Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 19

< Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Dream Focus in topic The Scouring of the Shire
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

John McHugh Sr.

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete at this time, and evidence of sufficient discussion of the subject in reliable sources that inclusion is not clearly impermissible. Based on the course and high participation of the discussion, it is not apparent that relisting would generate any further clarity. BD2412

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 noticed 7&6=thirteen and @GreenC: both worked on this article, and Lightburst created it. Its up for deletion discussion now. If anyone can find sources to convince everyone the person is notable, the article will be rescued from deletion. Dream Focus 03:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Kept No consensus Per the closer: "The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete at this time, and evidence of sufficient discussion of the subject in reliable sources that inclusion is not clearly impermissible. Based on the course and high participation of the discussion, it is not apparent that relisting would generate any further clarity. BD2412 T 14:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 15 December 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.

Big Bad

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
NO-CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. The support for keeping (with the assertion that sourcing in the article has been improved over the discussion) is equal to the support for all other solutions combined. Since the purpose of this discussion is solely to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted, I find that there is no prejudice against the immediate initiation of an effort to merge this content into another suitable article. BD2412

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.

Sun Tzu famously wrote "Know your enemies..." One of them was Mutant Enemy... Andrew🐉(talk) 16:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

List of apologies to China

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

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.

Surely media sources have covered this topic. The list could probably use more information as to why each entry is there in a table. Dream Focus 01:26, 4 December 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.

Ironhide (2nd nomination)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DELETE
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5

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 character was this popular for so long in so many notable media versions, I would think there would be coverage of it somewhere. All I found was a single review of one of the toys. Anyone have any ideas where to search? Dream Focus 03:32, 30 November 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.

Judith Blake CBE

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. Consensus clearly leans towards keeping, with later !votes in the discussion trending strongly in that direction. This close does not decide whether either leading a city council for a well-populated region, or being awarded a CBE, are sufficient to confer encyclopedic notability, but it is a permissible basis of finding notability to find that both factors contribute substantially to reach such a conclusion in combination. BD2412

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 wanna present extra proof that CBEs are notable than I already did? ミラP 01:15, 27 November 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.

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1) et al

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus

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.

@Dream Focus: Thanks. You should also take into account the possibility of offline sources in addition to online sources. I hear Google News’ algorithm is biased towards the New Tens. ミラP 04:51, 27 November 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.

Super-chicken Model

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. Consensus is to keep - even delete comments acknowledge that the topic exists and has sources. The main point of contention is how to deal with the topic - to merge it elsewhere was considered but found inappropriate as this is a distinct study, and the amount of material would weigh down proposed targets. Much discussion was focused on the exact name, but nothing definite was decided. Opening a page move discussion to find the most helpful name would be the next appropriate stage. SilkTork

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 behavioral/productivity model which tries to explain the behavior, based on research about the most productive egg laying hens. Apparently a behavioral scientist kept the most productive egg layer hens to try to create Super Chickens: he found that they would kill each other. The individually productive chickens had only achieved their success by suppressing the productivity of the rest. So now this is a productivity model for business. Is this WP:OR or is there enough RS to show that this article/stub belongs. Perhaps we should build the article if it is deemed worthy. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I recall in the 1980s at a company I worked for we called people like this "rare birds". It is a pejorative, like "super chicken", the idea has been around a long time with new feathers. The lesson is what we learn in 5th grade, working cooperatively as a team is better than being a lone rooster. The emphasis is on teamwork. I'm sure the military has similar techniques in boot camp. We have an article on teamwork and this seems like it might be an example of "Ingrained Individualism" and "Individual Tasks". -- GreenC 15:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
adonis49 (July 9, 2015) Drop the Super-chicken Model in the workplace Adonis Diaries Adonis49.wordpress.com. Good discussion, with lots of concrete examples. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Closed as keep. Per the closer: "The result was keep. Consensus is to keep - even delete comments acknowledge that the topic exists and has sources. The main point of contention is how to deal with the topic - to merge it elsewhere was considered but found inappropriate as this is a distinct study, and the amount of material would weigh down proposed targets. Much discussion was focused on the exact name, but nothing definite was decided. Opening a page move discussion to find the most helpful name would be the next appropriate stage." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:39, 4 December 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.

There is a move discussion regarding a new title for this Super-chicken ___________. Lightburst (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hammerax

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
ALREADY CLOSED BEFORE IT GOT HERE, ARS WORKED ON THIS AFTER XFD
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Andrew Base

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. This is not about soliciting !votes.
I am posting it here because the article could still use improvement. You will see that the commentary at the AFD continues to be hostile. I discounted do consider the source and of the evident hostility, but nonetheless think we should try to improve the article.
Trying to find more sources is a problem. Not many reviews of the products (cymbals) themselves. Apparently percussionists are not writers (much) and are faced with the difficulty of trying to describe performance (which is somewhat personal) and sound (which is mainly subjective) in words. They have to resort to metaphor, like a wine review.7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Just closed. But I think we still need to fix up that article if we can. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sometimes the only way to find more coverage is to contact the subject of the article and ask them where they have been reviewed or interviewed at. Email address listed at official website, find them on various social media and question them there, or see if they have an official forum to post at. Dream Focus 12:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I already did that. They sent me an e-mail that said their network had been hacked, and the data was gone. I sent a reply and asked them to look for paper copies. I have heard back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:06, 25 November 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.

