Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list/Archive 26

< Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

Chasing the dragon in popular culture

I think that this should be merged with Chasing the dragon. It seems like a fork but it should be preserved. And it needs better sourcing in any event. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It is such a common phrase. It's a meme. Should be merged at least. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Performance (textiles)

Notability? Is this a term of art or a "mere marketing term"? Should it just be merged into fabrics or textiles? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Kept Per the closer: "The result was keep". 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Alexander K. Tyree

This war hero merits our attention as their exploits included rescues at sea. The article is already coming along nicely but everytime I look, it seems that there's more to find... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yuan-ti

Article was deleted at AFD last year. At the time, no independent reliable sources were found for the character, but some additional sources were found that I have added to the article, and moved it to Draft:Yuan-ti. Anything additional you can do to help it pass AFC would be appreciated! BOZ (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Bruenor Battlehammer

Article was kept twice at AFD, but finally redirected after its third AFD in 2019. At the time, no independent reliable sources were found for the character, but some additional sources were found that I have added to the article, and moved it to Draft:Bruenor Battlehammer. He is one of the four main playable characters in a recent video game released just last week. Anything additional you can do to help it pass AFC would be appreciated! BOZ (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that's mainly because most of it has been removed from here... but we can always try to reverse it by finding good stuff like this. :) BOZ (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Borghild Project

Nazi sex doll hoax. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Klefki arrow for R

I feel like the article is in good shape, and the receptions are not a ref bomb. 180.194.141.240 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Zero waste agriculture checkY

The nomination says that "there is nothing to rescue here" and so the article should be wasted. Do we have a "poo overload"? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Kept Per the closer: "The result was no consensus." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway Incident 2nd nomination checkY

Is notability evanescent? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

And now there is a redirect proposal. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
And a relisting. Relisting this is whimsical. The vote was 9 to 3. There is a "clear consensus" notwithstanding. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Kept Per the closer: "The result was keep." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Game & Watch checkY

List of celebrated domes ☒N

Need help moving the stuff into a table. If everyone just did a few copy and paste over to a table, that'd help. Also does anyone know of anywhere that list the most notable/celebrated domes in the world? Dream Focus 22:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Popplio checkY

This is the first time I'm posting here. I am not personally invested in whether the article is kept or redirected as Pokemon articles are not my usual area of interest, and thus I lack subject matter knowledge. But I have identified multiple articles which specifically discuss the character in detail, and I feel that a second opinion on the subject's viability as a standalone article is necessary per WP:ATD and WP:NEXIST as there is no clear consensus from what I can see. Haleth (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Invitational education checkY

KEEP
The result was keep. There appear to be reliable sources providing significant coverage, and no one argued for a WP:TNT. Whatever cleanup is needed can be handled outside of AfD. RL0919

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.

You are invited to learn how to make education appealing and attractive. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (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.

Nations at beauty pageants ☒N

DELETE
The result was delete. ✗plicit

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 collection of list articles for beauty pageants in various nations has been nominated for deletion, with the nominator saying he was going to nominate all 146, just doing so in groups instead of all at once. Do the winners of these contests get significant coverage in reliable sources? Are enough of their articles notable enough to survive any future AFDs for them specifically? Do any of the lists link to enough significant articles to be considered valid navigational list? A lot of things to click through and analyze. Also looking for anyone who knows something about these things. Dream Focus 10:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  • This is fairly amazing – as if someone was trying to wipe out the Olympics or Eurovision Song Contest. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (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.

Radha Stirling checkY

KEEP
The result was keep. RL0919

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.

Although some improvements are needed to the page but not enough a solid reason for deletion. There are many in-depth reliable sources available to pass the subject for WP:GNG. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2021 (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.

Wikimedia movement checkY

NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. This discussion shows just how complicated discussing something for which you have a connection can be and in this discussion everyone, on all sides, including those who say they are not part of any movement, and including myself have a connection to the topic being discussed.

Does a movement exist? Who knows; one side says it's a self-evident yes and points to the various ways a movement is defined and used, one side says no and points to the lack of reliable independent secondary sources using the term in significant ways. Is peer reviewed research good enough to establish notability? Who knows; one side says "yes, because we place a premium on the reliability and importance of those sources" while the other side says "No, because all the peer reviewed research are by people who are not independent and thus the research does not convey notability". And on and on the discussion goes.

It is clear that there is not a consenus to be found at the moment. Given the already extensive discussion and large number of sources presented and the fact that anyone new who would weigh in would be just as connected as the rest of us, it does not seem that more time would lead to a consensus either. So I am closing this as no consensus. Barkeep49

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.

