Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 27

< Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list
Latest comment: 2 years ago by GreenC in topic List of American television programs
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29

Antheads

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This one is not at AFD, but it was redirected back in 2007. I tried restoring it and rebuilding it, but it was reverted three times by NPP as supposedly being non-notable. I don't know, what do you think of my latest try?[1] If that's not enough to make an article, do you see any more sources to improve it? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a clumper/splitter debate. Would the content be the nearly the same in the main article vs split? Would anything would be lost in the main? There are advantages to clumping, it will get more page views for example. If you feel strongly about splitting you could open a thread in the main article talk page explain why splitting is better than clumping. Or, work to implement the clump. If the clump is also rejected then it's a problem. GreenC 16:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess I will merge it for now and then we can see what happens in the future. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Clop (erotic fan art)

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I can’t believe I’m actually posting here, but I would like to know if you have any additional sources on this topic or could go through the existing ones for me. I’ve been up all night doing crap on Commons and don’t feel up to it myself. Dronebogus (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Try Bing.com and dogpile.com. Also take a look at Google books. Please familiarize yourself with the formatting at the Rescue List and don't forget to post the required notice at the AFD discussion. Welcome to WP:ARS. Happy New Year!
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Google books was not quite a zero. FWIW. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Tauqir Sharif

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Clean up and re-submit to AfC please. The creator was accused of paid editing. The article has been flagged as needing clean-up particularly for NPOV if applicable. Could an un-involved editor check that there are no NPOV issues in this article please and re-submit. The subject of the bio is notable. 85.255.233.142 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Interim

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Needs improvement, beyond being "a dictionary definition." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Deleted and Merged Per the closer: "The result was delete. I will also move the dab page to this name as an editorial action; the core result of the AfD is the deletion of the current page. I will also merge the two Talk pages." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ismene (moth)

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Species specific problem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator, but still open for discussion. Not yet closed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Kept Per the closer: "The result was Closed as Nomination withdrawn. For the purposes of determining consensus, it further appeared that this was trending toward a keep anyway. Whether it needs a rename is another issue." 7&6=thirteen (☎)

List of conflicts by duration

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

List about a probably notable topic that someone is basically asking to be cleaned up. Nominated without any evidence of WP:BEFORE. Dronebogus (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Uranian

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was Snow Keep. The overwhelming consensus here is a clear Keep. With the rationales given and no delete !votes, I'm closing this as a keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:10, 23 January 2022 (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.

Very likely notable term in LGBT history that somebody knee-jerk nominated for deletion. If there’s anything you can do to improve the article then great. Dronebogus (talk) 03:09, 17

User:Dronebogus If you are going to post here, please place {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} at the deletion discussion page. It is an ethical requirement. It exists as the top of this page. If you are going to participate here, please follow the rules. You and WP:ARS don't want to be accused of WP:Canvassing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Dronebogus last time you did this, I fixed it, and you chose to ignore it. I didn't this time. Cleaning up for you is not part of my job description. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, or maybe Dronebogus simply forgot, rather than your accusation of "choosing to ignore it"...? Just a reminder, one can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
User:MrsSnoozyTurtle Maybe. Ask User:Dronebogus if you think this is so important. I don't.
I corrected this oversight in the past and wanted to get this fixed now and in the future. I wanted to fix the problem, not fix the blame.
And he addressed it at the AFD. Problem fixed; story ended. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
You could have done so without the bitey "you chose to ignore it" and "cleaning up for you is not part of my job description" parts. WP:CIVIL, please. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:Dead horse. WP:COAL. Please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So the request for you to be more WP:CIVIL towards other editors is a "dead horse"??

And the COAL essay says nothing about making bitey statements about other editors, then evading the topic when questioned about it. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:59, 22 January 2022 (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.

