I'm not seeing any reliable news sources reporting on this film (not a shock for a future short film). You may be able to preserve some of the content, however, by moving some of this to Chris Innis. Hopefully in the future the short film will get more coverage and the article can be recreated. Maybe others can find better sourcing, I was unable to at this point.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Thanks for your consideration. Unfortunately when I try to link independent sources to the page, a user keeps deleting them. So I don't know if you saw the sources that I put on there. If you revert the article back to where I had it earlier today you can see it. The person or person's who are trying to delete it keep removing the information since they want to game the Afd. I think if they had true faith in their argument, they would leave it in its entirety for it to be fairly judged. Yes, typically short films are not written about until after they are completed and reviewed. But the film is notable because of the filmmaker who is an Academy Award winner, so there is reason for inclusion even aside from the cited sources. I think the sources demonstrate that the film exists, and backs up the content of the article. I disagree with your assesment that the sources aren't reliable. They are. One is a print article in the UK, two are media outlets that covered the International Press Academy's Golden Satellite Awards. There are numerous members of the International Press Academy, including TIME magazine and other reputable outlets. The media outlets that covered that event were chosen by the head of the Press Academy. They are reliable and legit. If statements are going to be made about an upcoming film, those are precisely the kinds of outlets they would be made in. Film length has not been used as a disqualifer for inclusion in Wikipedia nor is it a disqualifier in the WikiFilm notability requirements for an "upcoming" film. The criteria for including material in Wikipedia is that there is reasonable belief that the infromation is "true". Also many of the actors in this film are notable, either Academy Award nominees or very well known cult actors with followings. Per WP:ENT that is also grounds for inclusion. We all know that keeping or deleting articles is subjective. Before the person who submitted this article submitted it for deletion, he admitted on the talk page that he wanted others to contribute to it and that he did not want to submit it for deletion. I think that first response was the correct one. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As noted by numerous accounts in the AFD process, there is a lack of reliable sources making any reference, let alone devoting an entire article, to this movie. That, not the presence of multiple notables involved in its production, is relevant. A reasonable parallel: as a registered account I wrote numerous articles about works by famous artists, but only when content about the individual works was supported by multiple sources. Merely having been produced by a notable creator is not itself enough. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond. There are two things you are mentioning "multiple" sources and "reliable" sources. The article does have "multiple" sources that are not coming from the primary person or production, but which were interviews done with various members of the cast and crew. As for "reliable" I think that can sometimes be a subjective opinion. Wikipedia guidelines say that content shouldn't be deleted unless it is factually untrue or gibberish. Of course reliable sources are necessary to make sure that articles are mostly needed information. I believe that two interviews coming from media outlets that were granted access to the International Press Academy's annual event is "reliable." It's also not coming from the "primary" source, but are secondary sources which could have been edited or never published, at the whim of the media outlet. Also there was a print article in a recent UK magazine. It's a new magazine, but it is an interview with a well known cult actor who also is in this film and who mentions this film. Again, I think that is a reliable source. None of the articles has the film as the "primary focus" of the article, but a short film that is upcoming might not have articles written about it in which it is the primary focus until a later date. I think perhaps it might be best for this article to be a keep until other sources become available (considering that the filmmaker is notable which is one of the criteria), with a tag for sources left on the article for the other criteria to be met in the upcoming months. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I have a question. The tag on the article which the guidelines told me use to direct to this ARS has been removed from the article by one of your squad. Is that routine? - Catpowerzzz (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• The "rescue list" tag should be placed only in the AfD discussion, not the article itself; the article must contain only the "Article for deletion" tag. We had a previous "rescue" tag that was placed in the article but it shouldn't be used any longer. Where did you read about placing the rescue tag in the article? That guideline should be updated to reflect the new procedure. Diego (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTALBALL. If and when material becomes available which relates to the film, we can consider whether they justify an article. And no, there is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that states that "content shouldn't be deleted unless it is factually untrue or gibberish". Things can be deleted because they are unsuitable for an online encyclopaedia, and often are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::As for the above characterization of "one of your squad", I belong to no squad, thank you. I don't imagine the other contributors who've weighed in here or at AFD consider themselves part of a coterie designed to take this article out, and the presumption that there's a concerted community effort is tiresome and a bit self-serving. Far too much verbiage expended on this already on several pages. This horse is beaten. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

