Talk:Overclass
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Added three source - is it OK now? --GwydionM 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Restored
[edit]A great deal of well-sourced material was removed, restored it. --GwydionM (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- If it was well-sourced, why was almost all of it tagged {{cn}}? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Kindly READ before removing. A couple of items were unsourced: they could go. --GwydionM (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- All I could find was the (probably excessive) quote. Nothing else was sourced, although one section was attributed to a person, not sourced, and should have been removed as a BLP violation, as it was added before the person's death. It's no longer a BLP violation, but there is no reason it should remain without evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I am strongly considering a major overhaul of this page in terms of content amount and quantity of resources. Vnguyen518 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)