Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 14

< Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Alpha3031 in topic List of giant animals in fiction
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Young Pioneer Tours

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Concerns were raised that the subject is not notable apart from the Otto Warmbier incident. Would editors look for more sources? Cunard (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cunard: Please follow the guidelines on this page and present a solid rationale for keeping the article. Presenting only a characterization of one of the deletion arguments is not sufficient, and your showing up here two weeks after the AFD was opened with an increasingly large number of delete !votes makes this really look like canvassing, which also violates the guidelines on this page. You and others have had two weeks to Google sources that might theoretically be used to improve the article, and asking for more people to Google yet more is not going to improve the situation. I don't think many ARS members are even proficient in Chinese, where one would imagine the majority of non-Warmbier-focused sources would be, so why not try asking at WT:CHINA? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
"Delete" editors believe the subject is not notable apart from the Otto Warmbier incident. The only other deletion characterization is that the article was promotional, which I fixed with a rewrite. I am not presenting a "solid rationale for keeping the article" here because I presented it in the AfD. If I were to present the rational here, I would paste all the sources I posted in the AfD here which is unnecessary. I am posting here to ask for editors to look for sources apart from the Otto Warmbier incident. Per your suggestion, I've also posted at WT:CHINA asking editors to look for Chinese sources. All of the sources I found were English sources. Cunard (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Google news search for "Young Pioneer Tours" -"Warmbier" shows ample coverage not related to that one person. Seems odd people are arguing it doesn't meet the GNG. Reading through the news results now, and it seems they just keep quoting someone who worked there. Lot of news to look through to find anything that counts as significant coverage. Dream Focus 02:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Odd how a Google news search with "Young Pioneer Tours" -Warmbier -"Rowan Beard" still has some results with those two people's names in it appear. Anyway, went through enough to find what is needed to prove it meets the WP:GNG, so the article is rescued. Dream Focus 02:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dream Focus: I'm not sure how often you read newspaper articles while not looking for sources for Wikipedia articles at AFD, but when something (a "front page" topic, like the Warmbier incident) is in the news, there are frequently a large number of articles on "related topics" buried in pages further back in the same paper that may not directly reference the incident that inspired the coverage but assume an awareness of it on the part of the reader. I am sure a GNews search for "Tibet" would show a massive hike in the number of articles on the topic in 2008 over 2007 and 2009, even if one included -"Olympics" -"Olympic Games" in one's search. The real trick is to see if there was any coverage of the topic before either of those incidents. It's a problem with online news searches that supplementary stories like those almost definitely were appear more disconnected from the core news stories that inspired them than they did in print. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I think Google News search does filter things. I didn't see any bad results like that in the articles I clicked on. Did you see the sources I found, the two interviews I mentioned in the AFD? Dream Focus 03:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
"bad results"? "filter"? What are you talking about? And yeah, I saw them; the problem is that even if they don't directly mention whatever incident it was that inspired their coverage of the loosely related topic, it doesn't mean there was no such specific incident. Believe me: I grew up in Ireland, and know the Irish news media normally have next to no interest in China, Japan or Korea unless there's something in particular going on there. In this case, they're just profiling yet another Irishman living abroad and doing an interesting job. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Liero

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a clone of Worms and seems to have a following. Sourcing this doesn't seem to be easy but we may have some specialists in this topic area. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I just fixed the link to the proper AFD discussion. The previous one ended in merging various articles to that one. Dream Focus 03:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Dark Lady (character)

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There seem to be lots of literary aspects to this and so a variety of perspectives may help. Andrew D. (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The above is a non-neutral notification and violates the guidelines on this page. The literary aspects largely relate to a topic that already has a separate article (as had already been outlined in the AFD) or to other "Dark Ladies" in the works of other writers; creating an article on Wikipedia that compares these figures is WP:SYNTH pending a source that actually does the same, and none of the sources Andrew had located before posting the above apparently did so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It closed as delete, but the basic information is at Dark Lady already. Just lost a paragraph. Dream Focus 22:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Raw intelligence

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Making sense of such crude stubs which we see at AfD is like processing raw intelligence; sifting the sources and looking for confirmation. We're good at this, right? Andrew D. (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This ended in KEEP thanks to the work done by Andrew Davidson to the article. Dream Focus 22:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Unpopularity

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Today's selection is of special interest to those of us who feel the chill of disapproval from time to time. The nomination seems to be looking for more and better content on the subject. They don't say what that might be but maybe someone here has some ideas. I have suggested that we say something about unpopularity at an early age but I don't have time to work on this myself yet. Anyway, here's some inspiration from Cicero. Andrew D. (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Quodsi ea mihi maxime inpenderet tamen hoc animo fui semper, ut invidiam virtute partam gloriam, non invidiam putarem.
(unpopularity earned by doing what is right is not unpopularity at all, but glory)

— Marcus Tullius Cicero, Oratio in Catilinam Prima in Senatu Habita
Seems to be written by a socializer about their kind. "There has been considerable research documenting the effects of peer rejection, such as low academic achievement," seems like total nonsense, since nerds who don't feel the need to socialize have the best scores. The obvious bias in the article against hermits would need to be fixed. Dream Focus 12:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The result was keep.

