Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 17

< Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list
Latest comment: 5 years ago by 7&6=thirteen in topic JK! Studios
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Fritter roll

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
MERGE
The result was merge to Fritter#United Kingdom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Anyone hungry for a fritter roll? I discovered this on Prod patrol. The nominator was not receptive to my attempts to fix up the article. I found evidence in the NY Times and BBC about Fritter roll variations. However the Nominator did not allow the article to be changed. See if you can edit this one successfully, without nominator interference and perhaps we can save the beloved Fritter roll. I stopped trying when it got close to being an edit war. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I would counsel anyone willing to take up the challenge to familiarise themself fully with the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fritter roll to get a full perspective on this editor's campaign to supplement the article with patently irrelevant material. Both of the sources mentioned above refer to fritters but neither to "fritter rolls", bread rolls or indeed the word "roll" at all. By all means if you can find genuine sources related to the article, knock yourself out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Well at least you all know now that I was not using hyperbole to describe the nominator's attitude. I am not even that interested in Fritter roll's however I am flummoxed by the nominator's ownership of the subject. Knock yourselves out or sit it out. But Fritter rolls are doomed without massive help. Lightburst (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
"Fritter roll" references in your sources? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
This debate should be in the AFD not here. If there are any cooking shows or cooking books in Scotland that someone has access to, please see if this is a common thing. Or do restaurants list their menus online somewhere? Dream Focus 22:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Apparently the title of this article should be "Roll and fritter". RS will likely not be found, however my search term of "Glasgow Roll and fritter" shows how widespread this food is in Glasgow, Scotland. I added these non- RS sources to the AfD perhaps someone can find actual RS with different search terms. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joey Jett

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JK! Studios

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
JK! Studios – No consensus. In this DRV, opinions are about 2:1 in favor of having another administrator re-close the discussion because of concerns that the closer was involved in the AfD discussion. This is a clear majority, but short of the required rough consensus to overturn the closure. In such cases, the DRV closer can, at their discretion, relist the AfD. I decline to do so because the AfD was already relisted twice, which is the normal maximum, and had plenty of input. The closure is therefore maintained by default. User:Sandstein

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Start up studio staffed by Conan refugees. Sources exist and can be improved. WP:NEXIST, and WP:Notability questions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted by an arithmetically disinterested contributor. There is a question about sources in the article. WP:RS? IMO, WP:Hey, as article is not what it was when the W:PROD was filed. But you can add sources and make up your own mind. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Per the closer: "The result was delete. For a detailed explanation of the assessment of keep !votes, please read User talk:Lourdes#JK! Studioss. Post relisting, the only Keep !vote editor claims they heard the group on a show; and therefore the same should be kept. Again, nothing based on policy or notability guidelines. If any editor has an issue with the closure, they can contact me on my talk page. Thanks."
So we are clear, the !vote was 7 Keep and 2 Delete So much for consensus to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I just saw the result. I have commented and questioned the closer on on the closer's talk page. Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
User:7&6=thirteen, Re: this edit (which is right) would it make sense to add at the bottom of the AfD below the last !vote so closing admins know any Keep's above that point were organic and not alerted via ARS. Not to say closers are ignoring ARS !votes but it wouldn't hurt to distinguish a break between pre and post ARS !votes in the AfD. -- GreenC 16:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 12 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alis Rowe

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
DELETE
The result was Delete.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • The nominator claims that the subject of the article wants the article deleted. However, subject is a public figure of interest and notoriety through public appearances, and in magazines, and on the BBC and through. An prolific author of books and magazine articles about autism. As an author subject has won awards for subject's books. The page has existed for four years and passed two AfDs. I believe that a notable public person does not have a right to delete a WP article, even if they are the subject. I will see what the community says about this. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we can improve the article with more references. I have added portals to the article. Lightburst (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Somayeh Mohammadi