99.136.255.180 - I think you are mistaken or confused. I was not referring to you or your possible changes to the page but to Rescue Squad member Diego above and he has addressed my question about his removal of the tag. When I referred to "squad" I meant the "rescue squad team" of which Diego is a member, not some imaginary squad of hostile users to which you were pressuming I was referring (whether they exist or not is another question). I also was not aware of your changes to that page. I think you added it after my change. Sorry if you were confused. But this has nothing to do with you. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation Catpowerzzz--that was my misinterpretation, and as such I'm striking the above rant. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute about Jesus' execution method (AfD discussion)

The subject of the article is notable, there is no question in that and no one even denies the notability on the Afd page. The rationale in the Afd nomination was to "delete some of the content" because it may be POV! But the quality of content is no reason for deletion, given the notability. If a user wants to delete content he should build consensus for deletion using proper Wikipedia policies, not use an Afd as a "means for content deletion". Afd is not for dispute resolution over content. The article needs to be rescued, given its undisputed notability. History2007 (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What would you like the ARS to do, in this case? You correctly note that the article is well-sourced and, indeed, the deletion rationale has nothing to do with sourcing. This is not a board for finding keep votes, and in lieu of a need for sourcing -- I note your own Keep argument doesn't really hinge on sourcing -- I see nothing for the ARS to do here other than spam the AFD with additional opinions, which really isn't the purpose of the organization (and is, in addition, problematic). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Must agree with Ginseng, there is nothing for ARS to do here. Everyone knows Jesus was killed because he was a space alien.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• This is a good point Milowent raises. If there weren't so much controversy over ARS and canvassing I'd hop over to the AfD right now and strongly suggest renaming the article Jesus was indisputably killed because he was a cosmonaut. Or at least redirect to that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fair-Value Accounting's Role in the Subprime Mortgage Crisis (AfD discussion)
• Linsmeier, Thomas J. (June 2011). "Financial Reporting and Financial Crises: The Case for Measuring Financial Instruments at Fair Value in the Financial Statements". Accounting Horizons. 25 (2): 409–417. doi:10.2308/acch-10024. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

As I said, I don't have the time for a Kerrrzappp! of this one. If you want to pick up the baton, I recommend (Martinez 2009, pp. 281–283) harv error: no target: CITEREFMartinez2009 (help) as a good starting point, since it gives a overview of the history, albeit a one-sided one. Some of the others, such as (Wesbury 2009, pp. 87–99, 115–116) harv error: no target: CITEREFWesbury2009 (help), give the other side's view, which you'll of course need to cover. I omitted the Linsmeier 2011 citation, which is the first obvious fix. So here is the wikitext for it, above. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is a small essay and part of the Late-2000s financial crisis, which has plenty of articles where some of this material can be added. Being a member of WP:ARS does not mean to always say Keep. There is no way I can see that this should be kept, even if all the numerous technical problems were corrected.

The creator, Yj10c (talk), knows the subject matter, but a newbie editor often does not know Wiki techniques. We can provide some encouragement, without allowing this article to remain in mainspace. ARS members, join me in providing encouragement to Yj10c (talk). We may be too late, there are no contributions after February 18, but we need to be encouraging and welcoming to newbies. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It survived its previous AFD. The AFD has been extended to get more input. The creature has been mentioned in popular culture for thousands of years, appearing about. Did someone perhaps do a study and publish a book on things like this? If anyone knows where to find such a thing, or other sources, please participate. Dream Focus 21:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess the question is what distinction you envisage between the article on Qilin in popular culture and the article on Qilin? That is, in the case of Librarian vs Librarians in popular culture, the former is about librarians in reality, the latter about the way they're portrayed in stories etc, and there's a clear line between the two. With Qilin 'reality' isn't relevant so I don't know where a line could be drawn. --Zeborah (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, would you please help me to save and improve the article Police officers charged criminally in Canada. It is currently under a Speedy Deletion +Tag. In addition, a previous editor made a slash and burn edit. It seems the article content is sensitive to some people; however, the article meets the guidelines of Wikipedia, to the best of my knowledge. Thank you for your help. JunoBeach (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think that the article "meets the guidelines of Wikipedia, to the best of [your] knowledge", I'd suggest that you need to learn more about our guidelines and policies - particularly WP:BLP. Listing non-notable persons who have been acquitted of charges is a gross breach of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I came here for support not slash and burn deletion. The talk page describes "why" officers "charged" are being included in the article with the outcome of their trial. Many police are getting off charges with "bogus" trials and outcomes. The article meets WP:BLP, when a person is "charged" it is public knowledge, when a person is convicted or acquitted it is public knowledge, there is nothing wrong with noting it in an article with proper citations. Should all newspapers no longer publish police officers being charged because you do not like it? That is not free speech, it against everything Wikipedia stands for. Thanks JunoBeach (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest that it should be moved to List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Rewrite it and use "Police officer" in the place of the officers names. If all Canadian Police aren't Royal Canadian Mounted Police then change the name of the list to. List of controversies involving the Canadian Police then have a section for each type of Police in Canada. This does not meet WP:BLPit is not allowed under WP:BLPCRIME. Wikipedia is not a place for "free speech" WP:ORIGINAL and all items should be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Theworm777 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I added back in the info with names removed to protect the innocent for you. Theworm777 (talk) 01:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• This should not be an article on Wikipedia. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• This is a BLP-focused AfD, not really a rescue type situation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Amabile Choirs of London, Canada has the purpose of bringing together young singers from London, Ontario and surrounding areas. This family of choirs began in 1985 and has since grown to eight choirs under the direction of seven conductors.