Sink drain cover

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My view is that commonplace objects like this are always notable but it looks we need to demonstrate it. I recall that Hans Adler once gave the example of the egg slicer. One things for sure; this is not a dictionary definition. As this is such a common mistake, it's worth reading WP:DICDEF so that you understand the difference between a dictionary entry and a stub. Andrew D. (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Study abroad

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This will be of particular interest to our ex-patriate editors, especially those now based in Japan, as it was translated from their language. In my view, what's appropriate now is a merger but that's usually easier said than done. Andrew D. (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I will work on this merge sometime in the next week or so, though it's two very large articles coming together and it could be a lengthy process. When done I'll leave a note here so the Squadron can follow up as necessary. (Note: I only officially joined this Squadron last week, but I first interacted with you guys way back in 2009 when trying to improve an article that had been nominated for deletion. I've been cleaning up poorly-constructed articles ever since. Thanks!) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  Not done - The result of the AfD was indeed to merge to International student. That was two months ago and nobody has done the merge. In my last comment I said I would try it myself but I just can't figure out a way to do the merge smoothly. That's because Study abroad is largely about administrative requirements for Americans before studying elsewhere, while International student is about the issues faced by all international students after they take the plunge. The people who voted in the AfD may have to figure out the best way to do this. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Harvard–MIT Mathematics Tournament

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This article has been around for 10 years but doesn't have any sources so naturally gets a drive-by nomination by someone who hasn't read WP:BEFORE or WP:SOFIXIT. This is a routine job for the ARS but Wikipedia has lots of maths editors who may be able to help and it occurs to me that @Arthur Rubin: or @EEng: might know something about this so their views are welcome too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Please refrain from including non-neutral ad hominem criticisms/assumptions about the AFD nominators or pinging specific editors in your listings here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Scratch that. I didn't even know unconfirmed accounts could open AFDs. I guess that's just IPs. (Maybe point out that the nom is an SPA next time, rather than what you did here?) Anyway, this article does not appear to have any chance of getting deleted, so it's really unclear what the point of list it here is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
In the past, the ARS has too often been asked to help with hopeless cases – weak topics that are likely to be deleted regardless. This is unproductive and discouraging. It is better for the ARS to focus upon more promising topics and so I am listing the ones that I'm finding at AfD. In this case, it wasn't clear how the discussion was going to go because I was the first to comment. As the page in question had no sources, there was still useful work to be done. Andrew D. (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The result was speedy keep.

Dragonite

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Are your edits are often dramatic, bold or grandiose? Do you spend hour after hour on Google Books doing research for an article? Can you focus on a single article intensely? Maybe you're a WikiDragon too... Andrew D. (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: What are your suggestions for improving the article? The above joke-y meta comment would be amusing and charming, if you also indicated, in accordance with the guidelines on this page, a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, and any ideas to improve the content. You haven't edited the article talk page or the AFD yourself, so it's very difficult to determine what changes you think could be made to rescue the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The most obvious issue in this case is that there are blatant alternatives to deletion as just about every Pokemon is a blue link and so it is not our policy to delete them. I get the impression that this particular specimen is especially popular in Pokémon Go. That's had extensive coverage since its release in 2016 and so maybe that's a promising line of enquiry. Andrew D. (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the obvious solution is revert to a redirect, per BRD, and then allow discussion among interested editors whether an exception should be made for Pokemon #149 but not #147 (which redirects to a list) or #148 (which redirects to an unrelated article). This is how I !voted, this is the implied intention of User:Zxcvbnm, and this is almost certainly how the AFD will be closed; literally no one is saying "This page should be removed from public view". I'm confused what purpose posting this to ARS under these circumstances could serve, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW, Dragonite is in my experience no more popular in GO! than its fellow "quasi-legendary" Tyranitar and significantly less popular than Blissey. The only Pokémon GO! gym mainstay I can find who has a standalone article on English Wikipedia is Snorlax. The reason for Snorlax's popularity in GO! is essentially that it has high base HP, and it's far behind Blissey on that front. Obviously this is about reliable secondary sources providing significant and relevant coverage, not in-game stats (or even "reliable" secondary sources reporting on those stats). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The result was redirect.