An amusing way to celebrate the 20th anniversary. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:32, 20 August 2021 (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.

B. A. Baracus checkY

KEEP
The result was keep. – filelakeshoe

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.

"If you have a problem,
If no one else can help
And if you can find them
Maybe you can hire ..."

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:39, 6 September 2021 (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.

Yuan-ti

DELETE
The result was 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.

Article was deleted at AFD last year. At the time, no independent reliable sources were found for the character, but some additional sources were found that I have added to the article, and moved it to Draft:Yuan-ti. Anything additional you can do to help it pass AFC would be appreciated! BOZ (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

For the record, in case anyone asks (because someone did this before when I brought something like this to ARS), deletion review is a poor place to take articles that were properly deleted or redirected at AFD, but for which more sources can be found after the AFD is closed. DRV won't help, because they only review to see if the original close was correct, and they will look at this one and say it was correct (I know this because I have tried that before). A resurrection is definitely a rescue, in fact it may be the ultimate rescue - we can find the sources and bring it back. Note that the main ARS page actually says that ARS also helps with things like PROD and it even has a whole section for Drafts at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron#Rescuing drafts. Unfortunately, and I really wish there was, but Wikipedia does not have a "we'll help bring back your deleted/redirected article if you find the sources to prove notability" function and people certainly can make it harder to do so than it needs to be. About the only thing I know that does work is to move it to drafts and have an AFC reviewer look at it. BOZ (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2021 (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.

Bruenor Battlehammer

NO CONSENSUS
The result was No Consensus to delete. Davewild

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.

Article was kept twice at AFD, but finally redirected after its third AFD in 2019. At the time, no independent reliable sources were found for the character, but some additional sources were found that I have added to the article, and moved it to Draft:Bruenor Battlehammer. He is one of the four main playable characters in a recent video game released earlier this summer. Anything additional you can do to help it pass AFC would be appreciated! BOZ (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2021 (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.

Judith Grimes

REDIRECT
The result was redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. (non-admin closure) Arfæst Ealdwrítere

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.

Two different version of this article were redirected at AFD, in 2015 and in 2019. At the time of the first AFD, the character had only existed as a baby, and at the time of the second AFD there was some reception but not enough to get a keep. I believe that there may be enough reception out there, now that the character is in her third season having actual spoken lines, so I moved it to Draft:Judith Grimes. I will try to find more sources for her when I get a chance. Anything additional you can do to help it pass AFC would be appreciated! BOZ (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2021 (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.

Rudolph van Richten

MERGE
The result was to merge the content, so for now I've performed a redirect to List_of_Ravenloft_characters#Rudolph_van_Richten. The content that is to be merged can of course be done boldly from the history of the article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang

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.

First AFD was in 2011, second was in 2019, both times closed as redirect. At the time, no independent reliable sources were found for the character, but recently multiple sources have been written for him online as he is the subject of recent release Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, which I added to the Draft:Rudolph van Richten. Anything additional you can do to help it pass AFC would be appreciated! BOZ (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2021 (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.

Willie H. Fuller

NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. The article has been extensively edited during the AFD and after the relisting the current versionthere is a clear majority who feel that the current sourcing is of sufficient quality. Not everyone is convinced, but it is clear that there is no consensus for deletion exists. Sjakkalle

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.

  • Please help shore up this Tuskegee Airman article. The Airmen are pioneers in the integration of the US Army Air Forceand they were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 2007. I was surprised to see that there is an effort underway to delete the Airmen. I started on the article but it requires a bit more cleanup. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2021 (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 motte-and-bailey castles in Belgium

KEEP
The result was keep. Withdrawn. I might even visit a castle in Belgium later today so I’m not really independent but the outcome is obvs. Spartaz

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 is right out of The Castle, "If a man has his eyes bound, you can encourage him as much as you like to stare through the bandage, but he'll never see anything" – Franz Kafka. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Or The Castle "How's the serenity? So much serenity" Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2021 (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.

KDLT tower

KEEP
The result was keep. There is a consensus against deletion and while various merges have been suggested, including by the nominator, none of them gained consensus here. Any future merge proposals should preferably take place on article talk. – filelakeshoe

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 is a tall antenna/tower. A very tall antenna. For some reason 9/19/2021 the article had 1,596 views - coincidentally it was the same day the AfD was placed. Then yesterday the article had 3,910 views. Why is this tower so interesting? The tower apparently gets its bulb changed so planes do not hit it, but it is no longer a working antenna. Should we save the tower which appears in the List of tallest structures? The tower is located in North Dakota? Up to you. Lightburst (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2021 (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.