2015 Nadia riots

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Nadia riots WP:GNG evanescence. Needs updated sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

AfD link (the discussion is in its late stages, and the article has been improved since the nom) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations in popular culture (2nd nomination). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I previously copied it over to https://cultural-phenomenons.fandom.com/wiki/United_Nations_in_popular_culture with other popular culture articles being deleted. I see dozens of articles of this type still exist. Category:Topics in popular culture. There used to be a lot more of course. Dream Focus 23:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Have put this on this projects talk page but also relevant here: There has been a full scale culling of entries at astronomical locations in fiction (and articles like United Nations in popular culture) using the same ridiculous criteria that a page and each entry must mention and cite the specific topic "_____in fiction" or it gets deleted. This has been going on for months now with no stopping the editor, TompaDompa although many have tried reasoning with them. See Saturn in fiction and its history page as only one of probably dozens of examples where Wikipedia's wonderful historical record of human space accomplishments, and how they've been reflected in society by humanities literature and film cultures, have been virtually destroyed by nonsensically restrictive interpretation of its guideline language. And see {{Astronomical locations in fiction}} and its history page for another feel of the nonstop culling. This is a crisis of the deletionists stretching badly worded popular culture guideline language and essays to decimate not only articles but entire topic trees. This slow-and-fast rolling deletionists dream is probably the worse misuse of guideline language I've seen on Wikipedia and I ask members of this wikiproject to get involved. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Randy Kryn: if you're interested, there's still an ongoing discussion about the scope of MOS:POPCULT. Given your experience at AfD on those topics, perhaps you might still be interested. Pilaz (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Little Big Time

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

New article. Not technically a "rescue." This is not yet at AFD, but it needs sources badly, needs improvement, and should be fostered and kept, IMO.7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

We improved it substantially. Thank you.
Alas, would have been a great WP:DYK, but for the age of the article. Had been moved to main space on 10 December, and I did not stumble on it until it was already stale by DYK standards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Its now been turned into a redirect. Dream Focus 04:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
There are two reliable sources (the book, and Record Collector). Everything else is self published ie. fan sites and blogs. The two RS, there isn't much content. IMO it could go back to Draft, give it more time to develop. The show can still be part of Wikipedia, nothing lost, in the bio article vs standalone, it would probably get more views that way anyway. -- GreenC 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Ridirects. An expedited deletion. A way to achieve the same result as a deletion, without bothering with the process or consensus.
Pruning out the sources and contents that were there expedites the draftify process. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok full circle from Draft, to Main Space back to Draft. --GreenC 20:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor may contest a draft by moving the article back to mainspace. Of course at that point they may put it up for deletion or try redirecting it again. NemesisAT (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

List of settlements in Bedfordshire by population

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:30, 14 February 2022 (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.

Mass deletions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I nominated these for deletion but it looks likely they will be kept so I have opened a discussion here about improving them. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Fixing/Clean up of List of Settlements in X County by Population articles Eopsid (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Eopsid You may be right about the outcome. Obviously, improvements are welcome. Thank you for the update. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 29 January 2022 (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.

Mike Tinney

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. I wrote up a lengthy closing statement, and had it frustratingly erased by an edit-conflict. So I'll summarize by saying that arguments on both sides here are generally based in policy, and cannot simply be set aside; reasonable editors can and do disagree on whether the sources provided here are substantive. Given the high participation, there seems to be no purpose served by relisting. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 8 February 2022 (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.

-8.37.179.254

User:8.37.179.254 If you post it here, please add {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} to the deletion discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No consensus. Closing admin comment: "I wrote up a lengthy closing statement, and had it frustratingly erased by an edit-conflict. So I'll summarize by saying that arguments on both sides here are generally based in policy, and cannot simply be set aside; reasonable editors can and do disagree on whether the sources provided here are substantive. Given the high participation, there seems to be no purpose served by relisting". MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:16, 23 February 2022 (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.

Wizardry: Labyrinth of Lost Souls

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wizardry: Labyrinth of Lost Souls is not at AFD, but it was redirected from this version with the claim that it was "Not notable on its own." I looked at the sources in the article and it seems notable, do we need to find more sources to prove this? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Just noting - the article was restored a couple of days ago and is probably stable; you can remove this notice if you want to, or leave it here in case someone wants to help shore it up further. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. Although the unrebutted analysis by people who are familiar with this aspect of Polish legal organization suggests that this deletion request results from a misunderstanding. Any further cleanup that is required can be done without deletion. Sandstein 13:26, 28 February 2022 (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.