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diary of an Unborn Child

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
The result was keep. The clear overwhelming consensus here is keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Controversial subject. I managed to locate several sources and put them in the article. The original "Diary of an Unborn Child" was read on the floor of the New York State Senate by Republican Senate Majority Leader Earl W Brydges on April 10, 1970. The subject has been in the public domain since 1970, and has been used over and over by both sides of this controversial issue ...and even made into a disturbing or campy song. Lightburst (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Just minutes later the AfD closed: No Consensus.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Gateway article to separate lists of all the world's cities. Listed alphabetically by name and by country. the related lists are up for deletion, too. I think this pivot point is useful to Wikipedia's readers and should be WP:Preserved. WP:Not paper and question about sourcing. Improve them if you can. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commuter Cars

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
MERGE
The result was merge to Commuter Cars Tango.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

  • Notable company. I found sources in Time Magazine, CNN Money and a blurb in Bloomberg. I spent some time trying to develop the categories and improve the refs. Perhaps more refs can be located. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Should be considered in conjunction with Commuter Cars Tango. I have improved the reference formatting on the latter article, but it would be improved by moving some of the "References" to in line citations. I also improved the formatting of the reference in this article Commuter Cars. In any event, between the two articles, there is plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NEXIST. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The All Seeing Carnac the Magnificent says "Entering the expressway." "Merging ahead?" But it ain't over until ... it's over. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Myrcella Baratheon

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is the vanguard of a second wave, as discussed below. Note also that there's a proposal to prevent new users from commenting at AfD. That might be significant for such a high-traffic article and so provides good context. Andrew D. (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added lots of sources. WP:Hey, but more is always in order. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Per the closer: "The result was no consensus. OK, having lots of readers is not a reason to keep an article under notability guidelines. The question of whether GNG is met isn't so clear, as most of the sources are stated to be plot summaries rather than detailed analysis and there is the - somewhat vague - concern about non-independent sources raised. A merger was also discussed, but there does not appear to be a clear consensus either pro ("usual practice for minor characters") or con ("target is too long"). My sense is that while the keep arguments probably out-weigh the delete ones owing to several uncontested sources, the merge/redirect or no case would need a dedicated discussion." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Visible balance

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The page has cleanup tags since 2009 but they are useless because it's like they are not visible. See banner blindness. Andrew D. (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of guest stars on Sesame Street

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Referencing things on the list should be easy enough. Just a lot of things need reference. I was thinking perhaps putting things into columns would be better. Dream Focus 04:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
Keep Per the closer: "The result was keep. Albeit, weak." .

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs moire and better sources. Several of the buildings on on NRHP. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Remedial math candidate? Oh well. It's still a keep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

==Tameka Hobbs==

REDIRECT
The result was redirect to Democracy Abroad, Lynching At Home.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Professor Phd., writer/author guest speaker. I found some non-trivial coverage of the subject. I also started to add to the article. Lightburst (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arthur Hills

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was Keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Very notable golf course designer. I have found non-trivial coverage of this subject and began work on the article. He started designing courses in 1967, and has designed 200 courses - several in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio. In other countries as well, Portugal and Croatia Lightburst (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of battleships by country

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
REDIRECT
The result was Redirect.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone suggested this list of lists article could be useful for navigation. I agree. Not sure how to rework it to be clearer what it is though. Any ideas? Dream Focus 02:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A. D. Kenamond

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep WP:SNOW.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability questions. See WP:Academic 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Closed as a Snow Keep Dream Focus 21:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of cities with the most high-rise buildings

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
DELETE
The result was Delete.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some dispute over whether the source for the information is valid. Does anyone know of any official government websites that list information about this or other sources of information? Dream Focus 00:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Han–Uyghur intermarriage

