Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 20

< Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Dream Focus in topic The Fellowship of the Ring
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

The Fellowship of the Ring

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. There is clearly very strong consensus against deletion. There is no clear consensus as to whether the articles should be merged and redirected but, as has been pointed out, that can be decided elsewhere. JBW

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.

Reminds me of the Horncall of Buckland, "Awake! Fear! Fire! Foes! Awake!". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 29 January 2020 (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.
This AfD demonstrates how severe the deletion-ist problem is on Wikipedia. One might as well nominate the first chapter Book of Genesis. -- GreenC 18:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

BrandSafway

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. Consensus is the work done by Lightburst has shown the article can be improved and should be retained. 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.

Seems like it may be a notable company ("workforce of approximately 32,000 employees and a network of more than 350 strategic locations across 30 countries. BrandSafway is headquartered in Kennesaw, Georgia."). Unfortunately some editors have erased the whole article. Some question about COI has been raised at the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2020 (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 fires and impacts of the 2019-20 Australian bushfire season

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. Delete rationales are primarily focused around the need to edit and fix the article, not about any policy based reason why it doesn't meet the Criteria for Inclusion. Thus based on policy arguments, there is a consensus to keep. Dennis Brown

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 know of a government website or elsewhere that keeps track of information? Or just feel like picking one thing at random and searching Google news for "Australian" "bushfire" and one of the locations listed? Dream Focus 23:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not being nominated for deletion because the subject is not encyclopedic or because it has insufficient reference, but because the list is a hot mess that's presented in an unencyclopedic way (it's mainly just a list of bushfire complex names used internally by firefighting services that are essentially meaningless to the public, some of which are duplicates as fires have merged, and which are difficult to verify because of said limited use). It's only here because Dream Focus won't read the deletion nomination before having opinions. No one is opposed to having an article on the impact of the fires, but that is not this article in its current framing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I read your reasons for nominating it for deletion. If you don't like how the information is presented, then that's not a valid reason for deletion, just find references to confirm the information and add additional useful information to it. Dream Focus 00:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It isn't just how the information is presented, it's how the entire article is framed: it's not just a matter of "finding references" when the entire point of the list is listing internal firefighting service names for individual bits of fire complexes in the broader notable blazes that aren't in common use - it's by definition unverifiable and inherently always going to be a bit of a mess. This is not a case of people not wanting more information on the impact of the bushfires. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
internal firefighting service names for individual bits of fire complexes in the broader notable blazes that aren't in common use - sorry but I can advise that that is not correct. The names are used by very publicly as part of all official formal emergency information broadcasts critical to public safety, and at times are also referred to in general media publications. They are NOT just identifiers internal to fire fighting services. Aoziwe (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2020 (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 re-education through labor camps in China

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. Keeping. These still exist, the article can be improved (over TNT) and it just needs attention. Please consider improving before anything else. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain

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 lot of coverage of these places. Just need help finding more references to add to the article. Dream Focus 05:21, 24 January 2020 (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.

Disney family

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. Consensus that WP:SIGCOV is met, especially following Cunard's input. (non-admin closure) feminist

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 the family of the greatest creator of family entertainment should be notable, but it needs a lotta tidying. ミラP 21:34, 23 January 2020 (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.

Template:Order of the Bath

Latest comment: 4 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.

Does anyone wanna create any of the red links? ミラP 17:24, 18 January 2020 (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 second wave mass AfD on Arizona towns

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
MIXED
several deleted and several kept

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.

Chairing Cross, Arizona, Arizona First multiple town nomination for deletion. Was a Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. I don't know why they didn't include them all. What they have done is repackaged their effort: 'Old wine in new bottles.' No longer being sold by the case.[1]

A couple of these are not presently AFDs, but they all need to be improved.