Lawyers in Poland. Definitely a language problem (attorney, counselor, barrister, solicitor, advocate, and their Polish equivalents) involved in finding sources. Question about this being a topic fork? I know very little about this subject in this jurisdiction. Nie rozumiem języka polskiego. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Kept — No consensus Per the closer: "The result was no consensus. Although the unrebutted analysis by people who are familiar with this aspect of Polish legal organization suggests that this deletion request results from a misunderstanding. Any further cleanup that is required can be done without deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment And given the escoteric subject matter and need for subject matter expertise, it is not surprising that so far as I can tell there was zero participation by WP:ARS participants/regular/hangers on. Not even me, since I did not !vote. Nor could I improve the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 28 February 2022 (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.

Daniel Sillman

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2022 (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.

Relisted. Entrepreneur. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

[citation needed] on "Entrepreneur" please. Objectively speaking, he is a CEO who has also been executive producer for two documentaries. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Edit war. One of the delete voters (actually the deletion nominator) is gutting the article and the references. Doing incrementally and by indirection that which could not be achieved by direction at the AFD. The result was Keep. That result was lopsided and overwhelmingly supported. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:13, 1 March 2022 (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.

Kubi gold mine

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2022 (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 question of notability and sourcing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:25, 2 March 2022 (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.

Ian Marsh (writer)

Latest comment: 2 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. After several weeks' debate, there doesn't appear to be any agreement that the sources presented justify a standalone article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:07, 2 February 2022 (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.

-8.37.179.254

User:8.37.179.254 If you post it here, please add {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} to the deletion discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
User:8.37.179.254, User:7&6=thirteen: shouldn't a rationale be presented too, per the rules of ARS listed above? Pilaz (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You could quote the rule and its implicit ethical obligation.
And what is preventing you from saying that? I was simply trying to politely correct the problem, without beating the matter to death.
Indeed, I fixed it at the AFD, and asked for cooperation in the future.
If citations are in order, you could have done this yourself.
If folks are going to post here, they ought to peruse the advice at the top of the page. Indeed, given the consistent nattering about WP:Canvas and WP:ARS, compliance is the minimum we can hope for. It is a simple prophylactic to an ongoing debate. Since they are apparent newbies here, they may be unaware of that perceived and often articulated controversy.
And if you can do it better in the future, please do.
So what exactly is your problem? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I was just asking why your rules are not being enforced, especially since this is clearly an experienced user: 6.9k edits and clearly not their first ride at ARS. Maybe "my problem" is that failing to provide a rationale is certainly closer to WP:CANVASS than providing some. Pilaz (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Really? You are entitled to your opinion, YMMV. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Pilaz (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Pilaz, I agree. There is little purpose to having a rule if it is not going to be followed. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
We all agree. The "Project Code of conduct" and the advisory notice at the top of the page ("Place the {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}}" – see above) should be followed. And this listing has been brought into compliance when {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} was put on the deletion discussion. By me. So generalized attacks on WP:ARS are misbegotten, and not warranted based upon any of this. Indeed, I have not seen an avalanche of WP:ARS regulars at that discussion; the "canvasing" dog whistle is a canard here.
You contend that User:8.37.179.254 "is an experienced" editor. But not at WP:ARS as far as I know. Two edits two years ago at ARS is limited and remote. He isn't a regular here. So general wikipedia editing can still leave one innocently ignorant in a particular forum. It is a gigantic encyclopedia. And correction, not condemnation, is in order.
I note that other editors have not followed the rules.
But there is only persuasion, not an enforcement mechanism. And the "CODE OF CONDUCT" and the advisory note were complied with, albeit not by User:8.37.179.254. It is an ethical direction. Hopefully he/she gets the message and acts on it in the future. I am confident it will be avoided in the future. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
it's good to hear we are all in agreement.

Which "attacks on WP:ARS" are you referring to? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Kept No consensus. Closer stated: "The result was no consensus. After several weeks' debate, there doesn't appear to be any agreement that the sources presented justify a standalone article." [sic]. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
FYI Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 2 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, why is this listed as "kept" when the outcome was No Consensus?