Stereotypes of Germans

KEEP
The result was keep. Wide agreement here that TNT is not necessary. I encourage everybody to work to improve the article. Malcolmxl5

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 is Funf speaking..." "Don't tell him Pike!" Andrew🐉(talk) 17:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Kept Per the closer: "The result was keep. Wide agreement here that TNT is not necessary. I encourage everybody to work to improve the article." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 1 October 2021 (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 living Medal of Honor recipients

DELETE
The result was delete. List of Medal of Honor recipients is an article that exists, with several spinoffs to accommodate the large number of recipients of this medal. Given that, any argument to keep this list needs to demonstrate that sources deal with this topic independent of the list of all recipients; i.e., that sources have covered the currently living recipients as a body, rather than as single recipients or among all recipients. Those arguing to keep in this AfD have not done so. I'm not even giving much weight to the concerns that this list will have high turnover; that's probably a subject for a wider discussion. Vanamonde

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.

Really? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleted and userfied. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:01, 1 October 2021 (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.

George L. Knox II

KEEP
The result was keep. Mackensen

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.

  • Please help shore up this Tuskegee Airman article. The Airmen are pioneers in the integration of the US Army Air Forceand they were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 2007. I was surprised to see that there is an effort underway to delete the Airmen. I started on the article but it requires a bit more cleanup. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Side conversation
"An effort underway to delete the Airmen" is a misleading description. User:Bluecountrymutt (indeffed for copyvio) created 66 poorly-sourced and written pages about Tuskegee Airmen. I have spent the last 3-4 days cleaning them all up and AFDing those that fail WP:BASIC. 15 pages have been deleted, 5 are at AFD and another 1-2 will be put up for AFD. Just being an Airmen or the fact that the Airmen as a group were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal doesn't make them all notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not impressed by the deletion of any Tuskegee Airmen - it is an attack on history. Please build the encyclopedia rather than working on removing notable people. Anyone with a Congressional Gold Medal is inherently notable. Couple that with the integration of the US Army Air Force and you have a clear pass of WP:N. Note: we should keep N discussion on one of your many Afd proposals. Lightburst (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
"An attack on history" is about the weakest argument imaginable. You have clearly ignored everything I have written above about cleaning up Tuskegee Airmen pages and I have created over 750 pages, so don't imply that I'm not trying to "build the encyclopedia". The Congressional Gold Medal wasn't awarded to any Tuskegee Airman individually, it was awarded to the group and the Airmen have a page. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable organization does not confer notability on its individual members, each individual's page stands or falls on his own coverage. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Just belonging to a group does not confer notability...isn't that what we do to confer notability on WP: US Congress and Senate members? Nobel Prize winners? Again we need to take this to the many Afds you have proposed. Nobody needs to see a food fight here. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Have you even read WP:NOTINHERITED? It really seems that you haven't. As you should know, there are WP:SNG for certain people, members of Congress and Senate fall within WP:POLITICIAN, Nobel Prize winners will fall within #1 of WP:ANYBIO and usually also satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
First black flight instructor at Tuskegee Airmen. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
So? Mztourist (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted. First black flight instructor at Tuskegee. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The cited source doesn't say he was the first black flight instructor. It only confirms that Fuller was a Tuskegee Airman. It does mention that C. Alfred Anderson WAS an instructor, but it doesn't say he was the first, either. Intothatdarkness 17:04, 2 October 2021 (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.

Mac Ross

KEEP
The result was keep. Evidence has been presented, albeit late in the discussion, that this individual meets GNG, and as such arguments based on ANYBIO, and their rebuttals, are largely moot. A few notes, since the notability of this entire group is being examined at the moment: there is no consensus on whether this individual is notable as a result of the award the Tuskegee airmen received. There is no consensus on whether being a member of this group is by itself sufficient, though the arguments in favor of this notion are stronger. Finally, it's very difficult to give any weight to arguments based on ATD and PRESERVE in these sorts of discussions, because those policies have nothing to say about the question of whether a standalone article should be kept or merged into a larger, and more obviously notable, topic. Vanamonde

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. Another Tuskegee airmen, among the first to get wings, and a squadron commander. Kerfuffle over notability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Kept Per the closer: "The result was keep. Evidence has been presented, albeit late in the discussion, that this individual meets GNG, and as such arguments based on ANYBIO, and their rebuttals, are largely moot.