Coal Mine Mesa, Arizona (Second nomination)

Coconino, Arizona (Second nomination)

Corva, Arizona (Second nomination)

Cosnino, Arizona (Second nomination)

Coyote Basin Ranch, Arizona (Second nomination)

Cucamonga Junction, Arizona (Second nomination)

Darling, Arizona (Second nomination)

The result was Keep per the closer. But they merged it with Winona, Arizona and created a new article Darling Cinder Pit‎. A gross discontinuity between the close and the result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
ongoing discussion 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Daze, Arizona (Second nomination)

Durfee Crossing, Arizona (Second nomination)

Echinique Place, Arizona (Second nomination)

A couple of those articles are not up for a second nomination. They appear in red.
I know that Darling, Arizona has lots more sources. I have not done homework on the rest of the articles. All the AFD discussions started with a startling omission, and neglected to mention the prior AFDs. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note that all entries do mention "Split from previous batch AfD" in the nomination. –dlthewave ☎ 14:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, not all of them (if any) did mention it. I was wrong. Too many notes. Sorry about my misstatement. Understandably, dealing with this many nominations, one could get confused. But I updated the nominations, and they do now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:09, 14 January 2020 (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.

References

  1. ^ Reminds me of Massive Attack, one of my favorite bands. But I digress.

Telegraph Road Bridge

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
MY MISTAKE
Removed from consideration

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

Update: We cannot save this bridge. I was mistaken about one of the sources. I will strike the addition. Lightburst (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I've added sources. If that is not sufficient, so be it. I don't think there are any more sources (that I could find). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 12 January 2020 (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.

FYI, This discussion continues. I've added sources. If that is not sufficient, so be it. I don't think there are any more sources (that I could find). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Al Sahab Towers

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
MERGE
The result was merge to Dubai Marina. Ritchie333....Perhaps one day we can merge and redirect all of wikipedia into just a few articles. Lightburst (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2020 (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.

A merge discussion was started and there was a consensus to keep the article. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2020 (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 Squidbillies characters

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DELETE
The result was delete. 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.

Anyone wanna WP:HEYMAN this bad boy? ミラP 18:26, 9 January 2020 (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.

Jan Pol (veterinarian) and The Incredible Dr. Pol

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Needs more sources. Notability, independent of the show? The Incredible Dr. Pol Impending AFD or Merger. Merger discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, this looks to be merged. Interesting discussion about the merits of that, IMO. Nevertheless and still, these articles could both use improvement. 7&6=thirteen (☎)
I personally gave up on trying to save the former article. I've added substantially to the latter (but of course there is always room improvement). Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
GRuban makes some good points as to why they should be kept separate.
I only deferred based on the relative number of page views, which overwhelmingly favored the series (18K) vs. Dr. Pol (3). Although Dr. Pol's page was not (until a couple of days ago) even mentioned in the series page. Page views went through a big peak around New Year's Day, as there was a marathon of The Incredible Dr. Pol episodes on the National Geographic channel. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota)

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
The result was No consensus, after a discussion that has generated a great deal more heat than light. —S Marshall

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.

Lake. Question of notability. WP:Before? WP:Hey now? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep Per the closer: "The result was keep. This discussion has been open for over a month now, has been well-attended, and so it's time to stick a fork in it and say that it's done. The facts of the matter seem fairly clear and the issues have been well aired. There are 28 !votes and it is clear that there is no consensus to delete the page in question as there are only 2 !votes for that outcome and they don't seem especially strong. The other !votes are split fairly evenly: 14 to keep and 12 to redirect/merge. As the keep !voters have a slight majority and still seem to be digging up more sources, the status quo should remain so that they may work in peace without fear of disruption. The redirect/merge camp can also work on the list entry which they prefer and, if they remain dissatisfied with the overall situation, they have the option to revisit the issue after some time has elapsed. Any future discussions would be best done using the WP:MERGE process as the discussion indicates that deletion is quite unlikely. (non-admin closure)" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Back on the grill. Deletion review pending. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
17/11/1 and discussion reopened. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Closed as no consensus Per the closer: "The result was No consensus, after a discussion that has generated a great deal more heat than light."
Arithmetically challenged IMO. But this change in the close was no surprise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:28, 9 January 2020 (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.

Betsy Sweet

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DELETE
The result was delete. Reading through the discussion, deletion just about pips draftification. However, if someone would like to work on the article outside of mainspace, I'm more than happy to restore it as a userspace draft; drop me a message on my talkpage if you 'd like to take it on. 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.