The proposed deletion says Doesn't give evidence of notability. Only has one (primary) source; likely doesn't pass wp:GNG

Reliable sources are easy to find. For example, The Canadian Encyclopedia has an article on this organization. There are enough sources that the notability issue may also be overcome. For example, one youth choir won a Canadian award in 1985. This is a proposed deletion, not an AfD, but since I objected to the deletion, an AfD may follow, unless the article is improved, at least with some reliable sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Google news archive shows some results. [1] I did some work on the article and untagged it. [2] Dream Focus 14:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your good efforts, Dream Focus. I added two more inline citations, along with another awards line, removed the stub tag, and changed the class to start. We will need to wait and see what happens next, but I think both sources and notability have been handled, and I removed all the tags, but I retagged for Wikify, and asked the Wikify drive people to do it. I don't think there is much to be done, but more attention is a good thing. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Already speedily deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amal Jyothi College but this appears to be a notable college that deserves to have an article. See google cache here [3]. Why this needed to be speedily deleted, instead of improved during a seven day AfD, is beyond my understanding.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, also, this was not a brand new article, but one that had been around for years. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_23#Article_maintained_by_vandals_.28.3F.29 from December 2009.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Emmy nominated character (2009) from 30 Rock. If an Emmy nomination isn't a good enough reason to keep an article on a fictional television character, I'm not sure what is. Article is relatively bad at the moment, could clearly use refocusing off of plot and onto real world impact. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Article about SEPTA Route C in Philadelphia, but part of a pattern to remove mention of particular SEPTA transit routes, and articles about SEPTA routes. I objected to the immediate deletion, but an AfD may follow. What is the practice in other cities? This is a policy issue, not just notability for a particular bus route. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about other cities, but per WP:GNG and Not Indiscriminate it's difficult to justify an article containing only data about the route from the official source. I think that all the stub articles should be merged together by area (like this one), as it's more likely that there are sources covering how the company routes service one area than it's to find coverage for each one. Per WP:SNOWFLAKE, separate articles should be created only for routes and stations that have third party significant coverage, so that there's something interesting to say about them, like AT&T (SEPTA station) or SEPTA Route 59.

The problem with the stubs is that it's difficult to make sense of them. The current SEPTA Route C article does nothing to inform the reader (me) on how the traffic system is organized or how this one relates to the other routes. Diego (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Article about an Oakland city council member. There's disagreement about whether or not the sources currently in the article meet the GNG, but it seems likely to me that there are more sources available - if hard to find - that would clearly push it over the threshold. Kevin (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the listing here seems appropriate since the AfD was just relisted for a 2nd time based on the possibility that more sources exist that need to be considered. City Councilmembers, unlike most Mayors of any decent-sized city, don't always meet GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Article is clearly WP:N (simple search on Google News gets dozens of results), but is also currently a horrible WP:ADVERTISING mess. Very severe cleanup is necessary, but IMHO it can be salvaged. Ipsign (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Article cleaned up to a certain extent. Suraj T 12:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good listing. The nom is complaining that it is an advertisement, but does not assert that it is not notable--just that as nominated there was "little substantiation" of its notability. I added another sources and fixed up the opening paragraph.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page was that like every other Wikiproject out there, we can discuss redirects as well as deletes and whatnot.