Swamp monster

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

If you want to get down and dirty... :) Andrew D. (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: The above is a violation of the guidelines on this page. It includes neither a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia, nor any ideas to improve the content, and is nothing but a notification that an article is at AFD, with the clear implication of "This article is at AFD; you know what to do..." If no rationale or ideas for how to fix the article's problems are added within the next 24 hours, I will remove it as canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The suggestions above don't have formal guideline status and, even if they did, common sense is expected. In this case, my gut feeling was that the topic had potential as a broad concept page. Lambian has suggested the excellent source Swampmen: Muck-Monsters and their Makers and so matters are proceeding well. Andrew D. (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No, they don't, but WP:CANVAS does. If you come here and do nothing but link to the AFD, presumably because you think ARS members will be more likely to !vote one way than any other (even though my "userfy/draftify" middle way suggestion is getting some traction). Anyway, even if Lambian did find a source, who's going to do the heavy lifting of fixing the article? At a guess, I'd suspect that maybe one quarter of the contents of our article are even touched upon in that book (which probably says something different even for some of those). This shouldn't be allowed end up like the Korean influence on Japanese culture AFD, where the "TNT delete" !voters had to clean up the article while "keep" !votes either walked away apparently happy to have "won" the AFD or actively hindered improvement. What's your take on Moving the page to User:Andrew Davidson/Swamp monster? Or maybe even Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Swamp monster? (That one actually seems like a really good idea -- has it been tried before?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it has been tried before – see WP:INCUBATOR. It didn't work and now we have draft space which doesn't work well either. It's our policy to develop content in mainspace and that's the best place for it because readers and editors can collaborate together in a natural way. Local drafts aren't nearly so good because they have limited exposure and engagement. They are like a morass or swamp; topics get bogged down there. Andrew D. (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I know abour Article Incubator. What I meant to ask was whether this project had ever "adopted" problem articles like the swamp monster one into its own project space to fix them. The problem as I see it is that quite often ARS will come along and !vote down a proposed deletion of an article that clearly has next to nothing worth preserving, and then not actually do any work to fix the articles in question. With swamp monster, I and two other editors (so far) have looked at it and said "Wow, this article is a mess. Almost everything in it is textbook OR. I don't think anything would be lost by blowing it up and starting over." Presumably you and the other keep !votes disagree and see at least a sizeable portion of the article as salvageable, but if that's the case then the burden is on you to prove it by fixing the article. The above-mentioned "projectification" (?) would allow ARS members to do so without the time limit of AFD. Obviously it would need to still have some form of time limit, or perhaps there could be a limit on the number of drafts ARS can host at any one time, or something. Anyway, that's kinda beside the point. Your continued good-natured punning is much appreciated (and I'm being sincere; I had a good larf at your last sentence), but I still think that "winning" AFD "battles" and then running away without making any effort to fix the articles, which is what appears to be going on here (and certainly went on in the "mottainai" and "Korean influence" cases), is the opposite of the stated purpose of this project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
No members of any Wikiprojects are required to do what you are suggesting, so why should this one be any different? Dream Focus 02:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
So, you're admitting to using ARS as a forum to canvas for keep !votes in the AFD, and not to improve the article? Neither one of you has touched the article itself, and all Lambian has done is made it worse by inserting more apparent OR into the lead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I just improved the article in question, before reading your recent nonsense post here. No one is "admitting" anything, not sure how what I said got twisted around in your mind to make you think that. Most articles listed now didn't have anyone go to them, since no one thought they worth the bother of saving. Sometimes people feel like doing some work in an article, and sometimes they don't. Dream Focus 03:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This forum is currently being discussed elsewhere as a stealth CANVAS outlet and some people are gunning for its closure and maybe building evidence for a case? I don't know. It's currently under the spotlight so to speak and it might be best to consider some of the suggestions being made not in a personal way. -- GreenC 03:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The result was no consensus.

Relation (history of concept)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is mainly a case of cleanup but I'm not keen on philosophical topics myself. See also the similar AfD for Virtues (number and structure). Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The result was keep.

List of Wikipedia people

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I suppose that everyone is quite familiar with this topic. There's lots more scope for expansion. Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The result was no consensus.

Arlett Tovar

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article needs expansion and incorporation of references found via a basic Google News search. WP:FOOTY includes one top-division women's league despite there being dozens around the world. This particular league and its players have received a remarkable amount of news coverage in its first season. Hmlarson (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete.

Viridiana Salazar

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article needs expansion an incorporation of references found via a basic Google News search and in the AFD. WP:FOOTY includes one top-division women's league despite there being dozens around the world. This particular league and its players have received a remarkable amount of news coverage in its first season. Additional eyes appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The result was keep.

Medicine Trails

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Article was recklessly nominated for AfD though luckily a helpful British user who happened to pass by has managed to supply the following sources that support the retention of the article, in relation to early pan-American trails:

As the British man noted on the talk page of AfD, it's possible they may relate to parts of the Oregon Trail, Great Osage Trail or Santa Fe Trails or to the Lewis and Clark Expedition route.

