Misplaced Pages

:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:59, 26 October 2021 edit7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers152,757 edits WP:AGF is being more honored in the breach than the observance.← Previous edit Revision as of 15:16, 26 October 2021 edit undoMztourist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users72,295 edits →WP:DRVNext edit →
Line 158: Line 158:
:::I have been affronted by the efforts of some of you to mass delete groups of articles. You know who you are. And I will continue to oppose that kind of conduct. :::I have been affronted by the efforts of some of you to mass delete groups of articles. You know who you are. And I will continue to oppose that kind of conduct.
:::The current effort at ANI is 'guilt by association' and has nothing to do with individual editors and their conduct. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 12:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC) :::The current effort at ANI is 'guilt by association' and has nothing to do with individual editors and their conduct. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 12:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
::::Having been on the receiving end of various emotive comments from you 7&6 I don't AGF towards you. ] (]) 15:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


==]== ==]==

Revision as of 15:16, 26 October 2021

 Main page Rescue list Current articles Article Rescue guide Newsletter Members Discussion page 


ARS Code of Conduct
  • Note that this wikiproject is only intended to improve the encyclopedia. The project is not about casting votes or vote-stacking. Be sure to follow the guideline on canvassing. This means, in part, that you should use Template:Rescue list on the deletion discussion page when you list the discussion here.
  • Focus on improving content. For example, when working on an article listed for rescue, try to qualify topic notability by adding reliable-source references with significant coverage of the topic. Edit the content to address specific concerns raised in the AfD discussion.
  • Show the light. If you comment in an AfD discussion, try to describe points in the nomination that have been corrected. Note any remaining deficiencies (e.g. lack of organization, structural problems, lack of balance, etc.). Base comments upon Misplaced Pages's deletion policy. If an article has been rewritten, you may place a comment in the AfD as a courtesy to assist the closing admin in determining which article version others were referring to.
For more information about article rescue, please refer to ARS Tips to help rescue articles and ARS Rescue guide
For additional article improvement listings, check out this project's archives and listings at WikiProject Cleanup

This is a list and discussion of Misplaced Pages content for rescue consideration. When posting here, please be sure to:

  • First familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's guidelines for topic notability and identifying reliable sources, as well as the prohibition on inappropriate canvassing
  • Include a specific rationale why the article/content should be retained on Misplaced Pages, and any ideas to improve the content. Please ensure that your comment here is neutrally worded. (You can also !vote to delete an article at its deletion discussion because you think it is untenable in its present state, and still list it here in the hope that another editor will find a way to improve it and save it.)
  • You should disclose in a deletion discussion that a post has been made at the rescue list.
  • Sign posts with four tildes ~~~~.
  • Place the {{subst:rescue list|~~~~}} template in Articles for deletion discussions, to notify editors about the listing here. The tag can be placed below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

The following templates can be used for articles listed here:

  • *{{Find sources|Article name}} - Adds source search options
  • *{{lagafd|Article name}} - Adds relevant links
  • *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (2nd nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated twice
  • *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (3rd nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated 3 times
  • *{{lagafd|Article name|Article name (Nth nomination)}} - Likewise but for page nominated N ≥ 4 times
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.


Shortcuts


ATTENTION! Go to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ to apply for access to multiple databases to search for sources to help save and improve articles.


— Please post new entries at the top of the list —


Big John (dinosaur)

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)

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. 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. 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: and 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)

You posted the same nonsense at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Misplaced Pages: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)
  • 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)
  • 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 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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