A political fixture as a lobbyist in the state of Maine, former candidate for Governor, current candidate for Senate. I documented historical coverage and think WP:GNG should override WP:NPOL. The usual "delete" votes on the scene. Trackinfo (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2020 (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 The Simpsons couch gags

Latest comment: 4 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.

A lot of news coverage for certain individual gags. Anyone feel like helping add references to the article and looking for coverage of the gags as a whole please do so. Dream Focus 17:27, 30 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.

Stephanie Donaldson

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. RL0919

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.

Writer of 62 books on gardening, (one she co-wrote with the Prince of Wales). I managed to find some non-trivial coverage. But we will need more to save the gardener! Lightburst (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ve found and added a few more bits. Hope this helps. Lineslarge (talk) 20:02, 29 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.

Homer the Happy Ghost

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
REDIRECT
The result was redirect to Atlas Comics (1950s)#Humor and miscellanea. Sourced presented do not appear strong enough to refute the delete argument Spartaz

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 should be print media coverage on this comic in the 60s and 70s, right? ミラP 07:08, 14 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.

Sunshine Shen

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
DELETE DELETE 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.

Here are the Delete !vote rationales. It seems only two actually gave a reasonable guideline based rationale.

  • Delete per nom
  • Delete a non-notable model
  • Delete – doesn't meet GNG; even with the new sources recently added to the article, none meet GNG. (the only !vote that went one to discuss the !votes was Levivich)
  • Delete. with only the editor's signature
  • delete the keep arguments are mostly bullshit and should be ignored
  • Delete Medium is a blog site, not a publication with editorial control, and is patently unreliable. (dismissed based on one source)

Many are WP:JUSTAVOTE Lightburst (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Playboy (and other covers like FHM) cover model - she also was named a Playboy International Model. The nominator stripped 5 of the 7 references out of the article and then nominated the article for deletion. Perhaps we can add RS which the nominator can agree not to delete, and then we can perhaps save our Sunshine. She must pass WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 13 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.

Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
REDIRECT
The result was redirect to Buffyverse#Magic. (can be changed to Witch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode) if so desired). There was overwhelming consensus that this shouldn't have a stand-alone article, but there were also reasonable arguments that the topic itself does have room for encyclopedic growth. Redirection allows interested to editors to cull material from the page history, if useful. – sgeureka t•c

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 am inclined to take J Milburn (talk · contribs)'s word that the sources he apparently has access to provide significant coverage of this topic, but the article as we have it now is nothing but in-universe plot content. I would rather not go further down the Buffyverse rabbit hole than I already have (I watched the show occasionally when I was a kid, but the way it was frequently shown on British and Irish television -- often out of sequence -- prevented me from really getting into it), but I'd be happy to change my !vote if anyone can fix the article in the meantime. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 10 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.

Tadeusz Arentowicz

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. RL0919

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.

Polish RAF pilot shot down in his spitfire. Some foreign language sources exist, can anyone read Polish? Some sources have been added to the AfD perhaps we can shore up the article. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added sources, links, etc. There may be more? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 11 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.

Hodor

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
REDIRECT
The result was redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Hodor. This goes in line with the reasoning that, apart from one sentence at the end, the article is only a plot summary. For a stand-alone article, more is needed. 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.

Hodor! Andrew🐉(talk) 17:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


7 redirect 7 keep 1 merge 1 nomination which is perhaps a delete !vote. Seems like a no-consensus however the closer chose redirect. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 17 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.

No-go area (2nd nomination)

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
NO-CONSENSUS
The result was No consensus but discuss merging/disambiguation-fication or rewrites. This deletion nomination was started due to a concern that the article in its current form is conflating disparate concepts in a way prohibited by WP:SYNTH and that each of the concerns has a page already. There are about 9 keep arguments (I've chosen to ignore "weakish" adjectives), 1 split (+1 which favours either keep or split), 1 delete (the nom) and 1 merge. Normally this would be enough for a keep but from reading the arguments it appears a substantial amount of keep arguments do not address the WP:SYNTH concerns at all ... and as a concern grounded in fundamental policy, one ought to address it.