When I Google for "Ultima" and "Avatar" I get 26 million results. Kind of hard to sort through all of that, or even the 2,440,000 results from a search of what the Video game Wikiproject has for their custom search of approved reliable sources. [4] If anyone can think of any better search criteria to narrow it down, I'd appreciate it. There was never any real consensus to eliminate this article and replace it with a redirect. Seven people were against any mergers, one said only the companions(not the Avatar but his companions) articles should merge, and four said merge them all. [5] Some opinions please. Also, if anyone finds any additional reliable sources covering the character, please add them in. See the history of it here [6]. In addition to existing sources in it, I found a recent article titled Ultima: Most. Important. Game Series. Ever. [7] which says Ultima IV had no villain, and the world of Britannia was in a moral crisis, and only savable by embodying the world's new eight virtues and becoming the Avatar. That term became the default for a player character within a video game. Seems like its important since that term then began being used elsewhere. The article even shows how other notable games had parodies of the Avatar in them. As a final note, Ultima was one of the first games to have you control one specific character, the Avatar, which you create. The other characters already exist with pre-determined roles and personalities, and can be engaged for conversation. This has become the default mode for party-based games these days, but it was rare in that era, where you rolled an entire party yourself, or occasionally played pre-determined characters. Once again, the character did it first, and now everyone does it based on him. Dream Focus 16:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you expect anyone to do regarding this issue? There appears to be no 'article to rescue' at present, so I can't see how this falls within the remit of ARS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As we discussed on the talk page, all Wikiprojects handle redirects and mergers as well as deletions. Two other long term members agreed with me this is fine to bring up here. I want help looking through that massive number of search results, and getting some feedback. Can the article be restored? Dream Focus 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is sneaky deletion by another name. Of course it interests the Article Rescue Squadron. CallawayRox (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have had to face so-called merges that were really disguised deletions - is this the issue being discussed here? Ottawahitech (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As the editor behind the so-called the "sneaky" action, I strongly disagree with that characterization, and think it's a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and a gross accusation of bad faith. I reverted the spinout of a new article which is a pretty ordinary process. Disagreeable, yes. But not sneaky, and not a disguise. I even added information back into the list where it was reverted to, and offered to work on expanding the list. Either way, the issue is moot since I'm not going to keep reverting the spinout. And as a show of good faith, I helped expand the new article instead of expanding the merged list. It will be up to other editors if they want to discuss the appropriateness of a merge versus a stand-alone article. To be absolutely certain that discussion doesn't need to happen, the best thing to do is find more sources that talk about this character's reception and significance in detail. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps they were referring to the original merger, which was against consensus and horribly wrong, and not your actions which while in error were not nearly as bad as the tragedy before. Dream Focus 17:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

While less personal, even that's an accusation of bad faith I'm not ready to agree with, and it's the kind of accusation that we shouldn't throw around if we're trying to create an atmosphere of civility. But what happened three years ago that led the article to sit in this state for so long, it's moot because WP:CCC. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong is wrong anytime that it happened. And consensus from people here and those commenting on it elsewhere you brought this up [8] says it should have its own article. So no reason to keep this discussion dragging onward. Dream Focus 22:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

All I'm trying to point out is we can accomplish the same thing by following our policy of focusing on content, not the editors. It's almost always pointless to focus on the past, and to bring conduct into a content discussion. Focusing on past conduct? That never improves the quality of a content discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The afd is at [9]. This company has only made two games so far, both of which are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, they getting ample coverage. Using the video game Wikiproject's custom search I find a large number of results for this company. [10] That's a lot to sort through. Some help please. Dream Focus 13:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• After checking out the links above and some other searches, I haven't found significant coverage in reliable sources thus far. All the links are basically blogs, fan sites and commercial sites, and most are about the games, rather than the company. A sidenote: per WP:PRODUCT, ..." a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right."... However, I'll do some further searching in the near future. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I always found the WP:Product thing rather odd. A writer, artist, etc. can be notable based on their work, but a company can not be. Music companies and film companies are usually seen as notable based on their work, but not game companies. That is odd. Dream Focus 13:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so. I haven't looked at those games, but Zindagi gets so little coverage that this is probably a lost cause for you. There's this one hit in Dutch, but all it says is that the company has been working with the "Move controller" (whatever that is) since it (the controller) first came out. OK, I've looked at the games. DF, I agree: it is odd, very odd. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the Dutch review is not in what I would call a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I found one of the 7,650 search results to be significant coverage and praise of the company, so added that to the debate. Surely there is more, but that is just far too much to look through. Dream Focus 02:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DF, aren't those outfits paying you yet for every one you save? I get $200 from each competitor every time I delete one! Drmies (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any of that 'ample coverage' for the games discussing how they are made? Size of the team, interviews with authors, their methods... Those could be used to provide notability to the company. If not, I think WP:PRODUCT would be right in this case to assert that notability is not inherited. Diego (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You gave me a good idea to help narrow the search. Looking for "interview" and then perhaps "team", "design team", "designers", perhaps the names of the guys who work there, "talks about"... hmm.... Seeign what I can find now. Always good to have more people talking, to get the ideas flowing. And we can make a list of common terms to help make it simper for people to find things in the future with this sort of article. Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Search suggestions Dream Focus 14:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It survived its previous AFD and was immediately put up for deletion a second time by the same person. It is cloud based accounting software (i.e. accessible from the Internet) as opposed to desktop based software. This is a technological change and advance in the delivery method of accounting software. Without Clear Books listed in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is missing knowledge about the new cloud based softwares that are out there. The article is written by the founder, however, it does reference reliable, independent third party sources.--TimFouracre (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for alerting us, Tim. You are hardly unbiased on this of course! The subject appears to fall in the morass between "clearly non-notable" and "notable".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I love that summary - the morass between "clearly non-notable" and "notable". Thanks for taking the time to investigate. --TimFouracre (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Per my comment in the article's AfD discussion: This is somewhat of a close call regarding notability. This article from The Telegraph covers the topic significantly: Banks: A) do lend B) don't lend C) help or hinder?. This article from PC Advisor is beyond passing mentions, but is rather short:Clear Books gives MPs free accounting software. This review of the company's software (of the same name) from the Institute of Certified Bookkeepers Software is unbiased, the source is a third-party that is unaffiliated with Clear Books, and information about the company is also included: Institute of Certified Bookkeepers Software Review. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Another source found and added to the article:

• Shanbhag, Raju (May 3, 2010). "Clear Books Announces Financing Deal to Improve SaaS Online Accounting Software". Financial Tech Spotlight. Retrieved February 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's some contention about the reliability of this source and the article itself—Clear Books Announces Financing Deal to Improve SaaS Online Accounting Software— See AfD discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Made by Luxology and a lot of news results. Digging through some of them now. Dream Focus 22:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• References added to the article:

• Cohen, Peter (June 10, 2005). "Luxology modo ready for Intel switch". Macworld.com. Retrieved February 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
• Cohen, Peter (October 8, 2007). "Luxology licenses Pixar graphics tech". Macworld.com. Retrieved February 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
• Sheridan Perry, Todd (August 11, 2008). "Luxology's Modo 302". Animation Magazine. Retrieved February 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I nominated the above article for deletion, as it presently appears to lack significant non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources. With that said, the more I am looking through the sources listed on google news, the more it is looking like the article might meet the notability guidelines. If possible, I would really like an outside opinion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• A four year old one-sentence stub! How does one find such lonely things? In any event, I'll look, I commend Alpha for listing after nominating based on their further review.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A 2004 created article. Not clear (to me) what the motive is for deletion nomination. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is not 1 good wikipedia reason given here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 BCS National Championship Game to delete anything from the 2012 or 2013 football seasons here at all. There is verifiable information from independent sources." of "encyclopedic worth to have an article about on all of the 2012 and 2013 season pages. Yes there is not much on the 2014 or 2015 seasons yet and they could be deleted but Wikipedia is a work in progress and Wikipedia:DDH deletion does not help. Theworm777 (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