A few notes, since the notability of this entire group is being examined at the moment: there is no consensus on whether this individual is notable as a result of the award the Tuskegee airmen received. There is no consensus on whether being a member of this group is by itself sufficient, though the arguments in favor of this notion are stronger. Finally, it's very difficult to give any weight to arguments based on ATD and PRESERVE in these sorts of discussions, because those policies have nothing to say about the question of whether a standalone article should be kept or merged into a larger, and more obviously notable, topic." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:33, 7 October 2021 (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.

Erynn Chambers

KEEP
The result was keep. WP:SNOW, WP:HEY Ritchie333

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.

And we are open again

  • Tik Tok star. I am not even on Tik Tok - but one million people follow her. I think the article was at DYK when the AfD was placed. WP:ENT or not? I found sources from NPR, People and the Today show without even looking in the article. Lightburst (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2021 (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.

Ted Kendall

DELETE
The result was delete. Happy to restore the article to user or draft space if someone wants to merge part of it elsewhere. —⁠ScottyWong⁠—

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.

  • An article that needs editors. Written in 2005 (still a mess 16 years later). Nominated over the years: in 2007, in 2014, now 2021. Extrapolate and tell me the next time it will be nominated? Each time people just say, yeah it is notable, my bad. But nobody fixes the issues. I started, but I need help. The nomination gives no policy or guideline based WP:DEL-REASON. If not repaired there will undoubtably be a fourth AfD in approximately _____ years. Lightburst (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2021 (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.

Seed-counting machine

SPEEDY KEEP
The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrawal, no deletion contributions (per WP:CSK). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn

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.

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.

Bilingual pun

KEEP
The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:47, 4 November 2021 (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 wish this was double entendre but it is simply a pun in more than one languages. Should this be kept or merged or redirected or deleted? Or should it be sent to Purgatory.

Ex of a multilingual pun: from here.

  • English: “Where do cats go when they die? To purrrgatory.”
  • Spanish: “¿De dónde van los gatos cuando mueren? Purgatorio.”
  • Portuguese: “Para onde os gatos vão quando morrem? Para o purgatorio.”
  • Italian: “Dove vanno i gatti quando muoiono? Nel purgat(t)orio.
  • French: “Où vont les chats quand ils meurent? Au purrrchatoire.” Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2021 (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.

Big John (dinosaur)

NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. While the delete voters have a fairly convincing argument that WP:NOTNEWS could reasonably apply to this article, I don't feel that there is quite strong enough consensus to outright delete the article. There does appear to be quite a bit of interest in potentially merging this article elsewhere, or even to creating a new article devoted to dinosaur specimens that have been sold at public auction. My suggestion would be to start a merge discussion on the article's talk page to see if consensus can be found there. —⁠ScottyWong⁠—