Please help to fix the article using the above sources. Danke. 14.192.208.83 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Result Page moved to Draft:Medicine Trails Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Deneva Cagigas

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

In addition to the secondary sources already in the article, there are other articles about this player in Mexico's top-division football/soccer league available via a Google News search to support WP:GNG. WP:FOOTY does not include the majority of top-division women's leagues around the world -- only 1 on my last check. Hmlarson (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Userfied to User:Hmlarson/Deneva Cagigas

Learning by teaching

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Assuming you refer to the idea that ARS's stated goal of improving articles in order to save them is in opposition to the idea terrible articles with (next to) nothing worth saving on topics that might otherwise be notable (the essence of WP:TNT) ... honestly, it looks like ARS's whole raison d'être is WP:TNT, since if the topic is not notable then no efforts by ARS would fix that. (This of course assumes ARS is meant to improve articles rather than simply canvas !votes, although I must say that I still have not seen much of the former.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

KEEP was how it and the article for Jean-Pol Martin ended. Dream Focus 05:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Just noting here that the majority of "keep" !voters either recognized the problems with the articles and just thought they would be better dealt with by editing than by deletion, or didn't comment on said problems and instead made somewhat off-topic notability arguments, so the consensus statement (which was not in all caps) cannot be used as a rationale for preventing editors, even "delete" !voters, from fixing the articles. There was also not a strong/clear consensus for keeping the biographical article on Martin, as very few people actually commented on it (several who !voted in favour of keeping the latter actually supported deleting the former, a position which seems inherently problematic as writing BLPs in a neutral manner is a lot harder than doing so for articles with loose connections to BLP, but I'm still neutral on both so I'm not really bothered about it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
First off, why would anyone care if I wrote KEEP in all capital letters or not? It doesn't have any meaning. And nothing ever keeps anyone from working on articles. Dream Focus 01:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
why would anyone care if I wrote KEEP in all capital letters or not? It creates a false impression that there was overwhelming consensus that the articles should be kept, when in fact almost everyone was in agreement that the articles' content should be deleted, whether or not they considered the topic to be notable enough to merit its own article or two in theory. This is a problem because, historically if not necessarily in the immediate future involving this very article, POV-pushers have used AFD results that were based on the (false) belief that TNT is not a standard deletion rationale endorsed by the deletion policy (or the even worse belief that while TNT is valid, it doesn't apply to this or that article because their superficial Googling indicated that the content of the article was fine as is) to justify preserving clearly problematic content even after a near-unanimous AFD consensus that everything in the articles in question needed to go. See below.
And nothing ever keeps anyone from working on articles. Are you being facetious? If you are serious, then I must regretfully inform you that you are very, very wrong.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] And "regretfully" is me being sincere: I genuinely wish your assumption about how Wikipedia works were correct, but it weren't.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
You can still go and edit the article if you wish. No one is stopping you from improving it. And the fact you claim using capital letters somehow relies a message like that more than a simple lower case keep would, is just ridiculous. Dream Focus 10:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Umm ... did you not click the diffs? I was TBANned for the specific reason of preventing me from continuing to cause disruption on that page (and if you look at the details, the disruption was specifically edit-warring with the editor who had spearheaded the "keep" campaign during the AFD), said editor continued to cause disruption on the page until they were also TBANned, and left the site. Claiming that no one prevented me from editing it when I was literally banned from editing it is ... just wrong. Anyway, the article is in much better shape now -- after a year long mess that could have been prevented had the original garbage article (of which nothing currently remains anyway) been blown up in accordance with policy, an Arbitration case and a bunch of editors getting banned -- and telling me that I'm free to edit it now (which I should specify that I am) doesn't change the fact that "don't delete" consensuses in cases like this can cause massive disruption unless we are extremely careful about them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hyogo Performing Arts Center