Also, could you please answer my question above? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a long history of some users preferring to say Keep based on the outcome from a "rescue" perspective ie. it still exists. Some prefer the closer outcome. Some prefer to say both. Some might say one first and the other second, or reverse order. It does not matter. Sometimes people leave different or competing outcomes, then the other person will come back and change the first one, or then add a block close template etc.. -- GreenC 22:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
GreenC, thank you for the explanation, it is good to know the history.

7&6=thirteen, could you please answer my question above? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome. Re: the above, he infers that the general attacks is "the canvasing dog whistle" (in response to "closer to WP:CANVASS") ie. accusations of canvassing. For example, the only two delete votes in the AfD, after the ARS posting, accused ARS of canvassing. General attacks on ARS like this are common. Like in the DRV, ARS is accused of the "majority" of Keep votes. It was later learned most of the keep votes actually came from a WikiProject, not ARS. In fact I suspect scope_creep and Stifle may have been motivated to delete because of ARS based on their rationales and attitudes, we often see this. This noticeboard can generate Keep and Delete, it is an open forum is why there is no consensus for canvassing and why these general attacks never stick. I applaud 7&6's efforts to try and reduce these accusations it benefits everyone. The accusations appear to have boomeranged in the DRV, it was a bad idea to ever bring it up, it helped no one. -- GreenC 16:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again, GreenC, I appreciate your efforts explaining this. Since 7&6=thirteen seems unwilling to respond for some reason, we will have to assume that their intention was along those lines. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:25, 5 February 2022 (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 boating magazines

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Criteria and sourcing for lists. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Roberto Spinosa

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
DELETE
Closed as 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.

Famous{?} Ecuadorian or Chilean painter. One of User:Dr. Blofeld's offspring. Roberto Spinosa Spanish language We have an obvious problem here with Spanish language sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 18 March 2022 (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.

Captain Chaos

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
REDIRECT
The result was redirect to The Cannonball Run. It does not appear there's an issue with the similarly named band. If there is down the line, RfD and or a DAB can sort it out. At the moment, consensus is clear as a chaotic cannonball's path Star Mississippi 01:25, 24 March 2022 (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.

My newspaper.com account expired and hasn't been renewed through wikipedia library. If anyone has that, please look through it and see if you can find any significant coverage of the character. Or if you know of anywhere the character was interviews, reviewed, or given ample coverage of, please mention it. Dream Focus 12:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Redirect Per the closer: "The result was redirect to The Cannonball Run. It does not appear there's an issue with the similarly named band. If there is down the line, RfD and or a DAB can sort it out. At the moment, consensus is clear as a chaotic cannonball's path." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:26, 24 March 2022 (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 Wants (band)

Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2022 (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.

No wave revival band. Question of notability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding the ARS template to the discussion has been overlooked. Could you please rectify this? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I added the template. (Anyone can.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry. Oversight. I thought I had done it; it is part of my regular routine when I list something here.
It is relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Some want to fix the problem; others want to fix the blame. WP:Griefing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, why must you make everything so personal? There was no blame, I was simply pointing out that something had been missed, as you yourself did a couple of months ago (although yours was worded as "Cleaning up for you is not part of my job description"...). MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
You were not mentioned at all. The glass slipper. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Clearly implied personal attacks are still personal attacks even if they don't contain the user's name. ApLundell (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
No personal attack. A mere statement of editing philosopy. Just like your sobriquet. I didn't mention you either. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, ApLundell for calling it what it is.

7&6=thirteen, what was your reply of "others want to fix the blame" and linking to an essay about "the act of chronically causing sudden annoyance" actually in reference to? And could you please explain the significance of whether your earlier replies mentioned ApLundell or not? MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello 7&6=thirteen, could you please respond to my questions above? It would be good to get your perspective, to avoid misunderstandings in future. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Mrs. Snoozy Turtle, he said he was not talking about you. It's hard for me to see you were "blaming" anyone. By politely bringing it up you were seeking to fix the problem. In the future you could avoid any misunderstanding by either adding it yourself, or not addressing anyone in particular so they don't feel blame ie. responsibility. The forum is collaborative. -- GreenC 06:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
GreenC, thank you for the advice. Yes, I did try to word the request politely so that there was no suggestion of blame. FWIW, the reason I didn't add the notification myself is that I don't think I've done that before, so I thought it best to leave it to someone who has, in case there are some tricks to doing it correctly. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 
llustration of Rapunzel and the witch on a 1978 East German stamp