The Markdale Standard

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. ST47

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.

Ontario newspaper apparently published for 133 years. Sources may be offline and difficult to find. [first time trying out the ARS list] — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. ST47

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.

The Scouring of the Shire

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. While we have a lot of input here from users on both sides, the stronger argument here seems to be to keep. Particularly relevant was Andrew D.'s comment on the independent notability of this part of the novel, providing a number of sources specifically about this topic, which convinced at least one redirect/delete voter to change their mind. The article could use expansion to incorporate material from those literary critics, as currently the article is a relatively shallow plot summary. But in deletion discussions, we need to evaluate the notability of the topic, not just the sources that are currently in the article. ST47 (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

There are lots of Tolkien topics at risk currently. This is a good one to focus upon because there are many sources discussing it and its meaning. For example, "The hobbits return to find their beloved Shire diminished by bureaucratic malice. They are told, “Everything except Rules get shorter and shorter”". Andrew D. (talk) 16:01, 22 November 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.

Charles Henry Pugh

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
ARS WORKED ON THIS ONE WITHOUT AFD
Not nominated for 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.

This was an expiring WP:PROD. Need help finding sources for 19th century British founder. Founded several notable companies, but maybe needs to be renamed Charles H. Pugh, Ltd. Posted short note in Talk. StrayBolt (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Another awesome save by ARS. -- GreenC 14:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a question raised on talk page whether the company or the person has more notability. I think the article about the person is taking shape, and the main hurdle is that the person died in 1901. The company continued under the direction of his sons for many more years. Thinking out loud, perhaps someone might also consider starting an article for the company Charles H. Pugh Ltd.? Lightburst (talk) 00:58, 23 November 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.

Scump

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
NO-CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem

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.

Does anyone know about video game players who win notable championships? Surely somewhere out there covers this sort of thing and the players. Dream Focus 22:27, 20 November 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.

Motion to delete this project yet again

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
NO-RESULT
The discussion has been archived without closer remarks.

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 deletion discussion done is being done yet again at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Shut_down_Article_Rescue_Squadron. Dream Focus 15:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas for improvements that can be made to "rescue" the project? –dlthewave ☎ 02:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Find people who ignore the facts and keep spreading rumors about it, and ban them from Wikipedia until they stop their relentless slanderous lies. Dream Focus 02:11, 20 November 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.

His Dark Materials

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP2 NO-CONSENSUS ON THE OTHERS
The result was Keep two articles, no consensus on the others. This is a complex discussion, to the point that some people have suggested that it should be closed as WP:TRAINWRECK. Nevertheless, it seems like the consensus is strongly leaning towards the Dæmon and Dust articles meeting inclusion criteria owing to several sources which have been presented and only weakly contested (among other things "fancruft" is not a deletion reason). The list articles are more debatable as some people have skipped them and the discussion does not seem to have a clear consensus about whether they meet notability and forking guidelines mostly due to e.g concerns about whether the sources meet WP:SIGCOV criteria about primaryness and mentioning-in-passing and about whether the quality of the forked text actually justifies having them as separate articles. Also, a number of arguments are vague or not based in policy and guideline ("fancruft" is not a deletion guideline and "it's useful" or "other series have such lists as well" is not normally a sufficient reason to keep). Overall, it seems like the lists might benefit of dedicated discussion. PS: I've replaced the asterisks in the list of nominated pages with colons as XFDCloser otherwise does not recognize them. Jo-Jo Eumerus

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 story that attacks such things as cruelty, oppression, intolerance, unkindness, narrow-mindedness, and celebrates love, kindness, open-mindedness, tolerance, curiosity, human intelligence." Philip Pullman

This is about a tyrannical Magisterium which seeks to suppress knowledge of other worlds and the story is commonly thought to be an allegory. It is currently being shown in a new adaption by the BBC and HBO and so the readership for related pages is high – hundreds of thousands. A bundle of these has been nominated for deletion and I have listed them above. There's some erroneous duplication in the original listing and so there may be other pages affected. They look to be good candidates for rescue. Andrew D. (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Closed as Keep and/or No consensus Mixed bag of reasoning. See the closer's comments. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:31, 23 November 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 scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming (7th nomination)

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion
DELETE
The result was delete. I also intend to creation protect the article. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming. This cross-categorization is described by many persuasive commenters below as non-encyclopedic per WP:LISTN. No prejudice to the creation of a list of climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Bishonen

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: this is not a remotely neutral notice. Nblund talk 00:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nblund: A call to improve the article was made Perhaps we can demonstrate the usefulness of WP:LISTN by organizing the dissenters?. The fact that there were 7 previous attempts to delete the list of dissenting voices was rightly called out as well. Looks like this will be a contentious debate for the 8th time. WP:DPAFD Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The above comment was originally written to replace the original posting, which was under a collapse template, but the collapse template was removed and the order changed without explanation by Andrew Davidson with this edit. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This post was mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Neutrality_check. jps (talk) 12:21, 17 November 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.