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

This article needs a Japanese speaking editor to establish notability. Can anyone help? Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@G.scaringi: For future reference, you'd be better off posting notices like this at WT:JAPAN, or similar subject-specific WikiProjects; most of the contributors here will auto-!vote "keep" while pretending to be familiar with whatever topic is under discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Noted, thanks! Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Ignore Hijiri88 and his ridiculous lies. There are no problems with keep spamming. The last two articles tagged for Rescue that I participated in, I didn't say keep at all, just pointed out I couldn't find any reliable sources in English so couldn't comment if it was notable or not [22], and in another pointed out things wrong with an article and listed where the information should be instead. [23] There has never been any evidence of any keep spamming no matter how many times certain self deluded people keep claiming it as such. I also find it ridiculous someone can go to a Wikiproject they hate just to insult it constantly and spread lies every chance they get. Dream Focus 00:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ignore Hijiri88 and his ridiculous lies. Please retract this gross personal attack. It is a demonstrable fact that easily this project's most active contributor has a history of showing up to AFDs on niche academic topics with which he is unfamiliar, auto-!voting "keep", and pretending to be familiar with the scholarly literature in question, even to the point of carrying on long arguments with more specialized editors.[24] And even in the recent Namloyak case, which you present as an example of you not !voting "keep", you could see for yourself that the article didn't even make a reasonable claim to notability, and yet it burned you so hard to !vote anything other than "keep" that you refrained from doing so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I did not vote delete because I couldn't read the Google news sources that appeared in that language, so couldn't tell if they gave significant coverage or not. I have no trouble voting delete when the article clearly warrants it, such as this very recent example. [25] And there is more than one person in this Wikiproject. You clearly stated most of the contributors here will auto-!vote "keep" despite that never being the case. Kindly stop insulting people with your constant lies about the project or anyone who dares disagree with you anywhere on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 03:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I implore you to stop the personal attacks, if not for my benefit then for your own: the project (edit: "Project with a capital "P", as in English Wikipedia, not any particular WikiProject) really doesn't need an editor who hassles other editors this months while their article contributions need to be constantly monitored for plagiarized text.
(edit conflict)(I wrote the bit above spontaneously before seeing the response.) As for "most of the contributors here": that's really a matter of interpretation. I'd argue that since, for at least the past four months, the vast majority of this project's activity, and the AFD !votes that came from it, belonged to that one editor, judging the project by their actions is not inappropriate. Furthermore, your !votes in, for example, the Dark Lady AFD was essentially the same: you Googled up a single source and posted a link to it without even reading it.[26]
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC) (edited 04:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC))
I have never plagiarized text, just didn't reword certain things enough to satisfy certain people. You whine about stopping the personal attacks but then insult me with that idiotic lie. And that character was dark in personality, thus a dark lady character. Not sure why you felt the need to dig up that disagreement from months ago to try to prove whatever ridiculous point you are trying to make. And I assume you are trying to be ironic with your comment about the project really doesn't need an editor who hassles other editors. That's all you seem to do here, insulting the project and its members, saying it should be gotten rid of, you have no reason to be here other than to troll us. Why not find a Wikiproject you like and participate in them instead? Dream Focus 03:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Didn't reword enough to satisfay certain people? I went back through your contribs and took a random sampling of edits from over the course of several years, and something like 70% of them included copy-pasted text.[27] You advertise on a user page of yours that no one has managed to delete the Mottainai Grandma article, but virtually every word you added to it was deleted, some removed from public view in the same manner as AFD. Your recent comment on the Namloyak AFD really looks like a deliberate attempt to prove that you sometimes comment on AFDs without auto-!voting keep, given that you brought it up out of the blue a day after you made it as though it was related to the problem with this project, when it had not been mentioned on this project. Anyway, I'm not "whining" about personal attacks: I'm warning you that if you don't change your ways you're going to wind up indefinitely blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC) (edited 04:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC))
I do not copy paste text ever, unless its in a quote. If 70% of my edits did that, I'm sure you could list some examples. I list all the articles I created. The information I had on the Mottainai Grandma article is mostly still there, just rewritten a slight bit, it still referencing the same places I referenced. And what it looks like to you is irrelevant to reality. I explained why I didn't vote keep or delete at Namloyak's AFD. I have for years participated in AFDS where I said keep, delete, or just made comments without choosing either of those. And you can warn me as many times as you want, and everyone else you disagree with, it doesn't mean its going to happen. You are the one causing conflict here, not me. Dream Focus 04:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
DF, I know it's poor form to (repeatedly!) edit portions of my comments after you have already replied to them, in a manner that makes it look like you didn't read or didn't understand them, but it's worse form for you to repeatedly pretend like I haven't already listed numerous examples, of which you were definitely aware. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You link to examples where you whine about a few minor things, and blow things out of propulsion. You didn't show this ridiculous claim of 70% you just stated. Dream Focus 04:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Just for the records, my thanks were for the advice to post my notice (also) to subject-specific WikiProjects (and I don't intend to engage in any personal controversies). Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The Japanese version of the article (English Translation) isn't much help in terms of refs, with almost all focused on naming rights and only two of those being independent as newspaper articles (with broken links). There is a GRIPS report with background information, but that wouldn't show notability. Suggest focusing around opening day, October 22, 2005, or other significant days for the Center, otherwise you get all the individual events. StrayBolt (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@StrayBolt: Not sure how familiar you are with the issue in general, but ja.wiki is notorious for not citing sources, which makes it pretty useless when Japanese topics comes to AFD. Pick any random super-notable topic or topic that everyone in Japan has heard of and compare the Japanese and English articles: 90% of the time the English one will cite more sources, even if the Japanese article is longer. This says nothing about topic notability, of course. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Namloyak

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Afd because does not meet WP:BIO and WP:IRS, but perhaps just needs better sourcing. He is a Tibetan-Chinese bilingual poet. Can some Chinese and/or Tibetan speaking editors help find reliable independent sources? Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@G.scaringi: This is what I was talking about with Hyogo Arts Centre: I doubt anyone regularly monitoring this page reads Tibetan, and the best place to ask for Chinese sources is WT:CHINA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Builder's tea

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

A hearty, energising brew favoured by those who roll their sleeves up and get some work done. I've just had two cups and so am ready to get building. Andrew D. (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I am having one right now :) Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The result was keep.