'1 Good Wikipedia reason'? WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTABILITY (no secondary sources cited), etc, etc, etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's not much to do be done about future championship games - they are going to have articles eventually, no question. At some point they are too early, when they cross the line is subject to debate. I waded into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 ACC Championship Game a few days ago, but there was limited info out there. If the article was directed to BCS National Championship Game the history can be kept.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Its only February so no coverage of next years events yet. Also, the notice that its been tagged for rescue should be in the AFD, not the main article itself. Dream Focus 21:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Postscript: The lead article, 2013 BCS National Championship Game was userified and is already back in mainspace. Its rarely discussed, but deleted articles are recreated all the time, usually in cases where the notability test was applied too stringently at AfD. One might argue that this means deletion isn't so harmful, but I would argue that it drains resources away from creating and improving other content. Also, not every notable thing at AfD gets recreated, and sometimes the content in whats recreated is worse than the original.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone on this list has their own Wikipedia article. The news media and book search shows they are referred to as "community organizers". Some help with the article would be appreciated. I'm going to start searching for each name and the phrase "community organizer" and adding in references to reliable sources. Dream Focus 14:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "community organizer" seems far too vague to support a list. I definitely agree with your thinking in the AfD regarding introducing subcategories to the article to make a bit more sense of things, but I'm afraid that you could subsequently end up with an almost unlimited array of subcategories. I raised this argument at the AfD so if you want to dispute it (and you're welcome to, natch), best to do it over there. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Although zounds what an improvement "Community organizers" is over "Organizers"! Ha! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ginsengbomb that the phrase "community organizer" is too vague, and could easily include a wide variety of people, such as Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov and Thomas Paine. Better to delete this list. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical prep school, with several notable former pupils. We're having difficulties finding online sources which cover it in depth, however - most GoogleBooks hits are snippets. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll chime in if I find anything, looks like a difficult case, but wedging all the content into Farnham#Education might be tough too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. All the current content is verifiable, and simply wouldn't fit in the Farnham article - (undue weight). More relevant information is a good thing... --He to Hecuba (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• I checked around and added the name of a famous politician who went there as a child. Unless someone finds a parenting magazine that reviews schools, or a trade magazine for schools reviewing it, I don't think you can prove its notable. Dream Focus 17:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is only a week or so available to find sources before the article is deleted ? I'm sure someone local would be able to find offline sources with significant coverage of the school, given its history. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Believe it or not, AfD discussions used to be only 5 days, it moved to 7 days in mid-2009. I am pretty sure this article is good enough to be "userified" to someone for later possible improvement even if it is deleted. Another alternative, if it is deleted, would be the creation of an article Education in Farnham, see, e.g., Education in Omaha, Nebraska. Typically schools that are not "high schools" but which are part of a school district (like in the United States) can be redirected to the district article and covered there. This method doesn't work as well for private schools or areas that don't have districts similar to U.S. schools. But I'm not sure how many "education in XX" articles we have.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is easy to determine that the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association is an important and notable organization in Pennsylvania politics, but this article has numerous problems, probably including copyright violations. However, perhaps the article can be trimmed down to eliminate the copyright issues and allow for future expansion in the usual Wikipedia manner. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Was there anything in the article other than copyright violations? If so you can ask to have it usefied to eliminate the violations and then start from there. If not, we'll have to start over from scratch. Their activities seem to have coverage. [11] I don't see an official website for them though. Dream Focus 01:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It was composed entirely of copyright violations. Here is the original page, and I learn nothing other than it works for conservation. I don't see anything salvageable. Goodvac (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That link doesn't work, but I found it through Google cache. [12] The references sometimes link to mentions of the Pennsylvania Land Trust Alliance instead. Pennsylvania Land Trust Association (PALTA) has a good referenceable bit about them at [13], they publishing some essays in a collection. The other references are to various places that simply quote them for things and link to the http://conserveland.org/ website. I don't see any coverage of the organization itself anywhere, and I fear without anything but mentioning how often cited they are by their peers, might not keep the article from being deleted at AFD. I personally believe if an organization has their studies cited by the news media they are obviously notable. I'll bring this to discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and see what everyone thinks about adding a bit about that. Dream Focus 07:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have recreated the article as a stub, using the cache and other sourcing to guide me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Milowent and others, who made the article good enough for me to add class=start to the three templates on the talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic which is clearly notable due to the wide range of sources available on GoogleScholar. Improvements to the article by editors familiar with robotics/engineering would probably increase its chance of surviving AFD. --He to Hecuba (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of coverage found by clicking the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD as well. Even editors who have been around for years and sent quite a number of articles to AFD, seemed to forget about that. Dream Focus 22:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Article rewritten by me. Goodvac (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that it is now about a specific project, rather than the area of robotics in general. It might be worth further expansion to be more general. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I limited it to the UC Berkeley project because the UC Berkeley project is the only one that is working on the so-called Micromechanical Flying Insect. The one at Harvard, for example, is working on microrobots. It would be inappropriate to categorize similar projects that do not bear the same name under "Micromechanical Flying Insect", which is specific to the UC Berkeley project. Goodvac (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WHich I guess opens up the possibility of an article on or robotic flying insects in general, or micro flying robots. - Bilby (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that would indeed be a valid topic. Goodvac (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no question in my mind that this will be kept at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Gingrich-Jones, but the article really could use improvement, which would erase the doubt of any good faith editor.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there is any doubt whatsoever. She got honors from two different notable magazines, plus ample coverage for her work. They just toss in mention of her brother because they find it funny. "Hey, doesn't he hate gays? Well look who his sister is! Ha Ha!" Even Saturday Night Live once did a joke about that. Dream Focus 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Digging into this a little further, I think the nominator is one of those guys who is bezerk when it comes to the gheys.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A London university student newspaper with a well done article, but lacking independent third party sources. Can we do better? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: At first glance this is a toughie. If we can find some coverage to show GNG is met, yes. Best alternative would be to fold content into Goldsmiths, University of London and a redirect. It would a shame not to have the content.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• What's confusing is that this is also the name of the student union there, making a search a bit more difficult. But I found nothing that can be called reliable, and such papers usually need time to establish notability. As for well-done article--the only external reference given in the article is this, but it doesn't even mention the paper. I agree with Milowent's suggestion, and I see that DF proposed the same thing at the AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• After several searches, including some listed below, I'm not finding coverage in third-party reliable sources about this topic.