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
REDIRECT
Redirect "The result was redirect to History of Xinjiang." The well-reasoned and extensive discussion by the closer, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus is just too long to repeat here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nationalist topics like this tend to be difficult but neutral parties may help in providing an independent view. The ARS has been invoked in discussion already so it belongs on the list. Mind how you go... Andrew D. (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Given the above explicit reference to me, it's difficult not to take the above "neutral parties" as a reference to my "deletionists telling editors who specialize in this topic area what they can and can't do with their own articles". It's worth noting that in the past, in cases like this one, such "neutral parties" have generally created more heat than light. I can definitely see the above ARS posting resulting in an endgame wherein 4-5 editors with a focus on Chinese and Central Asian topics all say either "delete" or "redirect" with nuanced reasoning related to the article in question and our deletion policy, 2-3 deletionists say "keep" with off-topic notability arguments, and a closer who just counts the votes and says "no consensus". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This is not an attempt to improve an article, it is blatant canvassing. Why would you come to ARS (a project specifically focused on keeping/improving articles) to seek "neutral" opinions? Please withdraw the nomination or explain how the article can be improved to satisfy the concerns of the deletion nominator, as stated in the instructions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I should point out that while editing (or rather, a complete overhaul of the article) could address the concerns of the AFD, what is really needed for that is topic specialists who know what they are doing, and historically this project's deletionist members have tended to favour "improving" articles such as the one linked above and Mottainai and Mottainai Bāsan in the opposite direction to anyone who had !voted "delete" or similar, often by attempting to keep all the articles' present content intact regardless of what their sources say. The random, off-topic sinophobic jab Andrew made here makes it difficult not to assume that is his intention here as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christopher Kaelin

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
DELETE
Delete Per the closer:"The result was delete. Insufficient coverage to show he meets WP:NPROF or WP:GNG."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IMO, well sourced article about a geneticist. But you can help improve it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lists of tallest buildings

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
DELETE AND ONE KEEP
The result was Delete But List of tallest buildings in Tysons, Virginia was Keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Delete Per the closer: "The result was delete. Even if the nomination is inaccurate, editors have presented valid arguments for deletion later. The request to keep the talk page discussion as a record of a page move discussion that also applied to other pages is reasonable so I'll leave it." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
DeletePer the closer: "The result was delete. The arguments that this is so poorly sourced as not to warrant a merger are convincing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

There's several of these now so it seems sensible to consolidate them. Andrew D. (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Short list and short referenced article on short buildings. Needs improvement, if you can find sources. List itself could be made longer. See discussion on article talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

While I think there are many reasons to keep the article, there is a claim that there isn't WP:SIGCOV. More and better would address the problem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be the first to admit that the article can use some work. Two years ago, I did a lot of the research that populated the "proposed" list. Too many hours digging through county permit filings. At least one of those proposed items should move up to the "under construction" section, but I don't have the time right now to dig out which one it is and do the editing. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Olde Boston Bulldogge

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I believe this article was deleted with neither a deletion +tag being posted nor any discussion. The Olde Boston Bulldogge definitely existed and exists.1234567etcetera So, how do we repeal this incorrect decision made by "one" administrator? Thank you Aquataste (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Aquataste: The deletion log says "00:41, 4 March 2019 Fastily talk contribs deleted page Olde Boston Bulldogge (Expired PROD, concern was: None of the sources cited come close to being reliable.)". A PROD is supposed to be easily reversible at WP:REFUND. You're still going to have trouble though as this appears to be a variant of the Boston Terrier and seems more of a commercial brand than a traditional breed. Commercial breeders and growers are constantly making proprietary hybrids and varieties and only the exceptional ones are going to survive here. The name of this breed is pretentious per ye olde and so its chances don't seem good. Andrew D. (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: Thank you for your timely response. The Olde Boston Bulldogge was the progenitor to the Boston Terrier, without it no Boston Terrier would exist. You see there were many citations at the article before deletion. I really do not understand why it was deleted. Aquataste (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If that is true,, if could be incorporated into the Boston Terrier page, and documented with a redirect. You seem to be suggesting it is a progenitor and an extinct breed. OTOH, we do have extinct dog breed articles. See List of extinct dog breeds. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aquataste: You're welcome. The {{old prod}} template should be added to the talk page in such cases. This should protect the article from further attempts to prod it as that process is only supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletion. I have also added other relevant templates. Andrew D. (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urban dog