@Andrew: Replying here since the AFD was closed before I noticed it, and I'm honestly neutral on the article (it doesn't look great ATM, but I don't know enough about the topic to say whether a less NOTDICT-like entry could be built out of it), but could you stop citing the "alternatives to deletion" as a reason to oppose AFDs when you apparently believe "redirect title without merging content" is an alternative and that AFD is not the place to establish consensus for that, while the community "AFD_is_not_for_redirecting"? appears to disagree. Now that the AFD has been closed as "consensus to keep", thanks in no small part to your !vote that didn't reasonably discount redirecting, it would be extremely difficult to unilaterally redirect the page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

List of highest paid mayors

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Edit: People are claiming this article should be deleted per WP:SYNTH because the article regroups all the information found in different source, and present it in the same graph, making it a synthesis of published material drawing conclusions for made in the sources. However, I feel the subject meets the WP:GNG because you can find a plethora of lists on this topic by simple googling the topic of the article. I feel that, if the graph is separated by country, then the article would more accurately reflect the sourcea nd would be less misleading, and that could save it. Emass100 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Emass100 (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Emass100: Please familiarize yourself with WP:CANVAS and redact your above message accordingly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not WP:CANVAS. I have a nonpartisan and neutral specific rationale for keeping the article, and I put a suggestion to improve the article, as the guideline says. The only thing I forgot was to disclose this post on the AfD, but that has since been corrected. Emass100 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing neutral about your above notification. If you can't see that, then you shouldn't be making notifications. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Yea, you're right. Sorry, I'm a bit new to AfD discussions. I have rephrased it to make it more neutral, like the others on this page. Emass100 (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Posting here about AFD discussions is generally considered acceptable. I'd be surprised if anyone can remedy the WP:SYNTH issues, but if they do, they should ping me to re-consider my vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd wonder about "generally", since some recent discussions have indicated that some editors consider it acceptable and others think this page should be MFDed and the project made "historical", with the latter not necessarily being fewer than the former. Anyway, the canvassing I mentioned above was not so much about the venue but the wording of the notification. The current version is, IMO, better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Latvian Maritime Academy

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

AfD because the references do not establish notability. The article has now been improved considerably but it could be expanded more, and more references could be added. The article is about a well-known public university in Latvia. It has pages in Latvian, Estonian and Russian which are considered fine. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Mottainai Grandma

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The nominator claims "it set to remain a microstub indefinite". Can someone help expand the article please, and find any additional reliable sources out there? Dream Focus 16:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, it was closed as speedy keep because the nominator (me) withdrew it due to harassment from the article's creator (Dream Focus). DF citing the "speedy" part given this background, while carefully neglecting to mention the reason, seems somewhat pointed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The only harassment is you constantly lying and claiming the creation of the article was to prove some sort of point, despite never explaining what point that was. Four people said it should be kept, you arguing with everyone, and then you just gave up and withdrew it. You then continued to argue and claim nonsense after that. Now you come here and claim harassment, which apparently is anyone daring to disagree with you. Dream Focus 14:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"Now you come here and claim harassment" is, even within the above remark, laughably wrong. This is what I wrote on ANRFC: My nomination received no support, and was attracting unwanted negative attention from the article's creator among others, so I withdrew my nomination. And no, "among others" was not "anyone daring to disagree with me": you and Magin1522 were not making coherent "keep" arguments, instead focusing exclusively on slinging mud at both me and one of the others who "dared to disagree with me". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Maelcum Soul

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Subject died before age of the internet. Preliminary WP:Before revealed some potential sources (newspapers.com). Subject may meet ENT or GNG Thsmi002 (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Subject may have alternative names, as she's referred to as Mrs. Dudley Gray based on this source [28] Thsmi002 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Doria Ragland

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The royal wedding is dominating Wikipedia traffic currently – about half the top 100 articles are related to it. Only this one seems to have been nominated for deletion. Maybe it's a joke but some readers are not amused. Andrew D. (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Closed as SNOW keep.

Foresight Institute Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

AfD after a prod was satisfactorily removed. Have found an article or two that has passed the critics as RS. Many sources out there are related to the press releases so often there is churnalism. There are some other Feynman Prizes out there so don't be confused by them. StrayBolt (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  • The result was no consensus.

Crowd

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia is crowd-sourced and "many hands make light work". Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The result was Keep.

List of works set in a single day

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

AfD has a repetitive quality like Groundhog Day which may inform work on this topic. Andrew D. (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Laser fence

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A fence made from a "laser" – what's not to like? Throw some frickin' bones at it please... Andrew D. (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I had no idea they were using laser fences to keep back birds, bugs, rats, and even people trying to illegally cross border in some nations. Added some referenced material to the article. [30] I'm glad I could help rescue an article like this, since this is what I originally came to Wikipedia to read. Dream Focus 02:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Holvi

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Stub on a Finnish online bank. A partnership with the Government of Estonia's unique e-residency programme makes the company distinctly different from other banks, in my view.MinotaurX (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please frame posts here neutrally, regardless of "your view". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
"Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Wikipedia", is what they did. The fact they said "in my view" doesn't mean they aren't being neutral. Dream Focus 18:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Allow me to rephrase - 'in my view' = 'according to me interpretation of the rules'. MinotaurX (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Do the needful