I never address you by name. If you feel you are within the group and policy (that's your choice), maybe it will alter your approach in the future. Or not.
Since you have been a long time participant at WP:ARS, I well know you know about putting the template on the AFD discussion pages. In fact, this conversation started with your acknowledgment and invocation of the policy. I immediately acknowledged my error. So there was no need to be pedantic to you. Others needed correction and guildance (which puts into perspective something I said that you quoted at me) — I did contact that editor at his talk page and he said the message was received and understood (en passant, you have been on the front lines chanting about WP:Canvassing and WP:ARS in days gone by, so you presumably are sympatico with getting posters to put notices on AFD discussion pages.); but lecturing you about the obvious will not help the process. Nor can I make you edit; we are all volunteeers here. You might consider WP:COAL, WP:Trolling, Wikipedia:Don't eat the troll's food, WP:Dead horse and WP:Griefing. You need to take a look at Extinction. Perhaps then you will understand why I choose not to rise to the bait or respond in kind. Name calling and calling me out early and often here is needlessly tendentious, IMO. (This is not the first time — I feel like Rapunzel.) Neither will I lecture you; nor will I demand a response. So too, I've said all I intend to say, so don't waste time pinging me (it just needlessly clutters the page) to smooth your ruffled feathers. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thirteen, this feels quite like an "offence is taken not given" justification. Yes, I am concerned about WP:CANVASSING, especially since you continue to list AfD discussions here where you have !voted keep.

Could you please explain how the link you posted to the Bedfordshire section relates to your claim about being "sympatico" with the AFD notices? I don't understand the connection.

No my feathers are not ruffled, in fact I don't have any feathers. Could you please refrain from personal statements like this, and stick to discussions about policy and articles? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:20, 9 April 2022 (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.

Kathleen Burkett

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
DELETE
The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing does not rise to the level of notability. Should she be eventually added to the Council's website, happy to provide the content under a redirect for attribution purposes. Star Mississippi 02:50, 19 April 2022 (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.

Has various sources in the AfD discussion page, but I am not able to access them. Seems like a good candidate for rescue. CT55555 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2022 (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.

Tracey Medeiros

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:16, 24 April 2022 (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.

I recently created an article for cookbook author Tracey Medeiros. It was just nominated for deletion. She’s had coverage for over ten years. She appears to meet notability requirements. Any help with sourcing would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2022 (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 litigation involving the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. There was consensus that this is a valid topic for a list. However, there was also consensus that the list is too inclusive - even that some items do not belong at all. After trimming the list to some criteria it is likely to be much shorter. What those criteria should be and whether the list is then short enough to be merged back in to the main article can be dealt with by ordinary editing. SpinningSpark 18:09, 23 April 2022 (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.

Anyone know anything about this? Some of the lawsuits they have been involved in have their own articles, others are listed in different articles, and some seem to have no mention at all anywhere. Any major lawsuit will get ample news coverage. Their website shows https://www.eff.org/nb/cases and https://www.eff.org/victories and some have gone to the Supreme Court. Some discussion has been had on how to best deal with the content on the page. Dream Focus 05:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Kept Per the closer: "The result was keep. There was consensus that this is a valid topic for a list. However, there was also consensus that the list is too inclusive - even that some items do not belong at all. After trimming the list to some criteria it is likely to be much shorter. What those criteria should be and whether the list is then short enough to be merged back in to the main article can be dealt with by ordinary editing." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:43, 25 April 2022 (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.

Tracey Medeiros

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:16, 24 April 2022 (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.

I recently created an article for cookbook author Tracey Medeiros. It was just nominated for deletion. She’s had coverage for over ten years. She appears to meet notability requirements. Any help with sourcing would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2022 (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 litigation involving the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. There was consensus that this is a valid topic for a list. However, there was also consensus that the list is too inclusive - even that some items do not belong at all. After trimming the list to some criteria it is likely to be much shorter. What those criteria should be and whether the list is then short enough to be merged back in to the main article can be dealt with by ordinary editing. SpinningSpark 18:09, 23 April 2022 (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.