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 Big John (dinosaur). It was nominated for deletion within minutes. The skeleton is of record size and sold at a record price. There are numerous news articles about it and I expect there will be more as the days go on. There is much material for further article expansion. Thriley (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Extended discussion
My first time discovering an article through here. As I saw recommended somewhere (can't remember where), I noted that I found the AfD through this page. In response I get "The Article Rescue Squadron is essentially organised canvassing for inclusionists, which explains the sloppy reasoning of the keep votes so far." Hmmm. NemesisAT (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
People get upset when someone disagrees with them, and make all sorts of accusations. All the keep voters mentioned reliable sources giving it ample coverage and linked to these news articles. Also the article has been massively improved since the AFD started. [1] Dream Focus 10:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I think a fair argument could be made for why this is canvasing. Just because there's a central place where the appeal to keep an article is being made doesn't make it any less canvasing. I'd say the same thing if there was an "article deletion squad" and I'm sure lots of people, including members of this "squad" would agree with me. Also, I find the frequently used excuse that it's not canvasing because it's often infective to be rather weak. If mass appeals on people's talk pages are made to vote keep in an AfD and no one does, that doesn't make it not canvasing. Because the behavior is what's wrong, not the response or lack of one. That said, no one would be bothering with this if it wasn't an effective way to keep articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
When people turn up at AFD its difficult to impossible to know what brought them there, you can't say for certain that anyone joined an AFD because of the ARS entry, just as you can't say they didn't. However it is noteworthy how many people turn up at AFD and !vote Keep, but make no effort to improve the page, I'm sure someone can run a program to see how many such Keep !voters are also ARS members. Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
But multiple regulars did show up to make improvements on this article. I, Lightburst, and 7&6=thirteen are active members of the Article Rescue Squadron, and we found our way there from here. I have no idea how Ackatsis found their way there, be it from here or other means, they doing much improvement to the article as well. [2] File size shows it went from 1,343 bytes when the deletion banner was first put on it to 9,127 bytes now. I always search for references and mention them in the AFD and try to improve the article if I can. This discussion has been had many times before. This Wikiproject is perfectly valid, and those complaining about it constantly are upset that articles they tried to delete had someone showing up and disagreeing with them. Dream Focus 07:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on this article specifically. As you know you !voted Keep on 3 of my recent AFDs that were listed here, but only made improvements to one of them. So you can point to some pages where a few members of this project have improved the page and I can point to pages where project members have !voted on AFDs without improving the page. You say that "those complaining about it constantly are upset that articles they tried to delete had someone showing up and disagreeing with them" and I can say that many of them only turned up at the AFD because it was listed here at ARS and that they haven't made any effort towards the supposed purpose of this project which is to improve pages. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Well if this is a common problem, you should be able to link to examples of people showing up without improving the page OR looking for reliable sources to mention in the AFD. There are times of course when people show up after all the work has been done, reliable sources found giving significant coverage, so nothing more needs to be found to prove it meets the general notability guidelines. At times various people have looked through all the articles mentioned here, and pointed out which ones had no one showing up at all at them, which times a few people showed up, and never do you see any massive swarm of people showing up just to holler KEEP and not give a valid reason. I always look at everything but if I can't find anything to improve and can't find any evidence it meets any of the notability guidelines, I don't participate in those AFD. Dream Focus 09:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Dream Focus here you go: [3] and [4] two articles listed at ARS where you !voted Keep but added nothing to the article. You say that "if I can't find anything to improve and can't find any evidence it meets any of the notability guidelines, I don't participate in those AFD", so even when you recognize that a page doesn't meet notability you still won't !vote to delete it. Mztourist (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I searched for information and found and posted a link to a reliable source of information, and mentioned something there that convinced me it was notable. I have voted to delete articles at times, and keep at others, and sometimes just make a comment or ask a question. I never vote keep or delete unless am I 100% certain. When in doubt, don't get involved. Dream Focus 10:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