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

WP:DICDEF is commonly misunderstood as that policy page explains. It is a good education to read it and understand what it says. The issue of Indian English is quite interesting too. I have turned up several sources and so it seems likely that there's more to find. Andrew D. (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Goat people

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This is a broad concept article and, as these are often not well understood at AfD, we can help by explaining and demonstrating the concept. Goatification was a running theme at Wikimania last year and so there's some fun to be had with the concept. Andrew D. (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It did not end in "keep". That was a very, very bad non-admin close. It's cases like this that led me to my belief that non-admins should never be allowed close AFDs or RMs except in clear WP:SNOW cases in favour of the status quo. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Whoops. Should've updated this. The AFD was reopened so still ongoing. So is the merge discussion that makes the AFD even more pointless. Dream Focus 03:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Magic of Thinking Big by David J. Schwartz (motivational writer)

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Note: removed "(motivational writer)" from above search

Thinking big here with two nominations, the 1959 motivational book (latest english reprint in 2015) and the professor of marketing author. Much of the articles' promotional past versions text has been removed, but it still needs more WP:RS. As one editor wrote, "thats enough unreliable sources for now". StrayBolt (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! StrayBolt (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Annie LeBlanc (entertainer)

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Current version seems too promotional or fan-like. Content sourced to gossip sites needs to be removed. I think there may be a case for notability based on Billboard charts, awards/nominations, acting roles, and YouTube following...but this may be hidden by the tone and superfluous information. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

"The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thsmi002 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Feminist rhetoric

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

An understanding of rhetoric is useful on Wikipedia as there are numerous discussions and debates. What's being asked for in this case is an extensive rewrite of the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

An article on the path to snow keep, for which only the nominator (who probably just hasn't got around to withdrawing the nomination) is currently arguing for deletion against unanimous opposition; why is it necessary to post this on the "rescue list"? I know that the supposed purpose of this project is to improve articles where the problems are something that can be addressed that way, but it is not actually used that way, and it seems that only one or two people apart from Andrew and myself (who were both already aware of the AFD) are actually watching this list, so what could come of posting here escapes me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"The result was keep. Sandstein 09:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)"

Sources: 1 removed, 1 added of 19; 19,043 -> 15,672 bytes; Changes; no Delete votes; WP:NOTCLEANUP StrayBolt (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy call

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is much need for good information about etiquette. "Manners maketh man"... Andrew D. (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"The result was keep. Enigmamsg 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)"

Sources added 0 -> 9; Size 1,321 -> 5,854 bytes; @Icewhiz: with the most additions; 2 deletes were reversed after improvements. StrayBolt (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Greasy pole

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's an amusing analogy for Wikipedia which can be quite Sisyphusian. There seem to be many variations in many places and so there's good scope to improve this and so prevent the contributions from slipping all the way to the bottom. Andrew D. (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"The result was keep. Since it was brought up, there was no consensus for a rename here, but that conversation can take place on the talk page. Good suggestions for improvement in the discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)"

Puzzle Puppers

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like some help finding additional references for this article, and to expand it if possible. Dream Focus 16:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I added Metacritic which has 4 reviews, of which 2 you have already used. StrayBolt (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"The result was keep. No one except nominator supports deletion. Shutting this down also to prevent more personal discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)"

Sources added; Size 2,192 -> 5,714 bytes (161% increase); @Sergecross73: with the most additions; 2 deletes were struck after improvements. StrayBolt (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Stanley Sfekas

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Greek WP:Academic. Notability questioned. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Sfekas 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The result was DELETE. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Vishnu Puran (TV series)

