 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
April 2017
editFrom the history of the article:
- 21:11, 20 April 2017 NapoliRoma (1,797 bytes) (+1,776) . . (restore deleted article) (undo | thank)
- 10:25, 22 April 2017 Onel5969 (21 bytes) (-1,623) . . (Reverted to revision 776403107 by NapoliRoma (talk): Restore redirect of stub with only primary references. (TW)) (undo | thank)
- 09:49, 21 April 2017 PRehse(1,628 bytes) (-169) . . (undo | thank)
- 10:09, 21 April 2017 AnomieBOT (1,644 bytes) (+16) . . (Dating maintenance tags:
{{Primary}}) (undo) - 10:25, 22 April 2017 Onel5969 (21 bytes) (-1,623) . . (Reverted to revision 776403107 by NapoliRoma (talk): Restore redirect of stub with only primary references. (TW)) (undo | thank)
- 13:59, 22 April 2017 PBS (1,797 bytes) (+1,776) . . (rv to last reversion by NapoliRoma.) (rollback: 1 edit | undo)
@user:Onel5969 it is a stub there is more than one reference. Did you do a search and look for other sources before you did the revert. For example Google Book search returns lots of other sources. Why not choose some of those and expand the article? -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not a single independent reference. Why would you restore a virtually uncited stub without improving it, is a better question. Didn't say it should be deleted, simply that in its current form it is better as a redirect. Onel5969 TT me 15:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)