You added nothing to either of those pages. Mztourist (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There's plenty of examples from my previous AfDs where people from the "rescue squad" voted keep and didn't improve anything in the process. I don't know how many times I've seen someone from the rescue squad cite four or five extremely trivial, un-useable sources so other people have an excuse to vote keep. Then if anyone questions the sources they are accused of bludging the process or acting bad faithed. 99% of the time the sources are never added to the articles either. It's completely ridiculous to claim the rescue squad is mainly concerned with improving articles when they routinely go out of their way to provide garbage references in AfDs, don't add them to the articles, and are openly hostile toward finding better ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  • I repeatedly find myself questioning the use of the Article Keep Squadron. Some of the articles listed here are indeed worth being kept, but I get the feeling sometimes that this project tries its best to challenge the notion at WP:ARTN that "no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack on HMS Invincible is probably one of the worst examples. Some ARS editors would rather support copyright violations and make outright lies than risk losing an AfD, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 5#File:Lena Horne with Tuskegee airmen.png. It also stings when one does more research into the sources than the ARS regulars and comes to a very different conclusion, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Nose (2nd nomination), where two ARS members asserted without evidence the subject played a commanding role in a historic battle (still no evidence of that) and a third advocated outright ignoring the notability policy. See Talk:Mac Ross#Birth for questionable research practices of an ARS member trying to acquire confidential birth records over the phone from a county registrar. Here we have an ARS member withdrawing their keep vote in favor of paid promo article (alongside many a sock) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iman Farzin only because it was "pointless" to oppose the snowing consensus, not because they could admit they were wrong. Here we have an ARS member suggesting we use blogs as sources: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Mahlon Davis. Here we have an ARS member suggesting sources which do not discuss the topic at hand Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piedmont bioregion. Even if these are all good faith mistakes (some I have a hard time believing are), I seriously question the judgment of ARS more than I think I should for a project ostensibly dedicated to improving articles, not just retaining them. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You posted the same nonsense at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_is_getting_problematic which is where I responded to it. Kindly keep your rants there. Dream Focus 09:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • As I explained there, I did not realise there was a discussion there at the time. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • They are not, but you seem to enjoy distorting things and complaining constantly about everything I, or anyone else who ever dared disagree with you in AFD, does. Dream Focus 10:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • They are, but you and others here at ARS seem to think you can say such things and get away with it or hide discussions that you don't like. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not hiding the discussion, just mentioning it was posted in two places. Dream Focus 10:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Which you could have done politely. Mztourist (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • But then you wouldn't have anything to complain about. Dream Focus 10:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I would be delighted if you and other members of the ARS were not a cause for complaints. Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't consider DF's dismissive attitude of my thoughts a personal attack, though I am disappointed by it, especially considering that I only re-posted because I was unaware of the second discussion (otherwise I would have put everything there) and the fact that the ANI shows there are some legitimate concerns about this project which none of the ARS regulars really seem to care about. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Seems that you and the other two follow each other to ivote similarly in military AfDs. These exchanges are comical. All across the project, in AfD, on talk pages, on this project page, on ANI. All repetitive, and accomplishing not much - talking at each other. There is an actual encyclopedia to build. We can all collegially follow each other's edits the way the GEO folks do, or the Military followers. The ARS is only one avenue for saving an article. Or we can pick one of the hundreds of notable articles from the list of hundreds of AfDs to work on. You should not be throwing stones - you should be posting an article you want improved. Don't say go look over there in CCI. Simply pick one and post the article here and if anyone thinks it is notable they will help. I have posted items here that were attended by not one ARS member. If they cannot help they won't. Lightburst (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Lightburst:I assume that I'm one of the people your comment is about. If so, I hardly (if ever) participate in military related AfDs because it's not a subject I know anything about. Also, I hardly ever see Mztourist or Indy beetle participate in the AfDs that I do. So your whole thing that we follow each other around and vote similarly is patently false nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Adamant1 wasn't you. I haven't even seen you on the project recently. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Forgive me if I sound snide, but if there was "an article [I] want improved", I would not ask for help here, because I'm not convinced that much long-term quality improvement comes out of the ARS process (kind of by design). For example, plastering references all over the place can sometimes suffice as far as swaying an AfD vote goes, but that doesn't mean the resulting article is "good". Way easier to slowly and carefully improve something either by myself or in the more normal setting of some WikiProject people who know the material better than I would. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Yup you sound snide. Sad. And I thought we were working toward the same goals. You are free to nominate any that we saved. They are bulletproof. Pick one. Lightburst (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Considering how the discussion is going at ANI you might want to axe the confrontational tone and be more willing to admit there's a problem. Personally, I'm more then willing to give ARS the benefit of the doubt that it can improve. The unwillingness to admit there's an issue and the smug attitudes in the meantime don't install confidence in your abilities to right the ship if your given an opportunity to though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I should probably just be quiet when insulted. I understand. Lightburst (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Kept Per closer, "No consensus." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:23, 5 November 2021 (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.