WP:DRV

This is WP:CANVASS. Mztourist (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
No, it is not. Those who participated in the discussion, should know about the DRV. Read WP:APPNOTE. Dream Focus 10:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Circular reasoning. They participated in all those discussions because they were notified here with the obvious intent of voting keep just for the sake of it. It's still canvassing when you take the multiple discussions into account. Avilich (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
It would only be canvassing if there was an appeal to vote a certain way, but merely posting in the forum is not an appeal since evidently people who read this board can and do vote many ways. -- GreenC 18:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
The usual flurry of keep votes, accompanied with half-baked (mis)interpretations of policy and poorly-researched google hits passing for sources, that immediately follow the posting of a notice here must be coincidence, then. Avilich (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
GreenC, this isn't a neutral forum. It's implied that the purpose of bringing AfDs to this project is so that like minded people will vote keep. Otherwise, are you seriously going to argue that people are posting about AfDs to a place called "rescue squad" because they think people here are going to vote for the articles to be deleted? What about things like asking for "reinforcement and support"? How is that not an appeal to vote a certain way? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
That's news to me I often vote delete, don't participate, or only participate with comments and/or article edits. Everyone who reads this forum behaves in their own way, including yourself. This forum attracts a wide range of readers and participants. Other mission-focused forums such as FRINGE also get notified of fringe topic AfDs, that sort of thing happens all over. Also this was an appropriate place to post a notification due to previous discussions here. Your idea of 'like minded people' is discounted by the number of un-like-minded people who frequently post here. That's fine, the power of this forum, and Misplaced Pages, is radical openness and inclusion of everyone. -- GreenC 04:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, people are autonomous individuals and make their own decisions. Still though, if you took the main contributors to this forum they would totally have a particular slant that leans heavily toward "rescuing" articles. I'm sure you could find someone who joined 10 years ago and only contributes once a year or whatever who doesn't care about "rescuing" articles, but so what? There should really be a more substantive response to criticisms then handwavy comments like "we are all individuals" or "this is an open platform so whatever." Seriously, no one is anti-individualism or trying to silence you just because they want the forum to follow basic guidelines about not canvasing. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say "so whatever" or hand wave but you didn't really respond to my points either. If the above is canvassing then the entire ARS project is canvassing and there has never been consensus for that. Like the FRINGE example, post a fringe topic AfD to FRINGE noticeboard what do you expect will happen? This sort of stuff exists all over Misplaced Pages. We need to trust one another to act objectively in making decisions and if you see a problem with a person go after them but going after an entire group makes little sense when there is diversity of behavior in the group. Which can be proven with stats. -- GreenC 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Which points? There's been lots of discussions about if ARS is canvasing or not. A lot of people think it is. I'm not sure where you would get consensus for it or what difference it would make though. It's not like ARS can't clean up it's act and get rid of the canvasing flourishes without the whole Misplaced Pages community having to agree that it should first. While I agree that we should trust each other to act objectively, the behavior of ARS members isn't objective, nor is the guide or title of the forum, and you can't divorce those things from each. I would say the same for FRINGE and other forums, but as far as I know there hasn't been repeated problems in AfDs with people from FRINGE. So this isn't a general problem with "forums" that applies to stuff all over Misplaced Pages. It's specific to ARS and ARS members. Sure, I could take it up with individual members of ARS, but I think it's as much a problem with the objectives and purpose of the forum as it is an issue with particular users. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what a canvassing flourish is. Can you link a recent example -- GreenC 20:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I assume you know what a flourish is. If not, Google says it's to "wave (something) around to attract the attention of others." According to the Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles "Editors, particularly new editors, often ask the Article Rescue Squadron for help saving an article." Which is waving around that the Rescue Squad exists to "save articles" from being deleted. If I posted messages on users talk pages along the lines of "can you help me save this article?" or "I'll save this article for you" with a link to an AfD, that would be considered canvasing. The point is, the project waves around the fact that what it exists for. Sure, it's without explicitly saying "we vote keep in AfDs for you", but that's the intent behind it. Otherwise, the guide would just say the purpose of the project is to improve articles. Without saying "saving an article" repeatedly. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that is the intent but it might be better worded to encourage editors to improve articles, which is what occurs frequently anyway because you normally can't save with Keep votes only (contrary to popular opinion and easy to show with data). I personally would not be adverse to a group rule that votes alone are discouraged, only if you do some work to improve the article - in particular adding sources. Someone who works on an article should be allowed to participate in the AfD that can destroy their efforts, and rightly so they will know the article and sources best and explain why it should be kept. -- GreenC 03:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
As you know ARS as a canvassing forum is being discussed at ANI now. User:GreenC there are a large number of Users participating in that discussion who share my and User:Adamant1's view that this is canvassing site. Perhaps better to focus all discussion on this issue in one place? Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I see that Template:Rescue list was, quite properly, posted at the AfD. This dispute over canvassing could perhaps have been avoided if it had also been posted at the DRV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Apparently the only acceptable votes at AFDs are Delete or Merge. WP:AGF is being more honored in the breach than the observance. You are culling the voters; and deciding who gets to vote based on scoreboarding and outcomes. I try to improve articles and seldom vote. I choose not to blindly vote keep; and I do not participate on many article that appear on the rescue squad page.
Reasonable minds may differ as to whether articles should be kept or culled. That there is an opposing view is a hallmark of fair debate and a catalyst for balanced consideration. And when it is posted at ARS, articles are in fact often improved. That some of you don't like the improvements or the sources is no proof of misconduct by the improving editors.
I have succssfully rescued many articles, and then taken them on to the main page at WP:DYK. That was because I improved the articles. Conversely, when that happens, it is prima facie evidence that WP:Before was ignored or done haphazardly. I don't write that at AFDs any longer, but it is a fact. And it is not a "personal attack."
I have been affronted by the efforts of some of you to mass delete groups of articles. You know who you are. And I will continue to oppose that kind of conduct.
The current effort at ANI is 'guilt by association' and has nothing to do with individual editors and their conduct. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Having been on the receiving end of various emotive comments from you 7&6 I don't AGF towards you. Mztourist (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

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.

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 stock characters in military fiction arrow for R draft

KEEP 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.

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.

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 Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron#Rescuing drafts. Unfortunately, and I really wish there was, but Misplaced Pages 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.

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.