Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 9 |
Archive 10

Tagged articles

Resolved
 – kept
Resolved
 – Merge of some sort to save article histories. Banjeboi 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
T
 – Article redirected. --Craw-daddy
T
 – Article deleted. --Craw-daddy
Resolved
 – Article deleted.
Resolved
 – Article kept (non-admin closure). --Craw-daddy | T | 09:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Article deleted. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – No consensus. Banjeboi 11:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Article deleted. According to the closer, "arguments for keeping failed to address the concerns." --Craw-daddy | T | 23:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – "Weak keep" at the AfD. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

What does everyone think about just moving the talk page section for ongoing rescue articles to a talk sub-page and transcluding it at the top of the discussion? I think that would keep editing cleaner and allow for a distinction between discussions about the project and discussions about the articles. FWIW, I think discussion about the articles is a great idea (much better than listing them on the project page). Protonk (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Done and transcluded. Banjeboi 11:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thanks. that works great. Protonk (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried to get a link to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron on Template:AfDM the main AfD template? Inclusionist (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would support this, If AfD was working correctly, very few articles would need rescue, perhaps if this project grows exponentially or folks at AfD can't convince certain editors to rethink their using AfD outside the scope of intent this may make more sense. Banjeboi 00:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your proposal were to happen (a CSD waiting period) the project could be expanded to include those articles, but right now ARS is simply for articles that have made it to AfD. My guess is tht it would depend on the time period involved. CSD's often happen too quickly to get enough people to look at them for rescuing. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 00:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged articles

Resolved
 – article Kept. Banjeboi 09:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – redirected to Saints Row. Banjeboi 19:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – No consensus. Banjeboi 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – one no-consensus keep the other keep. Banjeboi 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Article deleted. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Keep and a "no consensus". Banjeboi 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – No consensus. Banjeboi 00:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Article deleted. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Article deleted per CSD:G4 and WP:SNOW Redirect formed for editorial purposed. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
T
 – Article deleted. From the AFD, "...the arguments favoring deletion were based on established guidelines, such as WP:NOTABILITY, while some of the arguments in favor of keeping the article appear to be based on the misconception explained at WP:INHERITED." --Craw-daddy
Resolved
 – No consensus, possible WICU candidate. Banjeboi 01:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – added to list. Banjeboi 02:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to current discussion on the AfD for Prince Chunk.--DrWho42 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added to list or not, I feel it's important to point out that contributiong to the discussion is not the point of the ARS, and indeed goes counter to that point. This is the suicide squad that improves articles during AfDs, and I'm proud to note that the last request (okay, that I know of) for keeps made on this page drew none.
But we can take a look at the article, sure.--Kizor 17:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged articles

Resolved
 – No consensus. Banjeboi 23:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – no consensus
Resolved
 – deleted
Resolved
 – From the AfD closing statement: "This article does not meet notability criteria and thus has a serious problem. At the same time, numerous editors have expressed their opinion that this is an exceptional case where the GNG is insufficient as a test of notability and their opinions cannot be discounted here." So this article still needs serious work. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Article deleted. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Article kept. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Article kept. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Article deleted. Editorial redirect created. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – no consensus, default to keep
Resolved
 – deleted
Resolved
 – article deleted
Resolved
 – Article kept. Banjeboi 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]