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

This topic needs some sources but I'm not finding anything more than mentions such as this. It seems like it was big in its day so maybe there's some offline or foreign language sourcing out there. Andrew D. (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't asking WT:INDIA be better? I don't think any Rescuers read Hindi or other Indian languages... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I would have thought WT:INDIA would have used WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India but it uses WikiProject_India/Article_alerts which has a lag going to the project page, but are at least known to be in the project. StrayBolt (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@StrayBolt: Meh. I'm a member of WP:JAPAN, but while I watch this list and that project's talk page, I don't watch the Japan deletion sorting, partly 'cause most of it is of next-to-no interest to me since I'm frankly not interested in getting in arguments over whether this or that obscure manga merits its own article. The kind of articles I spend my time writing hardly ever get AFDed (ironically the article under discussion was started by me back when my tastes were different and Wikipedia was "elementary and often wrong"), and I sometimes find myself questioning the motives of editors who spend time fighting to get this or that obscure manga or musical album its own en.wiki article when well over 90% of the surviving otogi-zōshi still don't have articles. All of this is to say that not posting on WT:INDIA means many India-focused editors with similar editing patterns to me will likely not notice it, and that posting here is unlikely to attract any attention, since it seems you, Andrew and I are the only editors watching this page right now.
@Andrew Davidson: You seem to be very much scraping the bottom of the barrel there. That account has made three edits to English Wikipedia, and none to any other Wikimedia project. None of their edits implied they were actively monitoring this list even back in April when they made them (most editors with the ARS template on their page almost never contribute to AFDs posted here, for whatever reason), and the fact that you had to go back to a one-off account created and abandoned four months ago to find an example of an editor who read Hindi and was technically listed as a member of this project should set off alarms that messaging ARS is less effective than messaging WP:INDIA would be.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I started at the top of the membership list, where new additions are added, and just looked down the list for a name with an Indian sound to it. I didn't have to go far before I found that user, who is #8 in the list. They signed up earlier this year and maybe he's just waiting to be asked. Per WP:CHOICE and WP:VOLUNTEER, Wikipedia is not forced labour and so we have to entice and encourage participation. Andrew D. (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Weird that you'd cite those twp given how often I've seen WP:SOFIXIT thrown in the face of "deletionists" who had already made tremendous effort to do so around here. Anyway, you're dodging the question; regardless of that editor's motivation for registering an account, immediately signing up for editing in two controversial areas (if I recall, two of the DS topic areas relate to India, and ARS is ... well, ARS) and then not editing again, the fact is that when posting here you had no reason whatsoever to believe such an editor would see your post. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
You are doing fine Andrew, not a force labor camp, hah! Good to see someone with a sense of humor and not taking things too seriously around here, sign of a healthy mind. -- GreenC 14:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Per suggestion (at the top), I posted a request for help finding sources at WT:India. StrayBolt (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

List of giant animals in fiction

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"We're going to need bigger guns!" and "...a bigger boat!". Andrew D. (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The result was delete. The debate was lengthy and well-contested at points on both sides, but consensus favors deletion, and it is correctly pointed out that there is no clear way to delineate the parameters of such a list. I do note, however, that it may be worthwhile to create an article on the topic of Giant animals in fiction, rather than merely pursuing a list. bd2412 T 04:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comedy in the Philippines

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This has to be an important topic, but I don't have the language skills or cultural knowledge to adequately fix it. It's currently orphaned, unreferenced, opinionated and difficult to read. Might anyone on here be able to help it out? I've cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. › Mortee talk 00:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC) › Mortee talk 00:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While some have contended that this is trivia, it is a well-written article on a well-sourced topic. Perhaps this is why the article has survived several prior challenges at AfD. As for ideas for improvement, perhaps the many sources in the article (and other sources as well) could be used to expand the text. I believe this has Featured List potential. Lepricavark (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  • "The result was keep… The key - and only relevant - question that had to be discussed here was: Is this a notable topic for a stand-alone list per WP:LISTN In this regard, it took a few days before the first !voter (Cunard) provided significant amount of sources to argue in favor of notability. Once sources were provided and the discussion focused more on notability and less on whether this is a trivial topic for inclusion, the consensus shifted notably towards agreeing that facial hair in American politics is a notable encyclopeic topic that received significant coverage in a lot of reliable sources… In the end, this discussion did not noticeably add new information compared to the four previous discussions and as such a new nomination will have to demonstrate that the topic is non-notable to not be considered disruptive. This discussion has shown that people on both sides are not opposed to creating a more inclusive page that deals with facial hair and its impact on American politics in general and creating such a page and then merging this list to it seems a possible way forward that should be discussed in earnest. Regards SoWhy 16:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)" (edited)
Lengthy result for the 4th nomination also mentioned canvassing, sockmaster, and poor rationale. StrayBolt (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

List of emergency telephone numbers

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The main debate issues are WP:NOTYELLOW and the reliability of the data. StrayBolt (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: You're slipping back into the old habits I thought I had talked you out of back in February. Please follow the guidelines at the top of this page by providing a valid rationale for keeping the page, and ideas for how to improve it, not joke-y comments like the above and "BY THE LEFT - DOUBLE - MARCH!" that essentially amount to "Here's the AFD: you know what to do..." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The result was speedy keep. It's snowing.Whilst it might technically violate elements of NOTDIRECTORY, common-sense ought to prevail. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 13:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrayBolt (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Drill commands

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"BY THE LEFT - DOUBLE - MARCH!" Andrew D. (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  • "The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by the nominator. In addition to the withdrawal, there is a consensus that the article should be improved rather than deleted, to be suitable enough for inclusion per the standards of Wikipedia. Unsourced content shouldn't be added back without reliable sources and such additions should be dealt with via the usual methods (revert, warning, block, etc). (non-admin closure)  The editor whose username is Z0 10:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)"
The majority of the article was unsourced and deleted[31], so finding sources would still be useful. StrayBolt (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Older people's associations

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This seems to be a topic with much potential. Andrew D. (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • "The result was no consensus. There are good arguments on both sides of the debate. The only consensus that I can discern is that the article needs significant work. No prejudice against taking this to AfD again if improvement (and good sources!) is not forthcoming in, say, another 6 months. Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrayBolt (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_14&oldid=1242941040"