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
DELETE
The result was Delete.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suppose everyone here is familiar with the concept of a WP:STUB, right? If not, the discussion may help. And so to bed.... Andrew D. (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I Google news search for "differences" and "urban dog" but don't see anything relevant. Is there a difference between a dog in a city and those elsewhere? More parks to poop in perhaps? Dream Focus 02:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ignore all rules

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This core Wikipedia policy is wonderfully paradoxical and self-referential and so it is not surprising that it should get attention outside. Perhaps it's a principle that has been tried elsewhere? Where I live, some workmen recently painted large numbers on the road to remind drivers of the new 20 mph speed limit. But about 90% of drivers break a 20 mph speed limit and so the issue of compliance with rules is commonplace. As some would like to make rules about what we can say here, the topic is quite timely... Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • It's certainly possible to find more external sources about this. For example, in the New York Review of Books, writer Nicholson Baker covered this as one of The Charms of Wikipedia, explaining that this was "the first Wikipedian rule". Also, there is lots of anarchist theory which may cover this as a general principle under some other heading. Anyway, the nomination invokes the rule WP:GNG but that's just a guideline which explicitly cites the policy itself: " and occasional exceptions may apply"
  • The concept has legal and equitable precursors. These should be the subject of further research In any event, an WP:AFD of this particular article is a case of wrong place, wrong time. Fundamentally, it is misguided attempt to blind editors to alternative ways and views of editing, in the name of encyclopaedic purity. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep The result was keep 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christopher Walter Waitt

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
REDIRECT
Redirect Per the closer: "The result was redirect to No. 550 Squadron RAF. This was a complex AfD with many sincere and well argued comments. There is no doubt that this is a nicely written page, that certainly contains much material of interest, and I have considered WP:NOTPAPER. However, we work within the notability guidelines, specifically WP:SOLDIER and more generally WP:GNG. In this regard, I find the 'delete' arguments clearly more policy based, and hence stronger, than the 'keep' arguments.
"Moving on to the action to be taken, redirects are cheap and I see no reason not to create a redirect to sourced content on this person that will be useful to the reader. Normally, i would 'delete and redirect'. However, the editors of the target may wish to merge more content and there is no need to make that difficult. Clearly, though, a recreation should not happen without further discussion so I am going to protect the redirect."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another RAF pilot and this one fought in both World Wars. Can we locate the pre 1974 references to WP:PRESERVE? User:Lightburst 21:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirect Per the closer: "The result was redirect to No. 550 Squadron RAF. This was a complex AfD with many sincere and well argued comments. There is no doubt that this is a nicely written page, that certainly contains much material of interest, and I have considered WP:NOTPAPER. However, we work within the notability guidelines, specifically WP:SOLDIER and more generally WP:GNG. In this regard, I find the 'delete' arguments clearly more policy based, and hence stronger, than the 'keep' arguments.
"Moving on to the action to be taken, redirects are cheap and I see no reason not to create a redirect to sourced content on this person that will be useful to the reader. Normally, i would 'delete and redirect'. However, the editors of the target may wish to merge more content and there is no need to make that difficult. Clearly, though, a recreation should not happen without further discussion so I am going to protect the redirect." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brennan Malone

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
MERGE
The result was Merge.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Merge "The result was merge" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andrew G. Geishecker

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
DELETE
The result was Delete.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long time Massachusetts judge. Since he is locally elected, presumably he needs to meet WP:GNG. hard to believe he did nothing worth writing about in his career, but I don't know. Because he died in 1974, coverage on internet is sparse. Needs someone with ability to look at old newspapers to salvage. Ordinary internet searches are not producing anything that I could find beyond the Boston Globe articles that are cited in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete Per the closer: "The result was delete."
No saving a local lowest state court judge without WP:GNG and WP:Sigcov. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Epistemology of Wikipedia

