Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ideology of the SS/1

Ideology of the SS

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: The consensus has determined that the article should not be deleted, but given the neutrality issues raised on the talk page and instability which has occurred, it should be delisted as a GA article at this time. Kierzek (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussions on the Talk page:

Problematic content, and
Sourcing.

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support desisting immediately given the major concerns being raised on the talk page. The article could (and hopefully will) be redeveloped to GA status, but it doesn't deserve it at present. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article raises major concerns and definitely needs to be delisted at once. Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be delisted. zzz (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the nominator. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article needed further work, I said that before the atom bomb dropped and still agree with that fact. With that said, it should have been handled better. I agree it should be delisted from GA straight-away at this point. Kierzek (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the delisting, there are enough issues raised on the talk page to illustrate that this is not a stable, neutral article at the moment and thus should not be listed as such. MPJ-US 04:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support While I do not agree with much of the critique voiced on the talk page, I do agree that the actions by several editors (most of which support the deletion of this article alltogether) have made the article so unstable that it can for the moment not be considered a good article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - however, there is absolutely no basis for deleting this article, the subject is clearly notable and there are numerous reliable academic sources available for it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, it should not be deleted. MPJ-US 06:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it should be deleted. Right now, I don't believe it should be. Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I can only agree with the other editors here, the neutrality issues on the talk page alone raise sufficient questions. But it at least feels like one that could potentially come back as a GA in the future if enough editors sit down and discuss how to take this one forward. Miyagawa (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask this be closed and for the article to be delisted per consensus. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a close

Would it be possible for the handlers of this page to reassess, per consensus? (Sorry, I thought I was posting to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Hopefully, it will show up there.) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have "given it a go". I have not done one before. Kierzek (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]