Anyone know anything about this? Some of the lawsuits they have been involved in have their own articles, others are listed in different articles, and some seem to have no mention at all anywhere. Any major lawsuit will get ample news coverage. Their website shows https://www.eff.org/nb/cases and https://www.eff.org/victories and some have gone to the Supreme Court. Some discussion has been had on how to best deal with the content on the page. Dream Focus 05:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Kept Per the closer: "The result was keep. There was consensus that this is a valid topic for a list. However, there was also consensus that the list is too inclusive - even that some items do not belong at all. After trimming the list to some criteria it is likely to be much shorter. What those criteria should be and whether the list is then short enough to be merged back in to the main article can be dealt with by ordinary editing." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:43, 25 April 2022 (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.

My way or the highway

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
DELETE
The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 20 April 2022

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.

Not yet listed at an AFD. Just a prod. Surely this can be improved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve sent the nomination to AfD since I think your listing of it here counts as a contested PROD, non-bureaucratically speaking. Dronebogus (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Also Fit in or fuck off. Same concept so-

Dream Focus 23:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

🤪 how did this work out then?! 💩 !!! SN54129 10:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
User talk:Serial Number 54129 Thanks for your help.
Why are you here?
WP:Grave dancing? See WP:Dead horse.
Lesson learned. Nobody from WP:ARS participated at AFD. And article needs to be improved to survive at WP:AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a hangover, sorry about that 7&6=thirteen. Although the poo emojji is quite cool, looking, as it does, akin to a wizard hat. Just as a by the way, when you ping, linking to a user talk page doesn't send a notification, only the user page I think. All the best, SN54129 14:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Hangover? Not drunk? Diminished capacity? In some forums, voluntary drunkeness might (or might not) be an excuse; but feeling under the weather not so much. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, this seems to be WP:Griefing. How hypocritical. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:28, 22 April 2022 (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.

André Tintant

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
REDIRECT
The result was redirect to Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's épée. ✗plicit 14:21, 2 May 2022 (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.

French Olympic fencer (epée) ca. 1900. Paucity of records from the 1900 Olympics. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Likely a redirect. If you can find newspaper sources it would help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:59, 28 April 2022 (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.

History of street lighting in the United States

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
KEEP
The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:58, 25 June 2022 (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.

This seems like a notable topic, just needs some rewriting and additional references added. Dream Focus 18:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Article improvement highlights
-- GreenC 16:55, 8 July 2022 (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.

New Chapter

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. After extended time for discussion and the spilling of a great deal of electronic ink, we have a clear absence of consensus for deletion (and a clear absence of consensus on whether sources provided are applicable). It is noteworthy, however, that there is a substantial contingent favoring redirection to the parent company (which is indisputably highly notable itself, and is capable of having independently notable subtopics), and that substantial expansion of the article was undertaken, tracking with an increasing shift towards keeping the article as the discussion progressed. BD2412 T 01:32, 13 June 2022 (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.

New Chapter, a maker of vitamins and supplements, has been nominated for deletion. I would appreciate any help in finding sourcing. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added many more sources to the article since it was nominated. Thriley (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Probably more could be explained how the founders sold (out) to P&G then left the company after their mission was undermined by corporate profit pressures. And what those values were that were tramped on. This appears to have been a unique company doing honest thing in a sea of snake oil. -- GreenC 06:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The 2018 WSJ feature article you have cited looks to be a winner. Not sure what the process is to find an editor with a subscription, but definitely worth getting access to it, to help fill out the story. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Article improvement highlights
-- GreenC 17:06, 8 July 2022 (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 United States cities by area, List of the largest counties in the United States by area, List of Canadian provinces and territories by area