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
Keep "The result was keep. Withdrawn - mea culpa on the lackluster BEFORE search."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Philosophy tends to be difficult but this topic looks to be thought-provoking. What is the nature of the world's information that we are assembling here? What are the implications of deletion when admins can still see the content and it has been forked elsewhere? Verifiability, not truth? Truthiness? Citation needed? Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Buildings in Jersey City

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
MIXED RESULTS
The result was mixed. Some keep some delete.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keep Per the closer: "The result was keep. While there seems to be some disagreement about whether the current sourcing of the article is adequate (per SportingFlyer), it seems like the sourcing presented by Andrew Davidson has convinced most editors. I note Rusf10's comment but it doesn't seem to have caught on. Thus this is a keep." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Redirect Per the closer: "The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. Consensus that NBUILD isn't satisfied. Discussions that the redirect target's list is too long can be held in a separate discussion on that page." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep Per the closer: "The result was keep. Despite the fact that no significant sources were put forward during this AfD, there obviously is no consensus to delete at this time." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep Per the closer: "The result was keep." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted Per the non-closer: "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted Per the relisting comment: "Relisting in light of recent improvements to the article, as well as lack of current consensus for "keep" or "redirect"." Per the closer: "The result was keep." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Keep Per the closer:"The result was keep." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirect Per the closer: "The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. Irrespective of the (de)merits of the deletion nomination, it seems like the consensus leans towards there not being enough sourcing to justify a separate article around the topic - for some sources it's not clear from the discussion whether they'd satisfy WP:SIGCOV - and the keep arguments are mostly concerned with procedural issues or are not based on guideline/policy." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I've not seen the new Godzilla movie yet but suppose that the local real estate takes a pounding. Meanwhile, here in Wikipedia, someone is trying to knock down the towers of Jersey City! Andrew D. (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nina Marker

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The result was keep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Madison Tung

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tom Choi

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This name gets results for other people besides him. Searching for his name and the word "actor" got better results. "Tom Choi" and "film" got even more. Dream Focus 19:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John McHugh Sr.

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
NO RESULT
This was not an AfD.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A American soldier who participated in the D-day invasion and Battle of the Bulge. Received the Silver Star and the Bronze Star. looking for help from the editors to improve this article. It has not been tagged with an Afd, however and editor has placed a proposed deletion tag saying,"While highly decorated, doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. Recent spate of stories is due to his longevity, not sure that meets WP:GNG." User:Lightburst 14:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Individual behaviour in organisations

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
DELETE
The result was Delete.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

This is a topical topic and there is much to say. Many hands... Andrew D. (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Two words in the four word topic are spelled differently in American English than in British English. I fixed the search link in the AFD to help with that. Going to take some work to rewrite parts of that article that need it. Dream Focus 01:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The result was Delete. There's consensus that this does not belong in main space. Anybody who's interested in working on it can request a move to draft space at WP:UND. User:Lightburst 13:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ashley Liao

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Another child actor with prominent prime time television roles. User:Lightburst 02:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle bag

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DELETE
The result was Delete

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's in your battle bag when you turn out to rescue another article? It's good to think of a shortlist of policies, references and sources with a stock of canned text and templates for the recurring issues we encounter. We should start another tab for this here, as a checklist of good ideas and resources. Andrew D. (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renu Agrawal

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
DELETE
The result was Delete.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kelly Gould

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of oldest twins

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
DELETE
The result was Delete. The clear overwhelming consensus here is keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seems like ample coverage of something like this should be out there. Dream Focus 14:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Some you can save, and some you can't. Sometimes the sourcing matters, but ... Oh well! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trace Bundy

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
KEEP
Result was Keep. However, given that the group nomination led to some mix of opinion about individual pages, it should be acceptable to separately renominate individual albums for a more focused discussion if desired.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Result was Keep. However, given that the group nomination led to some mix of opinion about individual pages, it should be acceptable to separately renominate individual albums for a more focused discussion if desired. User:Lightburst 22:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Winter is coming