Armament of the Iowa-class battleship

NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus. There is consensus against deletion. There is no consensus between merge and keep, but that can be explored further in a talk page merger proposal. Sandstein

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.

  • Kept Per the closer: "The result of the discussion was no consensus." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:26, 5 November 2021 (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 stock characters in military fiction arrow for R draft

It was restored as a draft, then put back in place to be merged over [5] with List of stock characters. Dream Focus 15:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

MERGED
The result was delete. Although sources have been proposed for this topic, rough consensus here is that they do not overcome the OR issues this page has. Sandstein

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.

Doughty Daranios and Dream Focus have made a start but could use some reinforcement and support. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

"Reinforcement and support"? That's lobbying the AfD. Also Andrew you well know that you are obliged to place the ARS template in the AfD discussion. Mztourist (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2021 (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.

Bidoof

REDIRECT
The result was redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof. Sandstein 08:57, 7 November 2021 (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.

Would be more suitable to have different opinion at discussion. Article appears to have Kotaku and Vice, but it is still unknown on whether it passes notability guidelines or not. 223.219.212.152 (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2021 (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.

ARS Public School

NO CONSENSUS
The result was no consensus.

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.

  • Enrollment is now open. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
You mind if I ask why you decided to list this particular article? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The AFD was just opened. Timing was not Lightburst's choice. You are asking the wrong person.
Use it or lose it. Was it appropriate to open this at ARS only after the article was deleted. Article goes back to 2015 and has previously weathered an AFD.
If we are going to ask hypothetical question, to turn the question on its head, you mind if I ask "why this article and why now?" Just askin? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Extended discussion. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
User: The Banner, Adamant1 wants to know. Perhaps you can shed some light. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Brilliant idea to deflect the question, but you two better answer Adamant1. I also find this interesting in the light of the ongoing AN/I-discussion about the squadron. The Banner talk 18:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
So you choose not to explain why and when? Your choice. I shared your fascination with your and Adamani1's conduct too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
7+6=13, what part of my conduct are you fascinated with? I had nothing to do with the AfD being opened or it being listed here. So I'm not really sure what my "conduct" has to do with this. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I like to hear an answer on Adamant1's question first. The Banner talk 19:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that Lightburst didn't vote in that AFD. He was just doing deletion sorting as he regularly does, and saw the name was ARS Public School. Article Rescue Squadron's initials are ARS. Perhaps he found that amusing. You'll have to ping him if you really want to know. Dream Focus 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Lightburst then. As per The Banner, I would like to hear an answer to Adamant1's question. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Lightburst is currently topic banned from deletion related discussions. Which I'm pretty sure includes not participating in ARS. So I doubt we will get an answer from him now. In the meantime, it's a little baitish to ping someone to participate in an area that they are topic banned from. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello Adamant1. Thanks for the update. Sorry I didn't know that Lightburst is banned, so there was no baiting intended. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought you might not have known he was topic banned. Sorry if it sounded like I was reading bad faith into your comment. That wasn't my intent. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Hi, I have been impressed with your deletion related participation. In spite of what several editors above have said, I am permitted to participate here. I am also not permitted to post articles here for rescue consideration. I simply choose not to at this time. And to @The Banner: apologies if anything I have done is irregular. Lightburst (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you did nothing wrong except failing to answer Adamant1. It is mr. 13 who is making a fuss. The Banner talk 16:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @The Banner: I appreciate the feedback. He is a good guy. We should all edit something together - it would engender good will. Lightburst (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Lightburst: I think everything you said here was entirely in good faith, but my understanding of the sanction is that you are not permitted to comment here. I wouldn't want to see anyone give you a hard time over this, and I'm saying it simply as a matter of advice. If you think that I'm mistaken, that's fine, and you should ask Wugapodes or another admin. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: incorrect. Thanks for your concern. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Lightburst Thank you for your kind words. Since you believe that you are allowed to comment here, could you please answer Adamant1's question? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@MrsSnoozyTurtle: I think giving a rationale at this point would be considered a deletion related activity. Sorry I cannot help regarding your question. I can improve articles which are posted - so I will do that without commenting further. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand, a few hours ago you said that you are allowed to comment? MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Kept Per the closer: "The result was no consensus." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yep, not even kept in its own right. Still a non-notable school. The Banner talk 11:32, 9 November 2021 (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.

Oil degassing

MERGE
The result was Merge to Degassing per editorial decision. (No AfD took place). FeydHuxtable

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.

Offtopic. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Unrelated to oil degassing, but I approve of this experiment. This is a much better idea than dumping random AfDs here and expecting people not to mindlessly brigade-vote “keep”. Dronebogus (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    If that was ever a problem, it'd be easy to prove by seeing how many people went to the AFDs and voted keep after the notice was placed here. That does not happen. There are some AFDs mentioned by regular members who don't get a single person to go there and participate, and these get deleted. Kindly assume good faith and stop spreading ridiculous rumors. Dream Focus 23:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    • We had a massive ANI investigation about this. I presented evidence that Andrew was basically using ARS as a canvassing platform, even if it was frequently ineffective. Stop accusing everyone you disagree with of lying. Dronebogus (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
The article is riddled with inaccuracy though no blame to other editors for not spotting it - I only know as most of this year I was consulting for Lanxess so know a bit about the topic. It's highly specialised & few generalists would easily be able to develop the article. One exception would be a certain first class scholar with a science degree from Cambridge- it's a shame you didn't list this here a few weeks back Power; you might have been delighted with the result. As an aside, there are many types of degassing, what we most need right now is the Slim Shady kind. Deletionists have the community gassed up![citation needed] FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I’m with you up until the second-to-last sentence. I like Em too, sure, but seriously what. Dronebogus (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the interesting question. It might be off topic to answer here, but I see the subject has came up on Jimbo's talk. I'll probably comment on the Lightburst thread over there, which may interest you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2021 (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.

Arabeyes

KEEP
The result was keep. Consensus has tended towards a view the article should be improved instead of deleted, which has been backed up by the editing of it during the debate. Ritchie333

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.

