Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 8

 Entries from August 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 .

Adherer
I had thought that Adherer (group nom with Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) and Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons)), and also Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons) were well-sourced enough, but it looks like some people disagree – could you help find sources for them, and Spinagon? BOZ (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

East River Monster
A recently-created stub article nominated for deletion that may need more reliable sources to qualify the topic's notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Mosque of Idlib Sermin
A new stub article about a mosque located in Syria that would benefit from improvements and more sources to qualify topic notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Bespoke BBQ Company
Posting here to request article improvements. It's purported to be the world's largest barbecue cooker. Let's improve it, if anyone's interested. (I'm not responsible for who !votes at the deletion discussion regarding this topic, how anyone may !vote, nor do I want to be.) Also, this is not an !vote request, it's an improvement request. This article can be easily expanded from the sources already in it. Additional sources to better-qualify the topic's notability are of course welcome. Plus, it's a fun, lighter topic! — Northamerica1000(talk) 14:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Busy work
There's an amusing element of dramatic irony in this. Warden (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article considerably compared to the state it was in at the time of its nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Pregnancy from rape
This looks like a good candidate, but it may be nearly decided. -74.162.150.244 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not much to be done here, many other editors have already worked on it, including me to a very small extent.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bruenor Battlehammer
Second attempt at AFD for this article. Previous AFD was at a time when the article had no sources at all; since then multiple independent sources were found, and this article could use some more. BOZ (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Owen J. Baggett
Owen J. Baggett, up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Owen J. Baggett. GregJackP  Boomer!   16:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I tagged the AFD for you but you haven't given any explanation of how this article can be improved so this looks suspiciously like an attempt to canvass for keep votes. Poor show. Spartaz Humbug! 07:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith please. There is no need to repeat what they said in the AFD, and this editor has added valid references to the article.  Obviously when someone post here they want help finding references.  We've been through this multiple times before.  There is no reason to state the obvious.   D r e a m Focus  09:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is as the issue is ONEEVENT not RS so listing here doesn't achieve anything except canvass keep votes. Spartaz Humbug! 10:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It gets more people to go and search for information about the guy. I used my highbeam account and whatnot to look around.  And he gets coverage for more than just that one event.  Please keep your bad faith accusations to yourself.   D r e a m Focus  10:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, the issue seems to be editors chanting WP:SOLDIER when that is not policy but just an essay, i.e. no better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There seems to be a lot of this about at the moment and I am quite willing to explain this yet again.  The fact that a couple of editors have referred to WP:BLP1E just demonstrates their cluelessness as the subject is dead not living.  Warden (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a number of references (now at 14), mostly books/newspapers, but don't have access to any of the news databases. If anyone here has access, any help on finding additional references would be appreciated.   GregJackP   Boomer!   12:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty well-sourced now, the only question is a policy one of whether article like his should exist. Many exist without anyone noticing, but when they are found they typically get deleted.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Never give up hope. The article has been improved and clearly meets the GNG so it should be saved.  Those that said delete did so before the references were added.   D r e a m Focus  03:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But if their argument was ONEEVENT then GNG is irrelevant... Spartaz Humbug! 14:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. No reason this is here. Looks like canvassing. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to say this only one time. If you two (or anyone else for that matter) believe that it was canvasing, then file a complaint on me - otherwise, STFU, because I will file a complaint on whoever continues this harassment.  The nomination was for notability (i.e., GNG), RightCowLeftCoast cited GNG, MilbourneOne cited GNG, and Spartaz cites GNG in response to DreamFocus commenting at the AfD.  In addition, oneevent has been mentioned - additional sources that bring up OTHER events would be helpful to saving the article.  GregJackP   Boomer!   21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any post to the rescue list is "canvassing" - for help with the article. We have 100s of articles like this one that you'll never find.  I'll offer Aiden MacCarthy up to you.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that very often ARS members typically don't substantially improve the articles and just skip to voting keep. For example: Dream focus made this edit:, before voting keep:. The article is pretty much the same after posting here. If it's not likely to be improved by being listed here, then it should not be listed here. The instructions on the top of the page require posters to indicate how the article content can be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been through a huge RFC recently on this, so I agree with Greg's uncivil comments.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I apologize for being uncivil. I came here to try and get help on finding refs to save what I believe is a noteworthy article, and replied to the question on why I listed it (both here and on my talkpage), and then I came back and saw further canvassing comments.  I should have ignored it, or, at the very least, been more civil about it.  As a sidenote, I'm not normally an inclusionist, but typically fall into the Evil Deletionist Cabel group, but in this case I thought that the article was worth saving, and the ARS could help with finding refs, etc., as they have done a number of times when they were (quite inappropriately of course ;p) saving Crap that I had nominated for deletion.  I figured if they could save those articles with good refs, they could help find refs for this article.   GregJackP   Boomer!   02:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize to me! I rather enjoyed it.  You came to the right place, sadly sometimes crap is easier to save than soldier bios.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – After a request for clarification regarding the nomination, the initial nominator for rescue consideration provided specific information requesting assistance, and then provided their rationale why they believe the article should be retained on Wikipedia. Initial allegations of canvassing are now moot per the additional posts provided by the initial nominator. Perhaps in the future, editors can consider simply asking for further explanation when nominations are unclear, rather than jumping to a behavioral guideline about the post . This would be congruent with the information at WP:NOTBATTLE. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – I've started a discussion thread regarding potential ambiguity in the instructions present at Articles for deletion for posting to the Rescue list, located  here. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Per the above (outdented) post, rather than basing discussions about this entire WikiProject, which is also a public discussion board that anyone can post to (including non-project members), upon one editor's actions, perhaps consider initiating a discussion on that particular editor's user talk page if you're in disagreement with their stance. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

National Course Atlas
This article is not well documented, but it seems to me to be useful. Of course, useful is not a reason to keep an article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is useful for students to determine if courses will be deemed equivalent at another institution when seeking enough credits for a degree. See useful for the difficulties connected with making that argument. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's published by the company AcademyOne. Perhaps searches including the company's name in the search criteria may yield more results. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Its already been deleted. You can talk to the administrator and say you dispute the prod and it'll be restored.   D r e a m Focus  03:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Another option is to request userfication of the article to your user namespace, from where the article can be worked upon to qualify topic notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the process advice. I see I should have disputed the prod earlier. Now userfication seems the best option to me. Perhaps there are paper sources to be found. Search engines don't have everything.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See REFUND  D r e a m Focus  04:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)