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've just snow-closed this but it may just be the start and I don't want to get too involved for fear of spoilers as I've been saving the last episode. ARS members may want to patrol the topic like members of the Night's Watch on the Wall. Andrew D. (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of fictional games

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How many of these can you identify: Fizzbin; Centrifugal Bumble Puppy; Cripple Mr Onion; Hussade; The Glass Bead Game? The latter won a Nobel prize and Wikipedia now realises some of its concepts. Can you win this game? Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I find that this is an incipient spree and so we also have:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flying monkeys (psychology)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of garden plants to feed honey bees in Canada

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
MERGE
The result was Merge.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator has a deletionist mentality. Aquataste (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elizabeth L. Gardner

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
Keep Per the closer: "The result of the discussion was keep. Seems like later in the discussion, some uncontested references to her were provided. Move or merge discussions can be had if there are still questions about whether the coverage is about the individual rather than the unit/photo"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Women Airforce Service Pilots. WW II pilot. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Another DYK in the womb. coming soon 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth L. Gardner 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep Per the closer: "The result of the discussion was keep. Seems like later in the discussion, some uncontested references to her were provided. Move or merge discussions can be had if there are still questions about whether the coverage is about the individual rather than the unit/photo" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth L. Gardner

 

On 12 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth L. Gardner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elizabeth L. Gardner served as a WASP during World War II and was the subject of an iconic photo (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth L. Gardner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elizabeth L. Gardner), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"28,169 page views. Not too shabby! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Noah Raby 2nd nomination

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nikita Denise

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
DELETE
The result was delete. "As noted, WP:PORNBIO is no longer a guideline, and most of the detailed points about whether porn awards might still satisfy WP:ANYBIO appear to lean towards the notion that the award mentioned here is too obscure/too poorly covered to qualify."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Female performer of the year award and her AVN Hall of Fame status satisfies criteria WP:ANYBIO Wikipedia should have no bias or a tougher litmus test regarding adult film stars. User:Lightburst 00:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The result was delete. "As noted, WP:PORNBIO is no longer a guideline, and most of the detailed points about whether porn awards might still satisfy WP:ANYBIO appear to lean towards the notion that the award mentioned here is too obscure/too poorly covered to qualify." User:Lightburst 14:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lost Lands

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
AfD closed as no consensus, leaning towards keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"AfD closed as no consensus, leaning towards keep."

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Richard Haine

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
KEEP
"The result was keep. Weight of argument supports keeping the article and the nominator has withdrawn the AfD"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just going to note that WP:SOLDIER explicitly does not make someone notable for having commanded a squadron; he would have had to command a force at least two levels above that, and since Lightburst apparently had to check the Wikipedia article on his award ("a third-level military decoration awarded to officers" is directly lifted from the opening sentence of Distinguished Flying Cross (United Kingdom)), I would question whether it is that well-known. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Nomination to delete disengaged. Haine survives the Fliegerabwehrkanone returns to base. GreenC 19:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawn. Not yet formally closed.
But I'm doing a DYK, so y'all are invited to the party, if you want to improve the article.
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
As expected, the above accusation is completely bogus. The AFD nominator made a request for a grammatical fix; that appears to be the extent of the "disruption". As appears to be the norm, Andrew is using ARS as a forum to attack editors he doesn't like, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with rescuing articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The article can not be closed just because the nominator changed their mind. Others said delete so it'll continue onward until the time period ends. Dream Focus 20:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:Snowball. But I can wait. Just not on the DYK. Tempus fugit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
That's called Chutzpah. Apparently my contribution wasn't worth mentioning. Spoke without looking. User:Andrew Davidson was not the AFD nominator, but instead was part of the resistance. I am sure everyone who deserves credit will get it. And the disruption will come to nothing. Change the proposed hook; it makes no difference. There are several other great hooks in that article, too. Looking at the nomination, the 'usual suspects' are all listed as creators, but the software doesn't seem to display that. It will all come out in the wash. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Per the closer: "The result was keep. Weight of argument supports keeping the article and the nominator has withdrawn the AfD" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This signifies why this project is important. Went from WP:AFD to WP:DYK

DYK for Richard Haine

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

On 21 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richard Haine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dickie Haine flew in the RAF's first night fighter patrol of World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Haine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Richard Haine), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2021 Formula One World Championship

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
DELETE
The result was delete..