Some people however do address it by presenting sources, but from the follow up discussion - especially from Levivich's extensive rebuttal on the one side and Slatersteven's on the other side - it's not clear that a consensus has materialized that the presented sources actually address the WP:SYNTH/redundancy problems due to e.g concerns that most sources only address specific versions which already have articles. On the other hand, there seems to be a consensus developing that a plain deletion is not the ideal way to resolve the issue, especially as the nominator has considered withdrawing. I also see the procedural points raised at the end but a 4-5 year old prior AFD is not necessarily a strong concern.

Overall, it does not seem that we have a consensus for deletion but also not a consensus for unqualified keeping without some serious work on the article, and while one might declare this a consensus for a merge/split combination, I don't think it is clear enough to call it the agreed-upon outcome of the discussion. So this is a no consensus, default to keep, but both further discussion of rewrites/merges/dsiambiguifications are possible on the talk page or bold action at editorial discretion, subject to the normal policies or guidelines that govern such things. 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.

I think that the Deletion will go away. Sourcing could be improved. Nevertheless, I suggest that this article might better be organized around "Types" of "no go" exclusions. If we want to have one based on specific locales, that could be part of a "History" section. I think that would address some of the issues at this 2nd AFD discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Kept Per the closer: "No consensus but discuss merging/disambiguation-fication or rewrites, 5 December 2019, see discussion" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

For those of you keeping score at home 9 Keep !voters, 1 Merge !voter and one nomination for deletion. Somehow the closer arrived at a no-consensus close? Lightburst (talk) 04:26, 13 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.

Livestock guardian dog and Mountain dog

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

There was an o'er hasty merger of the latter article into the former. They posted it on one page and left the other off. As the creator of the latter article, I would have thought somebody would have notified me. But merger discussions are subject to abuse and quiet rigging of the process. The merger discussions are NOW ongoing at Talk:Livestock guardian dog#Merger proposal and Talk:Mountain dog#Merger proposal. I wrote the latter article many years ago, and it needs additional sources, particularly ones that use the phrase "mountain dog." The breeds that are listed on these two pages do not completely overlap. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Here are a few suggestions:
And of course, there are the 46 articles/dog breeds (only one doesn't have its own article) already listed at Mountain dog. If you go to the individual breed articles, there are lots of sources.
The Cão de Castro Laboreiro is not mentioned in any of these (yet) but has a "preferred mountain colour."
Those are a good place to start. I used Google Scholar and Google Books to find the articles I sent. I have not tried Bing.com or dogpile.com. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I've completely rewritten Mountain dog. It is subject to a Merger discussion at Talk:Livestock guardian dog. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Merger discussion continues 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Animeism

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. 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.

Why wouldn't we consider a "TV programme block [with] a national reach thru a major TV network in a developed country" notable? ミラP 17:41, 6 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.

Orson Bean

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Another bad experience at WP:ITN. See discussion. No matter how one jumps through hoops to bring the article up to speed, they move the finish line. Arbitrary and capricious is their watchword. Oh well. Lesson well learned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • They removed a source which they 'deemed' unreliable, then spray-painted "citation needed" everywhere. There are actually sources already in the article that could be used to amplify the article and the citations.
The "debate" at ITN was galling. One road block after another. And when the objections were cleared away, there were more. But it was POSTED briefly.
But the mob at ITN was in no mood to entertain that.
Then it was UNPOSTED.
I would could (and maybe should) have done more. But this is rather like touching the hot wire of a sparkler ("don't touch the wire – it's hot and you WILL get burned." – as ever parent has warned). If anybody is interested, I have compiled a lot of relevant research (at least one of the articles wouldn't download, but I printed it out and scanned it). Contact me via e-mail and I'll send them to you. I've given up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This was similar to when Doctor John died. See ITN discussion. NEVER did get a main page redirect. Because you have a large article, they imagine that every sentence needs to be cited to their satisfaction. This is a deliberately perverse result. Wrong result for the wrong reason.\
But compare Neil Peart ITN. See Neil Peart. Got over a half million views. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:13, 10 February 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_20&oldid=1242941078"