Talk:Stuart Scheller
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • 2020–2021 U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:2020–2021 U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notability? edit
This random marine hardly seems notable, and a full article based on him seems to run against WP:RECENTISM among other things. I think it should be merged with another article having to do with the fall of Afghanistan. Thoughts?TJD2 (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
No merge? edit
According to the AfD, this was to be merged with Withdrawal of the United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021). Instead it redirects to Fall of Kabul (2021), and there's no sign of the topic in either article. This leaves a confusing redirect. I would have thought "hmm, delete this unhelpful redir?" until I traced back to the AfD.--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, where is the content?174.0.48.147 (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- The out-of-process redirect was reverted within 5 days. At the moment, "what links here" shows only two articles link to here, the Scheller surname list and Lieutenant colonel (United States) § Notable American lieutenant colonels, making this bio a de facto orphan. The "single event" for which this man is notable should be covered in the relevant article(s) and there's no reason this can't be mentioned in both Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021) and Fall of Kabul (2021). Updates to this article continue as events unfold, making the deletion discussion already stale and dated. Consensus can change. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- I just merged the lead paragraph to Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021) § Reactions. This wasn't that hard to do. I wonder why nobody who voted "merge" in the discussion bothered to follow through on this. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Edit request to complete RfD nomination edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Stuart Scheller has been listed at Redirects for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:
{{subst:rfd|content=
to the top of the page and }} to the bottom to complete the nomination. Thank you. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Page reinstated 10.18.2021 edit
Per my edit summaries and the summary on the deletion request i've restarted, I've reinstated the page as of right now. According to Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages reinstating of deleted pages is allowed in cases when, and i quote, "Notability status has changed: The subject matter may not have been notable at the time the page was initially deleted. For example, the article could be about a person who is just at the beginning of achieving fame, a newly released film, or a growing company. When an article was first created, the subject was not notable, but coverage has since expanded, thereby establishing notability." I think this is exactly the case here.
If you google (or better yet, Yandex, as Yandex isnt censoring news like google does) his name, his case has attracted widespread attention of the media, see news search on bing and on yandex. According to WP:BIO, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This is defiantely the case here and I can't see how anyone can argue against it. I can compile a list of news articles from popular mainstream organizations that had extensive coverage of his case from just the last week.
I have also tried to restart deletion discussion after reinstating it so we could properly poll the editors of this website on whether his article should still be deleted now that he has attracted more widespread attention, but I couldnt because the existance of the previous deletion discussion had blocked me from doing so. I will still try to restart it once I get a reply from editors over at [Wikipedia:Teahouse]] on how to do so. As for now, I suggest we discuss this here. I, for one, am in support of restoring the article. Daikido (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- This article reinstatement was self-reverted two minutes after this section was created, per this Teahouse discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)