Latest comment: 2 years ago19 comments10 people in discussion
NO CONSENSUS & DELETE
List of US cities by area: The result was no consensus. I was very close to closing this AfD with consensus to delete, due to notability concerns per WP:NLIST. The article itself contains no references to sources that discuss the topic of US cities and their areas, and why the area delineated by their borders is relevant or significant. The vast majority of this discussion didn't focus on finding or identifying sources that could be used to demonstrate the notability of this topic, which is, of course, required in order for any article to exist. However, towards the very bottom of the discussion, User:Newimpartial made a good faith effort to find a few sources. While these sources are somewhat tenuous in my opinion, I believe that they are just far enough over the line to cast doubt on whether this topic is non-notable, and push this discussion into "no consensus" territory. My advice for the editors working on this article would be to expand your search for sources that discuss the grouping of US cities by land area and include them in the article. Otherwise, this article will be at risk of being nominated for deletion again in a couple months' time (which, if it happens, should focus on a deeper analysis of the available sources to demonstrate notability). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
List of the largest counties by area: The result was no consensus. Views are split between keep, merge and delete and I find it unlikely an agreement is going to happen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
List of Canadian provinces and territories by area: The result was redirect to Provinces and territories of Canada. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:13, 19 June 2022 (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.

Trackinfo (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. The ARS template needs to be added to these AfD pages please, so that the admins can be aware if WP:CANVASSING as occurred. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
At 16:22, 14 June 2022, before you posted here, an editor posted in those AFD telling people it was mentioned here already. This editor had never posted here before, so didn't notice the bit about posting the template in the AFDs. Anyone who notices its missing can post it though. Dream Focus 14:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The template should be put on. We have been over this before. Many times.
There was no "canvassing." Take it somewhere else; give it a rest.
You should stop with the well worn and persistent disruptive accusations. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen, when someone posts the AfDs here straight after !voting "keep" in them, the intention is quite obvious. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is obvious: to get WP:ARS to improve the articles in the hope that they will be worthy of being kept. WP:HEY, WP:Before, WP:GNG, WP:Preserve are all legitimate arguments; and article improvement is a proper response to an AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
That rings more than just a little bit hollow when the accompanying comment (since removed) was These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information. TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hadn't seen the comment. I am surprised. Somebody got overwrought.
It takes all kinds; WP:ARS should not be judged on one editor's missteps. Your overgeneralization means very little in the grand scheme of things. Indeed, you get to post it here, and I don't endorse all of what you imply. We hopefully will learn from it, and amend our comments and actions in the future.
And all two of those articles were kept, one redirected. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Two "no consensus" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States cities by area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the largest counties in the United States by area) and one "redirect" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian provinces and territories by area) is a pretty far cry from all kept. TompaDompa (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and the above post suggests that ARS still considers "No consensus" (which is a poor outcome for the encyclopedia) to be a win. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
You've said that before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Happily the only people that won are Wikipedia's readers, hundreds of whom a day seek out those articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and it remains true, 7&6=thirteen. What's your point? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@MrsSnoozyTurtle: I think that ARS regulars would very likely regard me as a critic, but as I have been watching these discussions, I have come to feel pretty strongly that you need to drop the WP:STICK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Tryptofish, thank you for the friendly advice. Sorry for my mistake here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Article improvement highlights
  • N/A
--- GreenC 17:11, 8 July 2022 (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 cosmic entities in DC Comics

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
DELETE
The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 9 June 2022 (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 Google news search for "cosmic entities" does show some of the names on the list. Some are asking for a clear definition of it. I already edited the article to fix redirects to proper articles and break links to the wrong thing, not entirely done with that either. If anyone can help find sources to define this, please do so. Dream Focus 02:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have any official book published by them that list what their official name for "cosmic beings" is? Is that what they officially call them? Dream Focus 02:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics also is at AFD now, combined with a different AFD. Dream Focus 02:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Article improvement highlights
  • [Unknown] (article history deleted before checked)
--- GreenC 17:12, 8 July 2022 (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 American television programs

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
DELETE
The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2022 (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.

Some have complained about the condition of the list as a reason to eliminate it. Does anyone feel like helping? There are a lot of Lists_of_television_programs#By_nationality just like this one, plus other types of lists there are being deleted. Does anyone know of any reliable source that talks about television shows of different nations, different styles from the different cultures, or different production methods, etc? Dream Focus 17:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Article improvement highlights
  • [Unknown] (article history deleted before checked)
--- GreenC 17:12, 8 July 2022 (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_27&oldid=1242941127"