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Although I started this entry here, I am now posting 'Merge with redirect for this title at Goldsmiths, University of London. The student union is called Goldsmiths Students Union, and not The Leopard. See The Leopard at Goldsmiths Students Union for verification. on the AfD discussion page. Having at least some of the information merged is better than just deleting the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• In my experience this is a toughie. I started an article about a Canadian student paper years ago, but it was removed later, and I never bothered trying to rewrite it. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• The AfD discussion for "The Leopard (newspaper)" resulted in merge to Goldsmiths, University of London. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A simple article about an Italian restaurant in Dallas, Texas. WP:GNG is met. The nomination for deletion is based in part upon the sources being local in nature, and as such are considered unsatisfactory per the nominator's rationale. However, Dallas' population is 1,197,816, and as a major metropolitan area in the United States the sources in the article are likely valid as trustworthy and reliable. Can others provide more reliable sources to better qualify this topic's notability? Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• As notable as Mzoli's? There is not a lot of consistency at AFD on single-location restaurants, as best I can recall, its often just a WP:GNG debate unless its Michelin or similarly rated (see my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant) for Michelin notability). The number of local stories on it [14] does show local popularity.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, that Google News link produces no hits for me... Drmies (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (e/c) This is the relevant notability guideline for judging whether or not the Dallas Observer sources (supplied in the AFD) help this article pass muster (the "Audience" section, in particular). If it can be demonstrated that the Observer is at a minimum a "regional" source, in terms of its online and/or offline audience, then I think this subject is probably notable. My concern is that our article on the paper seems to suggest it's very much limited in audience to Dallas. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Looks like there are two Sal's Pizza in Dallas: http://www.urbanspoon.com/s/13?q=Sal%27s+Pizza Ottawahitech (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• The AfD for "Sal's Pizza (Dallas)" closed as Delete. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A biography of a living person article that appears to just meet WP:GNG. Perhaps source searchers can find more reliable sources to further qualify the topic's notability and improve the article. Here's the sources I cited in the article's AfD discussion. The first article listed below constitutes significant coverage, in which Causey herself is mentioned numerous times. The second article is very short.

• Rome, Emily (January 28, 2012). "'Time Freak': Sci-fi short and an Oscar moment to remember". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 3, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
• "UT grad goes crazy when her short film gets an Oscar nom". The Houston Chronicle. Retrieved February 3, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• The AfD for Gigi Causey closed as Keep. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Off my podium :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I just took a crack at finding sourcing for this article and failed miserably. This is going to end up at AfD in its current form, and it will get deleted there. It reads like a puff piece written by an artist management agency or, as the case may be given the author's name, a family member :). All that said, totally agree with you regarding the "immediate bombardment" that greeted the article's author. Hate seeing that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I went through some of the Google news archive results. His work does get some mention. With a career like that, I'd say he is clearly a notable musician. Dream Focus 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Since my reply here has now been quoted in the ongoing AfD and used against my vote (which is amusing, for some reason), I'll say here that I think with the additional sources added this article now just squeaks by. Nice work. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's coverage in The Hindu and Filmfare Magazine. Both provide coverage beyond a passing mention or trivial coverage. However, they may not be the most significant in terms of comprehensive coverage just about this individual. Of course, there's also WP:BASIC to be considered in this case, in which: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Perhaps source searchers can find and add more reliable sources to this article. This would improve the article, and Wikipedia itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a CBBC show. The AfD discussion is basically boiling down to WP:GNG vs. WP:IAR, and possibly WP:TVSHOW, the former of course being the prevailing argument for deletion. I did a source hunt of my own and came up empty beyond the usual hits from bloggers and primary sources. It'd be fantastic if any of you source-hunters could find anything better to give a bit more weight to arguments for the article's inclusion, because I have a strong feeling this article will be deleted as it currently stands. I don't think additional keep votes without sourcing backup are going to help. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Tried several searches, which didn't yield coverage in reliable sources. It's a mainstream BBC television children's program; has academia published studies about the topic perhaps? Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a tendentious nomination of a business-related article. The topic is extremely notable and rich in irony in the present circumstances. It inspires me to try the current rescue process and I am not finding it an improvement. The rescue tag was better because it encouraged you to actually edit the article. Warden (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Cleaned up the article. Added references:

• Kock, Nereu F. () (1994). The nature of data, information and knowledge exchanges in business processes: implications for process improvement and organizational learning (Research paper). The Learning Organization. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
• Cook, Sarah (1996). "Process improvement: a handbook for managers". Gower Publishing Ltd, et al. Retrieved February 4, 2012. ISBN 0-566-07633-0

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• The AfD for Process improvement closed as Keep but possible merge. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This topic appears to just meet WP:GNG from the following sources, with the first one listed below being one that I found and added to the article.