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have lots of articles lined up for 2021 and there's even a parallel draft for this one. It's amusing to look at the history of these futile discussions which are becoming an annual ritual. Andrew D. (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

...

What’s actually amusing is that all but one of the AFD’s listed here actually resulted in the nominated articles being deleted, while the one that didn’t was an april fool’s joke. Nothing futile about them and no precedents at all to keep the currently nominated article.Tvx1 22:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the most amusing thing is actually looking at the history of Andrew using this page as basically his personal playground for engaging in disruptive historical revisionism. If this were really about combating systemic bias or rescuing good articles, that would be fine, but there's no excuse for this kind of behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice a pattern: 1. '20xx Formula One World Championship' created prior to the championship. 2. It is nominated and often deleted. 3. It is recreated and notable after the championship. This is futile churn, and a waste of everyone's time and efforts. Any championship article will be notable. But I guess the too-sooners can't help themselves and closers go by the book. Should have more flexibility in cases like this. -- GreenC 14:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I started an essay WP:AFDCHURN. It probably won't get much attention but the more often "WP:AFDCHURN" is used the concept will be brought into broader consciousness and possibly added to a guideline in the future. Feel free to add additional examples as found. -- GreenC 15:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who Will Rock You

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DELETE
The result was Delete.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A wealthy company has a television show it created two seasons worth of that has had over 16 million views, has some passive coverage in places I found so far. Need more to have it kept. If anyone can think of anywhere to look for additional sources, please help. Dream Focus 00:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kelly Meighen

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

another way to close

DELETE
Per the closer: "The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. Nobody has really argued that there are the kind of in-depth reliable sources, as opposed to passing mentions, that are a requirement for the inclusion of a biography.".

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Lightburst: Please retract and apologize for the above remark. 3 delete !votes versus 4/5 keep !votes (I don't know when EMG's was retracted), disregarding the quality of the arguments (AGF says we should, lacking evidence to the contrary -- the nom is an admin, and the only editors who started actively editing in 2019, and therefore the only ones who could reasonably be assumed inexperienced, are THEFlint Shrubwood, Skirts89, and you), is not "consensus" to keep by any stretch of the imagination, and now that one of the keep !votes has been retracted and the only !vote since the relisting has been to delete, it's now dead even. Comments like the above are exactly what give this project a bad name, and I'm frankly disappointed none of this project's more "keepist" members have called you out on it. I might as well ping User:Seraphimblade regarding the above remark about him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Per the closer: "The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. Nobody has really argued that there are the kind of in-depth reliable sources, as opposed to passing mentions, that are a requirement for the inclusion of a biography."
Math of this was 5 Keeps to 4 Deletes. No consensus. The closing of the discussion and the direction to not post on that page, and take it to the article's deleted article's talk page, is ironic and futile. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I am puzzled and disappointed. I voiced my concern on the admin closer's talk page. I wasted a lot of time improving the article, and participating in the afd. Grrrrrr. User:Lightburst 00:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 May 16 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U.S. intervention in Venezuela

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was Keep but begin merge discussion..

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think the subject is well covered by academic and news sources. I have provided some of them in the discussion. --Mhhossein talk 13:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This was placed at the bottom by mistake so I'm moving it to the top. Dream Focus 00:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All the King's horses and all the King's men...

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. The clear overwhelming consensus here is keep.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


If the Squadron does a good job with this, we might hope for a royal warrant. I have previously created the royal corgis and Queen Victoria's journals and, in my experience, there is masses of material about such topics. Andrew D. (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_17&oldid=1242941060"