Open source publisher trying to aid Arab language users with their computers etc. It was established in early 2001 by a number of Arab Linux enthusiasts. Trying to find sources is hampered by the presumed language of sources. Arabic language speakers needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Kept Per the closer: "The result was keep. Consensus has tended towards a view the article should be improved instead of deleted, which has been backed up by the editing of it during the debate." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:06, 12 November 2021 (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.

ARS Public School (3rd nomination)

DELETE
The result was delete. This debate obviously has caused fractures across the wider community, in other places than simply this discussion page.

In assessing the discussion, I have discarded all !votes that purely related to procedural issues. Given the wide section of the community that came to take part in this discussion, the procedural issues are reduced in relevance. I hear their concerns, and if this was a poorly-attended debate - or one that did not have such a clear consensus - I would factor them in.

However, on the topic of content, there is a clear consensus to delete this article. Ultimately it has come down to an interpretation of our relevant notability guidelines, and there is a strong consensus that this article does not meet those requirements. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2021 (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.


"She breaches." Captain Ahab and his White Whale. 'They pull you back in.' – Michael Corleone 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:30, 9 November 2021 (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.

Draft:Arrest of Billy Hood

Trying to create the article on this event. I understand that its tough to get these kind of articles on Wikipedia but I genuinely believe this meets the relevant guidelines as I've included plenty reliable secondary sources covering the subject and was national news in the UK, the topic has also been covered by plenty notable people. Any improvements to the article are advised as it's my first time creating an article. GR86 (📱) 14:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Vesey Alfred Davoren

Has a big filmography. Was a silent film star. Certainly there are obituaries. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

For search purposes, he appears best known as Vesey O'Davoren. -- GreenC 20:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate further input per the discussion: "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." Given that this AFD started 11 days ago on 26 November 2021, some may have thought it was resolved. Improvements in the article are helpful, and of course that is true even after the AFD is completed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 08:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
7&6 why is this necessary? Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Kept Per the closer: "The result of the discussion was keep. Initially opinions were split, but towards the end the view is almost unanimously that the improvements during the AfD have established the subject's notability." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Acceptability

I consider this broad-concept article to be a rather fundamental concept, as the parent article for things like Acceptance, Acceptable risk, and Acceptable loss. The nomination calls it "a grab bag of concepts", but these concepts are merely different ways of approaching a single fundamental concept. These articles are hard to write, but we've managed to do them before. BD2412 T 20:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Kept No consensus Per the closer: "The result of the discussion was no consensus." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Rob Roy McGregor (admiral)

A question of notability and sourcing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Whenever someone dismisses reliable sources found with a claim "Newspaper story only viewable through subscription", just remind them that you can freely sign up for Wikipedia Library at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ to read them. Dream Focus 14:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Whenever giving that advice tell them that access isn't automatic and you have to wait for approval... Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Kept Per the closer: "The result was keep per consensus, sources to support notability." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Adriana Chechik

Adult film star Adriana Chechik was recently nominated for deletion. It appears there are sources out there establishing her notability. Any help finding them or improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Mohan Shrivastava

Indian polititican. Question of notability. Inherent language problems. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Big problem. Creator was a WP:Sock. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Deleted Per the closer: "The result was delete." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Shelley H. Metzenbaum

Article could likely use a trim. Metzenbaum has coverage overtime 1989, 1993, 2013, 2013. TJMSmith (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Kept Per the closer: "The result was keep." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

List of fictional gangs

I removed all those that didn't have a blue link. Unfortunately those left include a lot of redirects. I need help sorting through the entries to eliminate the illegitimate ones. If anyone has a bot that can tell which links are just to redirects, that would save a lot of time. Dream Focus 02:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Dream Focus, I don't recall where I picked up this solution, but take a look at User:Schazjmd/vector.css. Those modifications to your skin's css will display redirect wikilinks in a different color. (Unfortunately the line for external links doesn't work, haven't figured out why.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. That works out great. Dream Focus 15:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)*
  • Deleted Per the closer: "The result was delete. While I note that the improvements to the article swayed a couple of individuals who argued to delete, it did not for many others, and most arguments to delete came after they took place. Given this, the consensus is that this is not a viable subject for an article." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

List of extinct plants

Does anyone know of any government or scientific website that list every extinct species of plant ever found? Or give coverage to extinct plants of various types or from various time periods or regions? How do scientific publications sort things like this? Dream Focus 22:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The Paleobiology Database is what you are looking for, but it doesn't cover pollen as far as I am aware. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list/Archive_26&oldid=1073533902"