Closer says "No prejudice to the creation of a list of climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming". Might as well be Keep and Rename. -- GreenC 01:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@GreenC: There is always a mirror site you can copy and build if you feel ambitious? Not a bad idea, but also be prepared for the calls of "crank" and "crackpot". Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
A list of people notable as "climate scientists" would be very different than the list that was just deleted. Simply restoring the original list with a new name would be disruptive editing. ApLundell (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
It'd be the same thing only with names removed. Dream Focus 09:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Radagast

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

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 Greenwood is sick, Gandalf. A darkness has fallen over it. Nothing grows anymore, at least nothing good. The air is fouled decay, but worst are the ...

— Radagast, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Per the closer's addendum: "The result was keep. There seems to be general agreement that there are sufficient reliable, independent sources available to satisfy WP:GNG." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:25, 20 November 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.

Marina Quays

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
MERGE
The result was merge to Dubai Marina. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129

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 one should be easy to improve. The nominator called for deletion based on a lack of references, however I see many RS. If we can shore this up with a few RS we can keep this notable three-tower residential complex in Dubai. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 9 November 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.

Find My

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

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 common challenge here is to find something that's missing – information, sources, goodwill, &c. It's good for us to develop a repertoire of tools and techniques for finding things and the topic here is another one. Andrew D. (talk) 12:04, 7 November 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 dimensions of the Discworld

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DELETE
The result was delete. Mostly due to concerns that the sourcing is not independent enough to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus

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.

Pratchett is popular but I've read little myself as I read his first work when it came out many years ago and thought it rather weak compared to other comical SF (see below). Perhaps others are more familiar? Andrew D. (talk) 17:56, 6 November 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.

Standard (unit)

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

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 past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." I find it interesting to visit such topics and so have done the heavy lifting for this but there's more to be done still, I reckon. As people seem to have trouble finding sources for this, it will be good to get a variety of perspectives from different parts of the world. Andrew D. (talk) 02:10, 5 November 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.

Erik Arvinder

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
NO-CONSENSUS KEEP
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333

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.

Second nomination. First nomination was in July 2019 and ended in No-consensus. The article is referenced with non-trivial coverage and the subject has achieved notability in his field. Can we improve the article even more to survive a second AfD? Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 4 November 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 crimes involving a silicone mask

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep with no prejudice against merging into an article about silicone masks in general once one has been created. SoWhy

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 notable and relevant article. This AfD is tragic IMO. The article was started yesterday. Prodded yesterday. And then AfD'd today. WP:NORUSH. The article has WP:RS and considering it is barely a day old, the nominator should not be so aggressive. Perhaps we can build it up buttercup. Lightburst (talk) 21:22, 3 November 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.

Bombshell (Transformers)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DELETE BYE BYE BOMBSHELL
The result was delete. Yunshui

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

Renamed Hardshell ( trademark issues). Perhaps we can transform this article into a Keep? See what you can do. The fate of the world is in your hands. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 3 November 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.

US Airways Flight 741 stowaway incident

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

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 aviation themed tragedy. Stowaway who died in a wheel well and garnered global coverage. The article is only two weeks old and I removed a PROD which garnered an AfD. Perhaps we can reorganize and add refs. I have begun to find sources. Maybe we can find out more about the person who passed in this incident. Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 3 November 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.

Kate Marie Byrnes

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

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.

U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia. Career diplomat. Question of sources and citations. WP:BEFORE. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:12, 3 November 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 comic science fiction

KEPT NO-CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. Good points were made on both sides of the keep-delete spectrum: sources exist for turning this into a proper article; the existence of this list depends on the (not yet finalized) categories and parent articles; and that WP:TNT is the best option for this topic. – sgeureka

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.

"Life, don't talk to me about life"

— Marvin, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
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.

People Who Were Killed in Animal Attacks

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
MERGE
The result was merge to Animal attack. This has been an extensive discussion that has received a large amount of input. The consensus is somewhere on the spectrum between Delete and Merge - with many commentors noting that some of the more notable events could be merged to Animal attack or elsewhere, but many of the less notable entries do not belong in any existing article. Accordingly, I am going to close this as a merge, with the above caveat - it is not necessary to move each item from this list into Animal attack, some list items might be merged elsewhere (like an article for the specific notable individual) and many won't be merged at all. Once done, please redirect the article to Animal attack to complete the merging process. ST47

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 seems like an interesting topic to work with. Are there publications listing people who died in animal attacks or government websites listing this somewhere? Seems like a notable topic and a valid list article. Dream Focus 18:17, 31 October 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 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_19&oldid=1242941070"