• Palmer, Shelly (March 31, 2011). "Storing Your Stuff by Mail". Fox News, New York. Retrieved February 4, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
• Chicago Sun-Times. "Naperville-based Storage Firm Thinks Outside the Box". Chicago Sun-Times.

However, other's in the article's AfD discussion (here) disagree. Placing this here in the hope that others can find and add more sources to further qualify this topic's notability. This article is also tagged for copy editing and reading like an advertisement. As ARS' scope also includes these types of article improvements, hopefully others can help to improve the article by copy editing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is a close call to me, but the the concept of "mailstorage" does deserve to be preserved whether in self storage or elsewhere.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Renamed article to Mail storage (grammar correction). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• The AfD discussion for Mail storage closed as Keep. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can some help me with this please? I started an article with references to them in the New York Times, but it still got nominated for a speedy deletion. The press section of their website shows they have received hordes of coverage for their activities, and their showcase shows all the things they have done for major companies. I've been adding things to the list that have news coverage for them. Need to come up with a good lead paragraph I think. Dream Focus 12:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I de-speedied, will take a look at it later today!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• I added a few sources, this company is clearly notable. What happened here is an outrage which happens every day, I am afraid:

1. Dream created a stub [15] which included 2 new york times URL references, and which made a clear notability claim. "Oddcast is an online marketing company that was found in 1999, and whose works have been seen by hundreds of millions of people." It also listed some of the company's major campaigns with major companies. The article was no work of art, but it was BRAND NEW.
2. 3 minutes after creation, its tagged as sounding like an advertisement. [16]
3. 15 minutes after creation, Dream removed the advertisement box, with edit summary "doesn't seem like an ad to me. I wrote it from a neutral point of view referencing the New York Times. the external links are to them and their notable work that gets coverage in the New York Times and elsewhere)".
4. 48 minutes after creation, another user removes alleged "peacockery",[17]--which is, namely, the core of the notability claim of the stub, "and whose works they report as having been seen by hundreds of millions of people."
5. 7 hours later, it is now tagged for Speedy Deletion.[18] Why? Under CSDA7, for no claim of importance! This is comically sad.
6. About 3 hours later, Dream returns to find this ridiculousness. He posts on the talk page to contest the speedy deletion, but as the article creator he cannot remove the speedy tag. Now I'm not sure about this, but I believe despite the contest notice the article is still in real jeopardy. So, Dream posts here for assistance, and luckily because other people know who he is and he's not just some random new editor, I am able to assist. But in any event, many newby editors will never return in time to contest the CSD - the article will be GONE.

Things like this should not happen. This is exactly what drives new editors off wikipedia. And as to established editors, shouldn't someone at least check who the article creator is before marking something as CSD? Can't there be some tool for that?

The problem demonstrated by this experience is common-what can we do about it?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply at talk page. Diego (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Milowent, here's the thing. I looked at the article (which seems safe for the moment), at the version you linked. It was CSD'ed by a relatively experienced editor who seems to do little more than nominate for deletion but who seems to have a fairly decent track record (I only looked at a 100 edits). That version, I'm sorry to say, was not written in a way that confers notability. Mind you, I don't wish to impugn DF's writing skills, but a factual statement followed by a list full of redlinks, that does not make an admin happy. I clicked on to the NYT articles, and searched down the page, and found that the info there seemed plenty relevant (and in-depth) to at least ward off CSD. In other words, I would have declined speedy deletion, but what I'm telling you (well, as if you didnt' know...) is that CSDs being applied and granted is often a function of the writing. Even the current version, which is much better, does not have a lead that suggests notability. As for new editors being driven off--well, this wasn't a new editor who wrote it. "Oddcast ... whose works have been seen by hundreds of millions of people", with the first link to the company website, well, one shouldn't be surprised to find that tagged as promotional and then slapped with a CSD. Such article writing makes it all too easy to click delete, and no amount of complaining about deletionist, trigger-happy admins (I speak in general: I am not speaking of you, you know that) will change that fact. Bottom line, to avoid CSD tagging, have references and better-written first versions... All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)